Political Animal
Blog
CBS’s “Face the Nation” has two presidential contenders on this morning. One of them is even competitive.
Bob Schieffer previews this Sunday’s “Face the Nation” with two Republican presidential candidates — Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman
Seeing Huntsman’s name on the schedule got me thinking: haven’t we seen quite a bit of him lately?
On Friday, Huntsman was on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.” On Thursday, he was on Fox News’ “On The Record with Greta Van Susteren.” On Wednesday, he was CNN’s “John King, USA.” Last week, Huntsman was on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” and was scheduled to be on NBC’s “Meet the Press” (though the latter was canceled due to hurricane coverage).
I realize the presidential campaign is effectively in full swing right now, so it’s hardly a surprise that candidates will be making plenty of media appearance on broadcast television.
But in all sincerity, when was the last time we saw a candidate with this little support generating quite this much media love?
It’s hard to overstate how poorly Huntsman is doing. Among Republican voters nationwide, the latest Fox News poll shows him running last with 1% support. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows him running last with 1% support. The latest CNN poll shows him running last with 1% support. The latest Gallup poll shows him running last with 1% support.
There seems to be a pattern here.
And yet, Huntsman has been booked for three Sunday shows in three weeks, and is all over the media.
I’m trying to think of a comparable situation, but nothing comes to mind. It’s tempting to compare this to the media showering Dennis Kucinich with this much attention, but in reality, that’s unfair to Kucinich — at this point in 2008, Gallup showed him with about 2% support among Democrats nationwide, while a CNN poll showed Kucinich with 3% support. But if memory serves, the Sunday shows never booked Kucinich to three Sunday shows in three weeks.
Perhaps the better recent comparison would be the media giving tons of airtime in 2008 to Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, who were polling at or slightly above Huntsman’s level of support at this point four years ago. Of course, that didn’t happen, either — producers/bookers probably didn’t see any point, since they weren’t competitive enough to bother.
The question then becomes why Huntsman, Mr. One Percent, is getting special treatment.
Facebook
Twitter
ant on September 04, 2011 8:58 AM:
you know why Steve.
He's the only electable republican running.
Live Free or Die on September 04, 2011 8:58 AM:
I think that the media think Obama is going to be a one termer. Accordingly, they want to pick a president that is somewhat sane, so they give Huntsman free airtime-desperately in hope that he can win the nomination.
Live Free or Die on September 04, 2011 9:01 AM:
Its up to Republicans that have 3%+ (like Ron Paul) to call out the media on the treatment given Huntsman. Also the DNC can make some noise too.
Marie Burns on September 04, 2011 9:03 AM:
The Easy Answer: the media want to present some evidence that not all Republican presidential candidates are crazy & the Republican party is not entirely a strident fearmongering, fundamentalist, anti-science, xenophobic, racist, anti-democracy cult.
Danp on September 04, 2011 9:10 AM:
why Huntsman, Mr. One Percent, is getting special treatment.
I'm sure John McCain and Joe Lieberman are wondering the same thing.
munsell10yr on September 04, 2011 9:10 AM:
I've been unemployed for almost a year, which has, unfortunately, given me a lot of time to watch MSM coverage of politics (except for FOX, I have enough problems). I've noticed a definite trend that most networks, and conservatives, do not want Rick Perry to be the nominee, but they can't come out and say it since he's the current frontrunner. They've developed a series of dog whistles that acknowledge that Perry is popular, but can he REALLY beat Obama in the general (he can't). If it's going to be another 1984 landslide in Obama's favor, what the hell is Chuck Todd going to talk about?
Huntsman is probably the best candidate to pull independents and disgruntled firebaggers away from Obama. Perry and Romney are damaged goods. This is why the Very Serious Media is constantly begging for the entrance of a Chris Christie (who couldn't beat Obama in New Jersey, fer chrissakes) or Paul Ryan (which makes NO sense to me - Ryan is more toxic than Perry). This is why they continue to talk up Sarah Palin, who is more of a shameless grifter than Newt Gingrich (campaigning in HAWAII?!). The fact that Huntsman, their best candidate, is doing worse than lunatics like Ron Paul (who the media completely ignores), shows to me that the GOP ain't got nothin'. The only thing that could lead to an Obama defeat, in my opinion, is the possibility than a majority of voters believes that the crappy economy is all Obama's fault. I just don't see that happening.
berttheclock on September 04, 2011 9:10 AM:
Meanwhile, poor Rick is left wandering in the wilderness attending fund raisers, raising tons of cash for his Super PACs, so, he can flood the minds of the electorate with his self created images.
