"How is it White House spin to assert that this agreement would never have existed without Obama's threats of attack? That seems obvious. Care to outline a way this could have come about any other way?"

This agreement exists because John Kerry made a stray remark at a press conference. Putin jumped on it as a way to prevent a US strike on Syria, which, while initially limited, would almost certainly had developed mission creep and lead to Assad's ouster. After all, that's what happened in Libya. Keeping Assad in power is a major strategic objective of Russia, so Putin arranged this phoney deal whereby Assad agrees to give up his chemical weapons, but the messy details where the devil lies show that this is virtually impossible to accomplish during the civil war. A consequence of all this diplomacy surrounding Assad is that he's given a new injection of legitimacy as Syria's leader, something he hasn't had for years.

Call me rude if you want, Thucydides, but you're being really naive here if you think this is some great victory for international law. A bandit regime has been cemented in power and America has been shut out of influencing what happens in Syria. You've fallen for spin made for domestic consumption by the White House to make it seem like Obama has just had some great statesmanlike triumph. Nothing could be further from the truth and everyone outside of the American media bubble can see it.

"Because the worst thing he did was expressing his not entirely unjustified anger over being dis(!)invited to a fundraiser? "

No, because his anger was there because the party had rejected him because he's far, far outside its mainstream; and it will do so again. The personality point was just because you had offered his supposed ability to convince and make great arguments as antidote to the problems his political positions create. But the fact is, (a) he disagrees with the party severely on domestic policy, and (b) he whines instead of convincing when the natural result of this occurs. The combination of those two facts is completely fatal. Even my most enthusiastic Huntsman-supporter friends completely gave up on him forever by the end of 2012.

And in a hypothetical scenario that he would be nominated, would he then be elected?

That depends on who was running against him, naturally. Assuming he was nominated as a Republican (which is not a whit more likely than his being nominated as a Democrat), then I think he'd win only if he were facing an exceptionally unexciting candidate. He'd lose to Hillary. You may think it's deplorable that Americans (and humans) care so much about the personality and so on of their leaders. I partially agree and partially disagree. But it doesn't matter: they do, and it would be very foolish to forget it. (We got 8 years of George W. Bush as President because Al Gore sighed too much during a debate).

@semck
No I don't deplore Americans and certainly not more than other human beings, you know that very well.
Actually, what I deplore is not so much about that you seem to care so much about personality, it's that you seem to care so little!
I'm happy to gloss over what I consider to be relatively small defects (the sighing of Gore, the whining of Huntsman) to take a good and careful look at what I consider to be relatively big defects (George W Bush' continual preference of gut/faith based decision making over rational analysis, to name one).

How is the fact that he cannot win a Republican primary not a relatively big defect?

ow please
He wouldn't be the first person to lose his first primary to become President.

If Hillary can win the primary, so can he. She lost to Oblamer, remember?

This is just getting silly. redhouse1938, you're really right on a lot of things. But you just couldn't be more wrong here. Jon Huntsman will never be president. He will never be the Republican nominee. I'll don't even think he'll ever even run again.

I'm not one of the people who doesn't like him. I think he totally has a place in a Republican administration. But there's nothing, nothing, nothing to make me or anyone who really follows American politics to think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

@Vic

So post something really convincing about Huntsman. A very stupid comment during a debate, a lie, him slapping a secretary on her behind, anything will do. Not something that will convince Gunfighter, something that could convince me. I challenge you.

It's not anything like that. It's all because he's perceived as too liberal. That's it.

We'll see Invictus. We'll see.

How many political obituaries were written in the 20th centuries about guys who became president later?

So we'll just wait and see. But this is the guy I think should be leading the free world.

Never thought I'd be giving +1s to invictus and Bo_sox in a political debate thread.

I think it's natural that Europeans would be more interested in America's foreign policy than in her domestic policy. I think it's just as natural that the reverse would hold for Americans, who (notably) actually choose the President. Given that it does, Invictus remains completely right. This is about issues. Huntsman is far outside the mainstream of the GOP on domestic policy, i.e., the policy people most care about in the primaries. He has no chance of winning a primary.

Draug, the example of Hillary couldn't be less analogous. That was a very closely fought race between two people who were often so close on issues that it was hard to see daylight between them. Huntsman was notable mostly for being the only noticeable GOP candidate who never even came close to leading in the polls; and he was notable mostly for being well outside the party mainstream.

The next election should offer a much more distinctive difference in candidates than Romney vs Obama. Clinton vs an Obamacare destroying, federal government department disbanding Republican candidate who promises to dismantle the massive growth of the federal government. An interesting statistic-the Federal government has more employees (4.2 million) than the population of 24 states. The realization of a "governing class" willing to use the massive powers of the federal government to profit itself is a fact of life. The IRS scandal where federal bureaucrats attack groups who threaten to reduce the size of the government is just the first incident in a new paradigm.

That's not a paradigm I am willing to live with.

Invictus you are wrong about a lot of things but, sadly, you got this right:

"This is just getting silly. redhouse1938, you're really right on a lot of things. But you just couldn't be more wrong here. Jon Huntsman will never be president. He will never be the Republican nominee. I'll don't even think he'll ever even run again."

This is true. If I wanted to take cheap shots at Republicans I'd say, they'll never let him win a primary because he thinks and has a brain and is reasonable and logical. But really I think it has a lot to do with the divisions within the R party have not healed since Bush the Second. The different frankenstein factions that have been sewn together to make the party going off in different directions. This kind of situation brings out a favors extremists. A reasonable centrist will never survive the primary process unless the Republicans either come back together with a solid front or break up into separate parties (which isn't a real option of course).

@semck

But isn't that disconcerting, that the party so narrowly defines itself that someone who considers himself a conservative is considered a liberal?

And isn't that one of the reasons a complete clown like Obama could win the last election?

which is kinda what I was saying except that obama isn't a clown. Now if you want to talk clowns, just look at the last republican primary . . .

I'm surprised moderates in both parties haven't made more rumblings about the possible formation of a new party organization, particularly frustrated moderate/conventional Republicans (like Huntsman) who used to be influential and now cannot get by the primaries to compete in general elections. I think the Rove strategy of trying to boot out Teapartiers in the primaries this next cycle is going to be critical. If he fails, the GOP establishment might call it quits and try to take independent-minded Democrats from the South and West with them. If that happens, I think a legit third party could be established that would fight it out with the Tea Party controlled remnant of the GOP for survival, a battle I think the conventional Republicans would win.

"A bandit regime has been cemented in power"
Assad took over from his father in 2000 who had ruled for the previous 30 years.
I think if you're family have run the country for the last 43 years you will be seen as the establishment, not bandits.

Hey Putin, how's life? It's been a while.

Less hateful. How's yours?

It's never been really hateful, but I'm really happy to hear that.

How's Mrs Putin, my wild guess is she asked you not to get cooked on this website anymore? ;-)

(PS I'm fine, very much into research atm)

She's well, thanks. And yes I hope not to become hooked...or cooked. I still have plenty of work I should be doing. All the best.

You too dude.