Land of the resentful and home of the petulant

It was common intelligence among Democrats that the Republican candidate who could most effectively challenge Barack Obama on his own ground was Jon Huntsman.  It was not surprising that Huntsman garnered such tepid support from the Republican party because it has adopted anti-intellectualism and anti-accomplishment as primary values for determining what is a real conservative.  Accomplishment is revered, of course, when it means the practice of predatory capitalism and the aggressive diminishing of the middle  class into a new mass of the poor.  (The GOP hollers about class warfare, but elates over the pogrom against working people, probably because they think their groveling before the rich will earn them a place in the one percent.)  The militant and near-violent assaults on anything deemed liberal comes from people who can conceive of success only in terms of who possesses the most toys, the most wealth.  The nation has, indeed, strained to become, in Oscar Wilde's words, a people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.


Jon Huntsman possessed some traits which are anathemas  to the GOP ideals.  He showed evidence of some talents beside money grubbing and some experience that required intelligence and education in the discharge of duties.  He spoke Mandarin, played the piano rather well, and got off of the conservative message on topics such as global warming.  Mitt Romney accused him of a treason-like betrayal for accepting an appointment as ambassador to China from President Obama.  And although he repeated some of party-line anti-Obama slogans, he did not do it sufficiently enough like Joseph Goebbels castigating the Jews and blaming them for all the ills of the world.  His Republican opponents, such as Rick Santorum, used the nasty m-word on him:  moderate.  His experience as governor of Utah earned him little respect in the GOP (Gangstas of Petulance).


The depth of resentment Huntsman could inspire came out in the Washington Post following his suspension of his campaign.  Two columnists, Alexandra Petri and Jennifer Rubin, wrote pieces that were supposed to be couched in humor but came off as bitter and bitchy.  


The pieces seethed with jealousy and resentment of that kind the small-minded exhibit when some one does something that surpasses and outclasses them.  They both descended into a juvenile, witless derision: 

Petri:  "Each of the Huntsman voters had a different reason for supporting him. One liked his hair. Three more were confused and thought this was the Democratic primary. Another one just thought he looked the “most Mad Men” of the Republican field. The last turned out to be Jon Huntsman in disguise."

 Rubin:  "The most amusing thing about the campaign — and there wasn’t much to amuse — was the foolish attention it extracted from the mainstream media. Sometimes the coverage was laughably fawning. His spread in Vogue magazine induced cackles on the right. (“His left eyebrow is pitched slightly lower than the other, and the eye below it has a slight squint. This gives him a perpetual expression of thoughtful engagement, the look of someone listening intently to what others are saying.”)"

Some South Dakota bloggers who show that great penchant for pettiness might take lessons here in how it is done in the big leagues. 

The demise of the Huntsman campaign is a great comfort to those who fear and loathe anything resembling an intellectual challenge.  And so, Jon Huntsman throws his support behind Mitt Romney, and we will get to hear paeans of praise to a free enterprise system that has brought the country to its knees and condemnations of those unpatriotic and treasonous souls who endanger America by having an occasional original thought or an actual accomplishment.

They will take America back.  Right to the primal soup.