New Jersey governor Chris Christie, touting his endorsed candidate Mitt Romney at a town hall in New Hampshire last night, went after Jon Huntsman hard.
“I would be kind of pissed if I were Barack Obama — I mean, I give this guy a job, he’s over in China supposedly serving my administration,” said Christie, who appeared at a town hall with Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in Manchester on Jan. 8. “I wonder a little bit about Huntsman’s integrity.”
The Huntsman campaign responded with their own governor, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge:
“Shame on Governor Christie for repeating Mitt Romney’s divisive line of attack on Governor Huntsman’s decision to put country before politics.
“The responsibility to represent our country in the most important diplomatic position of the 21st century should be applauded — not politicized.
“This type of divisive attack is exactly what the country is sick and tired of. We deserve better.
“Having served two different presidents as a soldier and a cabinet secretary, I understand firsthand the value of service to one’s country, and that is just one of the many reasons I am proud to support Governor Huntsman.”
Of course, the two criticisms are different. The first, from Romney, argues that no conservative in good standing can work in any capacity in the administration of Barack Obama, because of his liberal agenda in so many policy areas. The second, from Christie, scoffs at the idea that Huntsman didn’t think about running for president until he submitted his resignation (January 31, 2011). Huntsman officially resigned as ambassador on April 30; on May 3, he created a federal political action committee “that will allow him to travel and raise money in the weeks before he’s expected to formally announce a bid.”
The snobbish and supercilious nature of Mr Huntsman is the cause of his campaign's dismal failure. Blaming Romney is a tactic designed to disguise the real causes of his pathetic no-win, no-place, no-show in the primaries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question then to ask to Mr. Ridge or Huntsman or anyone in his campaign is, if “The responsibility to represent our country in the most important diplomatic position of the 21st century should be applauded — not politicized” then why did he quit it after two years?
His position makes no sense. It's “I resigned my elected position as Governor, to serve as Ambassador to China, for the good of the country, our children, blah, blah, blah. Then I quit after two years.”
If it was that importation, shouldn’t he have continued in that job as long as possible? Instead he quit and started running for president. He put country first, until he wanted to become president.
The only reasoning for that would be if Huntsman had followed a strategy I believe was laid out here. That he'd seen the inner workings of Barry and Co, and found them so pitiful, so lacking, so destructive to the future of the USA that he had to resign his position and reverse these polices by himself being president.
Huntsman could have staked out a position as a conservative alternative to Romney. He had decently conservative views, was the governor of a very red state, and as above could have fired up the base by talking about how pitiful Obama really was. Instead, for unknown reasons, he's trying to run to Romney's left. The kissing up to the media, the “vote for me, I'm the only non-stupid member of this party”, this “can't we all get along with the Democrats and be nice” has driven him into what, 4th of 6 in the only state he's campaigned in?
The idea of being a more leftward Romney just had no traction. Romney gets somewhat of a pass on his flips and position from his yeoman's service both in 2008 for McCain, and for his work in 2010 helping to elect Republicans. The party will be OK with a less than really conservative guy if he's out there working to advance our ideas, help in elections, and whip up on the left. Witness the affection for Rudy Guiliani, who has very non-conservative views. But Rudy is out there fighting for the party, and never kisses up to the left and the media (same thing) for favorable pub.
The best line from Saturday's debate was when Romney said when Huntsman was out implementing Barry's polices, he was working to elect Republicans. That simple statement, so true, summarizes why Huntsman can't replace Romney as the “moderate, electable guy”. There's no level of trust by Republicans for Huntsman, or apparently any level of respect by him towards Republicans who have different positions.
Expect him to come in 4th, then worse in SC (closed primary I believe, and far more conservative), then in a fit of pique start an Independent campaign. Jon Huntsman, John Anderson, Jimmy, Barry. It's like 1980 all over again. So is Romney a Reagan? I wish. At least the hair is as good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuntsman argument has high ideals but a poor implementation. Yes, we should work together. Except for the fact that Pres. Obama has been working, either through his ineptness or by design, at making America worse off. So Huntsman was basically saying he was serving his country by working for the worst President in modern history. Bush may have been inept because he was out of his league in some areas and let others run with the ball without a real command or communication of what the vision is.
Obama is terrible because he is just strategically doing the wrong things time and time again. So if Gov. Huntsman wants to tell us he served his country well, but helping Barack Obama spread his policies all over the world, and that as President Huntsman would seek to work with others like Obama, well, then I think Republicans have a pretty clear choice.
But, just for a moment, if you ignore all the facts, Huntsman makes a pretty good soundbite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich *bad* Obama policies was Huntsman promoting, supposedly? Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East and Latin America have been horrible, but his Asia policy has been OK. Unless you want to claim that the Ambassador to China is partly responsible for everything other bad thing in the administration, this argument is a non-sequitur.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse