Shock: Barack Obama co-opts top 2012 Republican to be his ambassador to China

This is a very clever move by President Barack Obama. He's chosen Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah as his ambassador to China.

A Republican, former ambassador to Singapore and fluent Mandarin speaker, Huntsman has recently staked out centrist stances on gay rights, climate change and stimulus spending. He'd made clear his contempt for the Republican congressional leadership, saying: "I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely."

That made him the best-placed moderate Republican to challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination. By any analysis, at this stage a 2012 Republican victory looks like an uphill struggle. Mitt Romney - a former moderate who's now positioned himself firmly on the Right - is probably the front runner with governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota also likely to run.

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana appears to be biding his time until 2016 while the soap opera storyline of Sarah Palin;s family and her virtual estrangement from the national GOP make her look a long shot.

Huntsman probably calculated that he would not win in 2012 even if he did manage to secure the nomination. Much better, he would have reasoned, to wait out 2012, gain some major foreign policy experience while not being linked to Obama's domestic policies and have a chance in 2016.

Like the Conservative party in Britain after 1997, it looks to be a long road back for Republicans so taking a time out is likely to be a shrewd decision for someone like Huntsman.

What does Obama gain? It's a concrete example of bipartisanship, he peels off a Republican moderate and therefore shifts the party's centre of gravity further to the Right - which is where Democrats want it),

RE :”I agree about the expansion of government, but 9-11 changed everything for me. If you are dead, you don’t care how the big government is.”

STOP TAKING TALK RADIO SO SERIOUS! First they told us if we didnt invade Iraq that mushroom clouds would be over our cities within days-weeks-months. Next they told us if McCain lost we would all die (just like you implied above.) Well McCain lost and I am still breathing, poorer maybe , but not dead like Talk radio told you. Hannity and Levin are especially unreliable for information, very reliable for propaganda. They got the economy all wrong too, just inane political talking points. Ron Paul got the economy right.

You have NO idea about whether or not I listen to talk radio. I teach full time and do not have much time to listen to the radio. When I do, I am generally only half-listening or am in and out of the car.

You obviously do not know much about the Muslim faith. I heard a talk by a Duke University professor who has been studying this subject for many years - well before 9-11. He believes that their desire is to restore Islam to the prominence that it had before the Crusades. They intend to TAKE OVER the Western World which they despise, not only because of our Judeo-Christian religion, but also because of our acceptance of things like abortion that they consider to be evil. If they can not do it militarily (which right now they can not do), they intend to do it by "out-populating" us and moving into our neighborhoods. Just look at what has happened to Europe, almost without their realizing it. Our way of life and very existence as a nation is at stake. It may take them years, but they are a very patient people.

This war has actually been going on since Biblical times when Abraham did not trust God to send him a son and took matters into his own hands. That led to the origin of the Arabs and the antipathy between them and the Jews. Jesus was born a Jew and his first followers were Jews, so the descendants of Ismael hated Christians, too. Their war against the US in particular has been going on ever since Jimmy Carter helped to depose the Shah of Iran. It had just never been properly addressed before George Bush responded to 9-11 with a military instead of a law enforcement response. I live in military town, and, believe me, you can not support the troops if you do not support their mission. Ron Paul was and always will be wrong if he does not support the mission of the military when they are in harm's way. That is what they train for and what they put their lives on the line every day for. National defense is one of the undisputed roles of the federal government. IMO, the economy would right itself if government would just simply stay out of the way!

BTW, I never said and never heard anyone else say that we would all die if McCain were not elected. He was my last choice to be the Republican nominee for POTUS, but you must admit he would have been better than Obama, who is even more socialist than I ever dreamed possible. I also never believed what you said about the invasion of Iraq. There were many other reasons to invade Iraq, and, if Obama does not mess it up, Iraq will be a shining example of a democracy in that part of the world. It has been over 7 years since 9-11 and the US has not been attacked because al-Quada has been preoccupied and greatly weakened by the war in Iraq. That fact alone keeps the war from being the mistake than many believe that it was and IMO history will show that to be the case.

Years ago, I was found Ron Paul to be a real breath of fresh air. His public statements were closely tied to the Constitution and I didn’t realize some of his other points of view.

Since then, Ron has essentially destroyed my appreciation of him. I would never vote for him to lead our government.

Any guy that sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican when it comes to our national security, is not worthy of my support.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.