"perhaps wondering if Republicans will have grown up by 2016."

Considering that they pulled the same stunts this time around that they did back when Hoover was in office, I would say no.

I'm wondering why we need post after post about how hopelessly moribund Republicans are. We know this already.

Could we shift focus to some of the questionable Obama moves, please?

"The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots," ... GOP
*********************************************

Oy yes, by all means do. Borrow and spend the US into oblivion, start wars you can't finish, cut cut CUT taxes (on the very wealthy), corrupt the entire political process with corporate interests, ignore the social needs of the poor and sick and mentally ill, etc, etc. Yes, keep it up Geezers On Prozac party. BTW, how's that working out for you?

I don't disagree with this post at all, but I wonder if that is simply a reflection of my liberal beliefs. I remember when people were saying the same thing about how we progressives were driving so-called moderates out of the tent when we won the primary against that awful Lieberman. I really can't stand Blue Dogs, but when we go after them and contend we just want better Democrats, aren't we doing the same thing in the Democratic party that these right wing Rethugs are doing? Can anyone give me a good argument for how we are different?

That sounds exactly right. So when's the split? And who will keep the brand name? There will be a third party, that's almost certain. How 'bout Dixiecrat Party?

Clearly Huntsman has decided to try to effect change from within the government. Let's hope he can moderate some of BHO's more loony policies.

The present plight of the GOP is also due to Dick Cheney. If he had not big-footed the VP selection process in 2000, there would have been a natural leader of the party to follow Bush. Cheney short-circuited the succession planning for the GOP, which became much more intense with the Bush fail.

Candideinnc:

One key difference is that Lieberman hailed from a pretty damn blue state. Liberals grump about the Blue Dogs, but there are rarely if ever any serious efforts directed against conservative Democrats from conservative state.

OTOH, Republican efforts are typically aimed at blue state Republicans. To be sure, they've already purged most anyone resembling a moderate from the red state republicans.

Partly this reflects the institutional natures of each party. The Democrats have a bias towards the Blue Dogs and and a bias against the DFHs - for reference, see Bill Clinton, the DLC, and so on. But the Republicans are almost wholly controlled by the Wingnuts, and have a severe bias *against* moderate Republicans.

Ok. This mostly makes sense. However, try, for a moment, to step away from the typical DC cynical "how does this move affect his chances" and remember that Huntsman comes from a culture in which service - to their church, family, country, is paramount. Mike Leavitt [HHS sec] Brent Scowcroft, etc. took on some dogmeat jobs w/o a lot of thanks. So, there may actually be an element of "when the president asks ...'.

Ok. back to the DC analysis. He does this gig for 4-5 yrs; comes back to the US in 2012/2013, and gee, - he has 3 yrs to gear up for a 2016 prez. run, at which time he will be 56-57 yrs old. Avoids the senate, runs as a former gov., amb., trade rep. Hmm....

God, for the love of Minnesota, please tell Obama to give Tim Pawlenty an ambassadorship to Poland.

Blue Dogs will soon challenge the Progressives for control of the Democratic Party. I see a number of key republicans joining those Blue Dogs, primarily because sound fiscal and social policy is something lacking in the wings of both of the major parties. Huntsman going to work for the Democratic President is just an early move towards that center. It is inevitable.

gbear, @19:09,

What do you have against the country of my birth?

I'm all for sending Pawlenty somewhere but why not to Kazakhstan? I hear they've been practicing torture and autocratic rule there for years; Pawlenty would find it much more to his taste.

And bigutah, @18:38, may be right too. Via TPM:

Huntsman remarked that he did not expect, as a former campaign co-chair for John McCain, to be called to serve by the man who defeated McCain. "But I grew up understanding that the most basic responsibility one has is service to country," said Huntsman. "When the President of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this, that, to me, is the end of the conversation and the beginning of the obligation to rise to the challenge."

Even given that politicians spout BS as naturally as bees make honey... and even though it's a win-win situation for everyone, including Huntsman... It still sounds heartfelt. Let's just hope he doesn't pull a Gregg on us, all of a sudden :)

Yes, interesting, and also to see whether any righties will give Obama credit for being bipartisan, or rag on (ironically per the first) Huntsman for "defecting" as it were.

BTW, tangential but note the phrase "Huntsman appears to have scrapped his 2012 plans to give up his governorship and become President Obama's U.S. Ambassador to China" illustrates a defect of English grammar. It could have meant: he scrapped his "2012 plans to give up ... and become ... Ambassador to China" instead of meaning, he scraped his 2012 plans, so that he could become ... Ambassador to China." For a minute up there, I thought maybe Huntsman had bailed out of the ATC position in like manner to the shaky Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H who first accepted and then blew off being Commerce Secretary.

Watch Hunstman switch parties in the next year or so and become the vice-Presidental nominee in 2013.

I'm wondering why we need post after post about how hopelessly moribund Republicans are. We know this already.

