Huntsman-Bachmann in 2012?

Ed Rogers, a former White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and chairman of BGR Group, a Washington lobbying firm, has a column in the Washington Post that makes the preposterous proposal of a Huntsman-Bachmann ticket for 2012. I get the Huntsman part, but Bachmann - or "Crazy Eyes" as blogger Joe Jervis calls her? I can't figure out whether Rogers is serious, writing tongue in cheek or fell in the shower and suffered head trauma. He's right that Huntsman would likely make a good candidate but cannot get the nomination given who the patients have taken over the insane asylum now known as the GOP. But, to try to describe Bachmann as any less crazy than Sarah Palin strains credulity. I think the woman is nothing short of a certifiable loon and the thought of her as VP sends shivers down my back - and an urge to emigrate quickly. No one "on the left" needs to Palinize Bachmann - she's up to that task all by herself. Here are some column highlights:
*
Former governor and ambassador Jon Huntsman is an articulate, attractive, cerebral, urbane internationalist. He’s a proven conservative with a reassuring, moderate tone and a model family. His vast experience in state and federal government, including service as a diplomat, clearly makes him qualified to be president. In other words, he is “toast” in today’s Republican Party, and he has very little chance to be the 2012 nominee.
*
The GOP, with its traditional approach to the nominating process, will never give former Utah governor Huntsman room to explain his participation in the Obama administration and nuanced issues, such as his position on immigration. He will never satisfy the most angry members of our party. And if he somehow managed to win the nomination, a third-party candidate could attack him from the right and almost guarantee Obama’s reelection.
*
Meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann is a GOP leader to watch. She is a star in the party and bulletproof with our right wing. . . . But she also has many glib, shallow positions; for instance, we will not balance the budget next year. That and her lack of experience produce a negative stereotype that the mainstream media are eager to help her develop. The left will be vicious and eager to Palinize Bachmann before she builds any momentum.
*
Huntsman and Bachmann should have a meeting of the minds and offer themselves as a Huntsman-led ticket before the Iowa caucuses next year. Think about it. Unless there is a new dynamic to the 2012 campaign, Huntsman probably can’t win the nomination and Bachmann probably shouldn’t. But beating Obama will require a fresh approach.
*
Republicans need to do something radical. If we go through the drudgery of the primaries with a weak field, produce a weak nominee, and face an impoverished spring and early summer of 2012, followed by a tiresome, cliched August convention, we will give Obama a huge advantage.
*
We can’t just count on a bad economy to defeat Obama for us. If the routine process is left intact, I am sure we will produce a nominee who will have some good moments in the fall going head to head with Obama. But we must assume that the president will still have a lot of personal goodwill, that he will still give good speeches and that the Democrats will have an advantage in money and organization.
*
Let’s try something different. Take the best team the party can offer and get it started early. Let’s give ourselves a chance. We can’t compete with the Obama team on its terms or on its preferred calendar.
*
That Bachmann can be considered part of the "best team" for anything is scary and speaks volumes about what has become of a once respectable political party.