The average TP voter might only watch Greta out of those programs listed. However, when, Huntsman meets Sean Hannity and O'Arrogantone, then, there could be a bit of a Hmmm?
max on September 04, 2011 9:10 AM:
The corporate media have thrown in their lot with Huntsman because Romney is a fraud and the rest of the field, save Huntsman, are anti-science Neanderthals. Huntsman is the corporations last best hope.
c u n d gulag on September 04, 2011 9:13 AM:
Maybe because he's the only one who's not crazy or stupid?
TR on September 04, 2011 9:15 AM:
On the flip side of this, Jon Stewart had a great piece after the Iowa Straw Poll about how the media ignored Ron Paul after he finished second there but played up the 3rd and 4th place finishers. It was amazing.
Personally I like Huntsman a lot more than Paul, but the media bias is revolting. And frankly it only fuels his supporters belief that he's revolutionary.
HMDK on September 04, 2011 9:28 AM:
Live Free Or Die HARDCORE said:
"Its up to Republicans that have 3%+ (like Ron Paul) to call out the media on the treatment given Huntsman. Also the DNC can make some noise too."
This is true, but Ron Paul probably shouldn't invite MORE media attention to himself, as he's an insane randroid with a gold-fetish. He's like a let-'em-eat-cake leprechaun.
Shantyhag on September 04, 2011 9:32 AM:
Ant is right... when you look at the Republican field, Huntsman would seem to be the only one that stands a chance in the general.
walt on September 04, 2011 9:36 AM:
Our top-tier media jackals are high-minded, solipsistic, and use their forums to practice confirmation bias. They are Huntsman. Huntsman is them.
It's almost as If Thomas Friedman and Matt Miller decided to identify their ideal candidate and run him. He has to be rich, good-looking, centrist but not liberal, rational but religiously observant, modern but not too cosmopolitan. Above all else, he has to value them more than the hayseeds that vote. Third Way politics is fun when you own the DLC. It's a bummer when you're polishing your apples in the GOP.
jdb on September 04, 2011 9:39 AM:
This might be a stupid question, but is it possible that he pays his way to get onto these shows? The guys a billionaire, and I'm sure the corporate hounds at these places don't have any problems picking up some cash from him. A variation on product placement - BMW pays to have its cars in a movie, so Huntsman Co. pays to have its candidate on "News" programs.
I also think this is about 2016. In spite of current difficulties, Obama still has a fair to good chance of winning. If Huntsman can have a respectable showing and can survive relatively deep into the primary season, and if the establishment GOP decide that the whole 'tea-party' strategy didn't work the way they thought it would, then, on the day after 2012 election, Huntsman will be announced to be the frontrunner for 2016.
stormskies on September 04, 2011 9:43 AM:
As if we needed more evidence this is just another example of the active collusion of the corporations and the media they own creating the reality they want to have happen. It's a coordinated effort of those who pull all the strings ...... the corporate media is the worst enemy we have .. they are in charge of everything Americans see and hear .. thus they create the 'narratives' and 'story lines' that are repeated over and over until the average American is just simply stupid begins to 'believe' that the story lines and the narrative are in fact the actual 'reality' that is taking place.
Melllvar on September 04, 2011 9:44 AM:
My suspicion is that, having accepted that the most popular GOP aspirants are poison to the majority of voters, the Powers are trying to groom Huntsman as a VP choice.
jTh on September 04, 2011 9:51 AM:
He's being groomed as an attractive option for VP to attract "moderate" Republicans otherwise put off by the hysteria-wielding front-runner. Whereas in 2008, they had the ostensibly sensible candidate on the top of the ticket, and the certifiable unqualified loony on the bottom, this time they'll try pitching the reverse, more akin to the "successful" Bush/Cheney model. So Huntsman needs more exposure, and is getting it.
dbcooper on September 04, 2011 9:52 AM:
It's all about 2016, not 2012. This was Romney's to lose and he's done that so far.
Rick Perry? Really?
The media swooning over Huntsman now and sets him up for their tongue bath in 4 years.
KurtRex1453 on September 04, 2011 9:55 AM:
Because he is the only seemingly sane candidate out there. He will do the media's dirty work for them attacking the anti-science stance of the other GOPers.
deanarms on September 04, 2011 9:59 AM:
Steve - It's the man bites dog effect. He's the biggest anomoly in the GOP race: a candidate who beleives in science.
larry birnbaum on September 04, 2011 10:44 AM:
It's ridiculous to compare Huntsman to clowns like Tancredo or Kucinich. At this point we should be welcoming sane Republican voices in the media.