And I'm wondering why some folks insist that liberals should act like a monolithic hivemind which can only focus on one thing. Don't like what you read here, go elsewhere or start your own f-ing blog. It's that simple. The main advantage liberals have over conservatives is that we don't take marching orders. We do our own thing and write about what we want to write about, and I think that's the way to go. It makes for a much larger base of source material.

And I happen to really like what I read here and think that the worst thing we can do is have our bloggers second-guessing their instincts. Let them write what they want to write about, and if it's not the right thing, another blogger will pick up the slack.

And for anyone interested, here's my blog. Unfortunately, I don't do requests either.

I seriously believe that Obama chose Huntsman because he's the best guy to send to China, and not because he was trying to put a rival at arm's length.

Once again, Obama has reinforced my belief that he is acting as a leader and not as a partisan cowboy.

Leaders attract followers. Good move Obama!

The main advantage liberals have over conservatives is that we don't take marching orders.

The second advantage is apparently that many so-called libs can't take the tiniest criticism without flying off the handle.

You "love it or leave it" folks are getting extremely tiring.

No Republican stands a chance of winning in 2012. Inflation and the employment rate could both be double digit and the budget deficits could hit 2 trillion per year and anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 will vote for him in 2012. Short of being caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, there is no chance of President Obama losing in 2012. In addition, in President Obama picks a successor, the next relevant primary will be in 2020.

By 2016, the demographic changes of the U.S. will be so against any conservative comeback that the U.S. will be a de facto one party state. Short of running for the Senate, there is nothng else for Huntsman to do for politics.

Actually, Huntsman could see this as setting himself up very nicely for a 2016 presidential run. He could campaign as a popular and successful former governor, international stateman, praised by Obama as always putting nation over party. He'd have to win the Republican primaries first, but he might be thinking that the wingnuts will burn themselves out by 2016. It would be the McCain path to the nomination, but McCain did get the nomination last time despite the hatred of the purists.

It's not so much the criticism itself, Disputo, as the fact that said criticism generally comes from the same mouthbreathers whose epic incompetence got us into this mess and who haven't shown one iota of remorse or apology about it. That's what really de-handles us.

But, in any event, that's just the way we roll. Love it or leave it.

Joe Buck is right. Rather than running and failing in 2012, Huntsman is going to let the radical right burn itself out with losses in 2010 and 2012, and gamble that a significant amount of Republicans will then decide that they prefer winning to ideological purity.

You can already see that tension in figures such as McHenry, who clearly doesn't relish spending years in a rump party.

Shoe --
Thank you for your thoughtful post. My only response would be that if we were talking about Schwartzeneger in California and the wingnuts going after him, your contentions would certainly hold. But we are talking about Utah--perhaps the reddest state outside of the confederacy.

I gave it a bit more thought, and I am getting of the mindset that it isn't that there is a significant difference between what the right is doing in targeting their dissenters and hounding them out of the party and what the left is doing, it is that the core values that must be adhered to in aligning with the right are so narrow and far from the mainstream that they don't support a viable major party anymore. The left tends to be permissive and non-authoritarian; thus the dreedom for differing viewpoints--albeit not very conservative or militaristic ones.

What do you think of this explanation?

2012: Huntsman would have to kowtow to the religious right, who still won't go for a mormon, and if he does manage to get them on board, that will have killed his chances with the sane portion of the electorate, unless Obama really really fails. In 2016, however, it might be reasonable, distinguished, experienced, bipartisan Huntsman against an aging and gaff-laden Joe Biden as the heir immovable of a democratic administration that the public is getting tired off, and which hasn't lived up to all of its promises and which is looking a little stale. And, as others have pointed out, the wingnuts may have burned themselves out by then, leaving many republicans searching for a more pragmatic way to get back into power.

Not that I'm in the slightest bit in favor of Huntsman, and I look forward to voting for Biden in future years, but nonetheless I could see my hypothetical scenario happening.

Perhaps the GOP primary voters will hold Huntsman's service to the administration against him, even if the rest of the electorate will see it as a plus?

perhaps wondering if Republicans will have grown up by 2016.

Yah, I agree with Joe Buck. A lot can happen in politics in 6 years (about the time Huntsman has before gearing up for a possible 2016 run). As a relatively young, popular former governor of a deep red state, but also a former Obama administration official, Huntsman should appeal to Republicans and independents alike, making him a formidable opponent for the Dem nominee in 2016.

(BTW, what are you people smoking, thinking Biden will run in 2016? He'll be 74 then, and although he might not have sense enough to realize he's too old, the Democratic voters in the primaries certainly will).

Let's hope the Republican party hasn't grown up by 2016, or Huntsman will be tough for the Democrats to beat.

"Republican leaders in one key Michigan county abruptly withdrew Huntsman's invitation, however, when local officials learned that the Utah governor had the nerve to support civil unions for gay couples."

