Here is a sample of 1 on the Perot issue.

I voted for Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992, and Dole in 1996. Just because I had issues with Bush’s reelection campaign didn’t mean I wanted Clinton in office.

People who wanted Clinton could vote for Clinton. People who wanted change but not Clinton could only vote for Perot.

A non-Mormon moderate in favor of civil unions did win the nomination in 2008. Do you really think Huntsman can’t win because he’s moderate? Or do you think he’s blocked because he’s Mormon?

Comparisons to George H.W. Bush don’t pan out. Before he got his ambassadorship, Bush was a multi-millionaire Washington insider, a leader in building the Republican Party in Texas and the son of a prominent US Senator. And even considering all that, Bush could only get to the White House via Ronald Reagan.

Besides all that, is Huntsman’s Mormon faith going to automatically be more tolerable in 2016, to the right-wing evangelical Christians who hold considerable sway in the GOP? Or how about his pro-civil union stance, the same stance that recently got him disinvited from conservative gatherings across the country?

Personally, Huntsman seems like a hell of a guy but I think the very worst thing he can do for his political future is take this ambassadorship. No, this is all about 2016, not 2012. Obama is doing this precisely as a favor to his party. After all, if the economy is better in November 2012 than it was in November 2008, no one can stop Obama. If it’s not, well, most likely no one can save him.

I’d also like to address a few points Henry made.

“Let’s not forget that Pappy Bush barely lost to Clinton in 1992, really only because of Ross Perot.”

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Any supporter of Perot obviously wanted change, particularly in economic matters. So wouldn’t that make them more like to support the Democratic challenger if Perot had not run, instead of the Republican incumbent? In other words, without Perot, Clinton’s margin of victory in 1992 would have been even larger?

To me, this sounds like another attempt to marginalize every Democratic WH win. As if every time a Democratic wins, there must be some freak cause, where as when the GOP wins, it’s just the natural order of things.

“If the Republicans are lucky and Huntsman and Jindal perform up to expectations, then the GOP could have control of the White House until January 2033.”

I don’t mean to infer any disrespect, but this is so damned fantastical, absurd does not do the notion justice. You don’t really believe this, do you? This is worse than the prospect that was bandied about in the early 1960’s, that the Kennedy brothers would own the WH from 1960 until 1984.

If the Republicans are lucky…..in rigging the voting machines, yes this could happen. Huntsman just got reelected in 2008, so he only has served one term prior to his ambassadorship.

And Jindal has only been governor for about 1 and ½ years. The governor of Louisiana, a state where rampant political corruption is actually a joke. (See the Edwards vs. Duke Governor’s race) But he’s going to reform the state right? Jindal is going to do what no one else has ever been able to do before. And he’s going to do this in the midst of the worst economic climate in 70 years? Is it going to be any better than his speech in response to Obama’s faux State of the Union? That wasn’t exactly Reagan’s 1964 speech to the Republican National Convention, now was it?

Let’s not forget that Pappy Bush barely lost to Clinton in 1992, really only because of Ross Perot. So there is no rule that says there cannot be four straight Republican presidents. That is potentially what could happen.

Again, this is a brilliant move by Obama, but a HUGE long-term risk for Democrats. In a way (assuming Obama has thought through the long-term implications of this appointment), it really does burnish Obama’s bi-partisan credentials. Obama did it because Huntsman was so brilliantly qualified, not caring about the long-term damage to his party.

Consider how the Left, with WH egging, were rather successful in framing Limbaugh as the leader of the GOP, with all those supposed prominent Republicans (including RNC Chairman) apologizing publicly to Rusho. Then with the Stimulus, the Jindal/Sanford Rep. Governors who opposed it, then embarrased when that Stimulus clause forced Governors to announce if they are to receive the funds or not. Brilliant! Buy that South Carolina Congressman a steak dinner!

And as for electoral: I’m reminded of Nixon’s efforts (especially his Plumbers) to make the Democrats nominate a fringe polarizing candidate like McGovern in 1972, which Nixon could (and did) easily defeat. Thus the Plumbers helped to sabotage Ed Muskie’s campaign, who was a much stronger and tougher figure for Nixon.

Then after another ‘72 Democratic front-runner in George Wallace was shot, same Nixon boys then (supposedly) tried to plant McGovern campaign literature in the gunman’s residence, so to alienate Wallace’s blue collar/southern white voters into Tricky Dick’s camp.

As for Obama and ‘12, I think his White House is trying if possible to make Sarah Palin the GOP nominee, if possible she’s probably the easiest opponent for Obama, much like Mondale in ‘84, McGovern in ‘72, and Dole in ‘96.

Just imagine a Obama/Palin debate. See? When its Something vs Nothing, Something always wins.

Consider too that with the Huntsman appointment, Obama just decapitated a possible immediate future more moderate/sane national path for the Party.

Charlie Crist is running for Senate, so cross him off. Maybe he and Huntsman run in ‘16 as the Hart/Clinton types in dragging the party back to the center to win again.

Palin is popular with that fringe base running the GOP now, but she’s deconstructing just fine without Obama’s help. If anything, if based off her movements so far, I would think she already assumes she’s got the nomination under lock and key. Yeah, like Hillary.

Huckabee is like Palin, if more likeable, a competent (at least) candidate, and not as dogmatic-redmeat as her. Plus he’s friendly. To quote what Bill Clinton supposedly said of Huckabee, in the last 80s: “Mike is the nicest right-wing psychopath you’ll ever meet.”

Huck’s problem in ‘08, unless I’m mistaken, was that many Republicans feared that his Evangelical campaign(Dubya-esque) wouldn’t have a fart’s chance of winning the general election. Plus Wall Street wasn’t with him, which Huckster needs to fix.

Tim Pawlenty is a weak candidate too. Sure the media will make him be the “moderate” primary candidate, but….he has the same problem that I have with Palin and Huckabee. I don’t see any of them as being PRESIDENT for real, you know? Vice-President and Cabinet? Sure, but not Commander-in-Chief.

And yes, this blog was right about Mitt Romney as having the goods to be a serious candidate, but the base will never openly back a former pro-choice Governor, much less that he’s a Mormon. Its strange how the Mormons in the GOP like blacks were for decades in the Democratic fold*: Reliable foot soldiers and voters, but don’t give them a serious slice of the power pie.

Palin is Obama’s dream challenger in 2012, the hardest probably Romney of those that remain. But if its Palin or Huckabee or Sanford or anyone of them that try to run a Reagan/Newt-stylized cliche campaign, Obama theoretically can marginalize either as an “out of touch” edge candidate that are pimping out the same old failed ideas.

Again, its like Ronald Reagan in 1984. No Democrat could have beaten him that year. And I dont see any GOPer beating “That One” in ‘12.

*=Redundant to point out, but they have the biggest slice now. And they deservedly are enjoying it. yum yum! :)

Obama did this because, first of all, Huntsman is qualified, and secondly, it burnishes his own “bipartisan” cred.

Antithesis– I do not think it means what you think it means. I suggest “counterpart of”, “reflection of”, or “answer to”. Good luck. Good writing.