T2 on September 04, 2011 10:57 AM:
Agree that the Powers of the GOP have read the cards and realized they've lost the party to the wack jobs. Sticking Huntsman on the ticket might be sensible except for one thing....he's a Mormon and if the GOP wanted a Mormon in the WH, they would have tabbed Mitt in 2008.
Kathryn on September 04, 2011 11:13 AM:
Huntsman is the corporate candidate, MSM (our biggest enemy, thanks stormskies) is shilling for him to be V.P. or a shoo-in for 2016. He holds all their views regarding economy without the insane anti-science, Christian nation, anti-Muslim, anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant Randian utopia of the Limbaugh educated base. Even the MSM has some reservations about (not enough)Rick Perry. Any other Republican candidate will severely spook to rest of the world, not that the GOP base care as they abhor the rest of the world and figure they can just neutralize them with power or tough talk, wrong again.
Speaking of Limbaugh, lost a former good friend last
week due to her belief in Limbaugh and venomous hatred of Obama. There are intelligent people who listen to him (for years) and buy the hate, lock, stock and barrel.
Patrick Star on September 04, 2011 11:24 AM:
Yet another glaring example of how utterly bankrupt the Republican Party has become. If Obama is, as they say, the Worst President Ever, and he's an existential threat to the Republic itself, shouldn't there be a line a mile long of eminently qualified candidates who would easily kick his electoral ass sideways? Instead, we have a carnival sideshow of loons and crooks. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are running the show now, and these Republican candidates are the cream of the crop. It's all they got, so, sorry, Corporate Media. Good luck selling this trainwreck to the average voter.
john farmer on September 04, 2011 11:36 AM:
At the same time the media have a crush on Huntsman, they've bent over backward to ignore a candidate with lots of support, Ron Paul.
This L.A. Times rationalization of why Paul doesn't get attention rings hollow:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-postscript-ron-paul-top-tier-20110827,0,5135921.story
Especially at a time when Huntsman is all over the media.
Luke on September 04, 2011 11:51 AM:
What's more, it's likely that a similar level of media exposure would have increased Kucinich's support, given that his positions matched those of the progressive Democratic base. The more today's Tea Party GOP hears from the (relatively) moderate Huntsman, the less they like him, and the less chance he has of winning the nomination.
JW on September 04, 2011 1:17 PM:
Must have a guardian angel looking after him- could be Moroni itself.
threegoal on September 04, 2011 2:11 PM:
Could it just be that Huntsman is more likely than the others to say something interesting about other Republicans and stir things up?
Can you say that about any of the others at this time?
Yes on September 04, 2011 2:59 PM:
True. Huntsman seems to have a won an implicit media primary for having an appearance and characteristics that make him coverage worthy--despite the lack of interest by the general public.
He seems like a nice, intelligent fellow, and I'd likely enjoy talking with him.
Poor Buddy Roemer, who grinding his teeth in frustration, has none of these. Note: This is not an endorsement of Roemer.
Did Huntsman's band cover Styx?
You don't hear much about Huntsman's father in these articles, although they do seem to have recently set up a PAC--not that there's anything wrong with Jon Sr. or that. From the bit I know of him, he seems admirable.
Perhaps it is just the usual, understandable craving amongst journalists for something approaching intelligence + authenticity among the Republican candidates. The real question is--why do such posing, shifting, grifting, messianically preaching, rootin', tootin' (or a created facsimile thereof, or a reversed actuality thereof) candidates continually rise to the top on the Republican side?
Vondo on September 04, 2011 3:05 PM:
The comparison you are looking for is Lieberman in 2004. A moderate saying the rest of his parties candidates are too extreme. There are only two "interesting" candidates running in the GOP primaries: Hunstman and Paul. Everyone else is parroting and pandering to the Tea Party line.
Yes on September 04, 2011 3:19 PM:
And think of how rarely the comparison that one is looking for is: "Lieberman".
jrobinson on September 04, 2011 3:29 PM:
I can't tell you how much I enjoy liberals trying to tell me who my best candidate is. Look at all the comments here - its the same thing over and over again. Liberals can't understand why Huntsman's getting the attention, and since THEY prefer Huntsman, they'll work through all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain it as some sort of bizzare, yet natural, occurrence. Oooo it must be that the media is trying to make the Right "look better". Ooooo I got it - it must be the only one who "stands a chance".
