<link>

Writer Bruce Reed offers up a biting commentary on the latest Palin fiasco. All in all, he does a fair job of giving food for thought. With an exception:

Take out one quitter

Jon Huntsman accepted the Ambassador to China post when asked by President Obama to do so. Any cursery search will note that with that appointment comes a safer 2012 for Obama and Washington Republicans will not sacrifice him there anyway. The reasoning for Huntsman was a winning one for a 2016 run: Country First. The win for Obama is also obvious: 2012 got a little easier. This run involves a politician who won the Governorship for another term by around 80% of the vote. He is the obvious 2016 candidate so we may as well start watching him. He is not going to be easy to dismiss by grouping him into the wall of shame. Not even his Mormon background will hurt him because he is a moderate by country ideology standards.

Oddly while everyone is watching and has been watching the circus of the Palin's, the Sanford's, and others, Huntsman is being handled by McCain's and Washington handlers. It can have the same results McCain ended up with but it is less likely. The bigger flaws are just not there. For a republican in this chaotic time, being out of the country serving your country may just be the best insurance policy. I suspect more than a few would like to get out of the mess a few have made of this party.

Anyone who dismisses Huntsman is not doing themselves a favor. There should be no surprises if we really dig into what a smart move Huntsman's acceptance was.

Take him off the wall of shame Bruce Reed. Huntsman bears watching. He is not easily dismissed.

Mary, I am sorry but running for the next election right now is insane. I know that our system works that way but much to our disadvantage imo. I really would like the rest of the country not think about it until I have to. That said, I was told early on it would be Rudy or Hilary by the people that "know" last time out. These early folks do not last.

I know it is a shame to start thinking of the next run or in my case, next 2 runs. LOL

Anything can and probably will happen so it is an inexact science to project out that far. For today though, they seem to be lining up the stars pretty openly for a Huntsman run in 2016. They would only run him in 2012 if Obama were as unpopular as Bush was I suspect. My biggest reason for writing this was more about the writer's grouping Huntsman in with some pretty odd characters. Thus far he has not shown a propensity to implode that is necessary to get on Bruce's list.

Here is a link you may find interesting:

<link>

I am going to read up and thank you, but one of the reasons I still like American politics is the element of surprise. Living in Europe, I can say, they do not have that here and that is why the are fascinated with our system.

Predictability in politics is highly overrated. I can promise you this; If Huntsman is indeed the candidate by 2016, he will be a suprise candidate to most of the voters. Pretend I didn't post the top post, or blame Bruce. lol

Quitters never QUIT?

R

U

SURE?

It

AINT winners never QUIT.

In order to be a QUITTER one has to

Um

QUIT

It was a play on Bruce's words "Quitters Never Win". He grouped Jon in the list and Jon quit but he never quit. He just stopped being a Governor to take the new post.