Kent County, home to Rich DeVos, Amway (which is NOT a Ponzi scheme) heir and most recent losing GOP candidate for Governor and Eric (Blackwater, er, Xe) Prince, the headlight heir/international man of action.
Michigan Dems may be in disarray, but with West Michigan social conservatives and Oakland County Chamber of Commerce Libertarians at each others' throats, the Dems could run Bill Ayers and win.

So, the president choses a highly qualified public figure to serve in our most important ambassadorial post and simultaneously cripples the Republican Party? It's almost a letdown to see the game played this well. I like it better when Republicans neutralize themselves by trying to pick up undercover cops in airport men's rooms, turning up in call girls' account books, or just generally revealing themselves to be sadists or clowns. Quitting the electoral field because your party is crazy and you can serve your country better another way--where's the fun in that?

Huntsman read Michael Steel's comments about Mitt Romney being rejected by the Republican base because he is a Mormon. He knows how wide the rift is between the evangelical Christians and the Mormon religion. There is no way he could win the Republican nomination in 2012 and he knows it.

China is the 800 pound gorilla the US needs to deal with for the next 50 years and being at the forefront of that effort will help Huntsman when a new GOP or new party emerges. Until then there is no point in trying to engage the current "leadership" the GOP has. Its easy engaging the Chinese Communists and that says a lot.

More news you'll never read on the WaMo front page:

Obama's new pick to head operations in Afghanistan headed Cheney's secret assassination squad.

Now y'all may go back to laughing at the GOP.

This analysis sounds about right to me. There are many people who consider themselves conservatives because they embrace such values as: prudence, responsibility, accountability, moderation. Many people became conservative during the social chaos of 1960s and 1970s not only to restore physical order, but also intellectual order. Back then "knee-jerk liberalism" was a familiar stereotype to which conservatives offered a rational antidote. People who hold such views, as apparently Huntsmen does, simply cannot co-exist in a a radical right political coalition that supports revolution over prudance, chaos over social harmony, and prejudice over reason.

Huntsman was no shoo-in in any year under any circumstances; he'd depress their shrinking base.

However, 2020 or 2024 is not out of range for him; he just has to come back and run for the Senate sometime before that to get back on the radar.

To David, I'm not smoking anything. Reagan won at age 73. Dole ran at age 73, and McCain at age 72, and both had a decent chance of winning. It is true that their ages were indeed negative factors in all three elections, and all were candidates for a party that is happy with patriarchal authority and conservatism (i.e., so age may be less of a factor for Republicans than for Democrats). Nonetheless, if the Obama/Biden team has been enough of a success that Democratic voters want to 'stay the course' and if Biden is still reasonably healthy and presentable, then it will be very hard for Democrats to say no, if he wants to run for the job.

Let me try another scenario. The Republicans continue their path towards 'Federalist-ization' becoming a regional irrelevancy -- as I have been predicting for some time. Obama wins in a landslide in 2012 against the last important Republican candidate -- maybe Sanford, or Baroness Munchhausen.

The Democratic Party splits in 2016, with a center-left party 'keeping Obama's legacy' and a New Party, center-right but sane. (To show my picture of the party, I had originally seen Hillary as their leader, which is still not impossible, though less likely.)

Right now, were Hillary not to be a factor, the unspeakable Evan Bayh would be the obvious Presidential Candidate of this NP. By Huntsman being given a boost, he now becomes a prime challenger to Bayh for the leadership of this party -- against a Dremocrat who, right now, probably hasn't even been elected yet to the position he/she will use as a springboard.

If the Obama Democratic candidate wins, all to the good, but at6 least weith Huntsman rather than Bayh at the head, the odds are that either candidate will be ;acceptable.' (Bayh is a Tom Dewey, Huntsman could be an Eisenhower.)

Make sense?

For those of you who see Obama representing the 'center-right' position, you ain't been paying attention. Yes, on the 'headline issues' Obama has frequently taken a cetrist position -- but he knows the only 'pull' on him is from the left. He knows the Republicans have gone so far over the line they have neither the leverage nor the willingness to try and move him further to the right. All they can and will do is attackattackATTACK whatever he does.

So the only people he has left to compromise with are on the left, so he will be dragged in that direcion, while protecting his right (really center) flank.

Meanwhile, on the 'below the radar' issues, he's taking positions we literally would have found unthinkably positive two years ago.

He won't support gay marriage (boooo!) -- but he names a gay Service head, and probably will appoint a lesbian to the SCOTUS -- not as a first choice but for his second selection.

He won't support marijuana legalization (boooo!) -- but names as his 'Drug Czar' a police chief who had no problem providing police protection for marijuana festivals.

He's acting reluctant over the torture memos and prosecutions (boooo!) -- but his very reluctance has assured that every one of the memos gets full headline treatment, particularly in the blogosphere.

And in every case, he's (deliberately?) left himself no place to go but leftwards. (And Brer Fox seems more than willing to throw him into the briar patch.)

Oh, and -- what inspired this post -- without making a fuss about it, he's eliminated funding for abstinence-only sex education from the 2010 budget.