Your comments only betray the truth - Huntsman is YOUR candidate, not ours. He is chosen by YOU, with YOUR criteria. This is how we ended up with McCain. Don't you remember how we were told he was the only reasonable one, and he could actually work with the Democrats? All the NYT puff pieces? Then, the moment he became the candidate - the media treated him like the leper they treat all Republicans as. Suddenly, he became "crazy" and "extreme" and "old".
What you are witnessing is simply another aspect of the infamous liberal media bias you pretend isn't happening: liberals like to choose our candidates and interfere in our selection process. They do this by telling you who is "acceptable" and who is "viable" - and you all line up like Lemmings to discuss.
Imagine that the roles were reversed and all of the media was lined up to push Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy onto all of you. He was on every Sunday show, and every host offered his candidacy as the only "sane" alternative to the extreme left of Obama. And then people like me go on forums like this and lecture you that it must be the media HELPING you out, by pushing a zero-tier candidate.
Welcome to our world.
Diane Rodriguez on September 04, 2011 3:41 PM:
Suddenly and belatedly, the MSM has been jolted awake to the consequences of their never ending shit spreading machinery that has elevated a screeching horde of the most dangerous, ignorant and sociopathic candidates I have ever seen. Not consequences for the country but consequences to themselves, individually. Clearly, the country’s well being is not an issue for these carrions.
It must be terrifying to realize that you, in all your smug infallibility, are likely to be replaced by a TV evangelist type with a Boehner-like penchant for alcoholic induced crying jags at the sight of other wealthy white guys whose daughter is dating a black or brown guy.
Jesus, it's enough to make your oversized air filled balloon head explode on camera. Quick, find a good looking white guy who can string a sentence together that doesn't sound like a Saturday Night Live impression of a podunk preacher. If he can answer a question with a semi-straightforward answer instead of going to the standard unresponsive "got to check with God", "That's not God's way", " God told me just this morning" blah blah, blah. The DSM calls those auditory hallucinations and there is effective medication. It's also way past grandiose thinking if, in fact, you are a believer in a higher power.
Enter Huntsman. Expect much more of the media focus until his numbers rise. He is the Great White Hope. Personally, I'm praying that God will help us out to see a successful way forward through this mess we have created.
Archie on September 04, 2011 3:46 PM:
Huntsman, the Democratic Party's ideal of a Republican and for 99% of the Republican Party the ideal of what a Democrat should be.
Taobhan on September 04, 2011 5:52 PM:
LOL, I think the establishment is freaking out at how big the lunacy factor has gotten among the leading GOP candidates. They clearly don't want to show their dismay openly. So I believe they are trying to tamp down the lunacy a bit by featuring the sane candidate, regardless of how poorly he's polling. I doubt it's going to be effective at all.
Rick B on September 04, 2011 6:36 PM:
You want to know why Huntsman is getting so much press? Find out who is funding his race.
Remember, Pawlenty dropped out with better stats because he had no more money. Someone is pumping the funds to Huntsman.
exlibra on September 04, 2011 7:01 PM:
jrobinson's posting, @3:29PM, is very reassuring. I most certainly hope that none of the stalwart Republicans will be fooled by the liberal media pushing, and that they'll persevere in making their own choice in the primaries -- be it Perry, Bachmann or Paul.
But I am curious about one thing... If the liberal media are so hell-bent on pushing their own, liberal candidate, why bother with Huntsman at all and against all odds, too? Why not reinforce the liberal they already have in place (Obama)?
Oh, I see... It's all due to the "ornamo deals". I stand corrected :^)
toowearyforoutrage on September 04, 2011 10:12 PM:
I'd ask this question too but the tone of voice suggests the Sunday shows should ignore candidates with little support.
How are they to gain support without media attention to get their message out unless they accept massive amounts of money to create a media machine of their own?
Kucinich and Mike Gravel weren't even allowed to participate in the Democratic presidential debate, despite both of them outpolling Senator Dodd and future VP Biden some days. That both of these men would have voiced progressive values without shame seems a likelier motive than any tripe about deciding who was viable or not.
chicklet on September 05, 2011 12:07 PM:
why? maybe because that's who the alphabet networks want to feature.
Wouldn't the folks who book Huntsman be the same ones who didn't check out Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright, the same ones who didn't quite report Hilary's progress through the primaries last time and the same ones who have given us more air time on people who don't matter (like Huntsman, Palin and George Pataki)than on those who do (where are the interviews of Eric Holder discussing his guns to mexico scheme?). Free press, hah!