For sure. Erickson came across as extremely petty. He admitted he loved Huntsman’s platform and thought he had an admirable record, but he just didn’t like John Weaver, and didn’t like Huntsman’s “tone” in debates. To be sure, Huntsman’s strategy for this primary has been awfully questionable, but Erickson was childish in his dismissals of Huntsman initially.
It’s understandable in a sense that a candidate of Huntsman’s stature out of the domestic loop for two years sails back totally underestimating the extent to which he would end up in a fight for money, media attention or especially credibility.
What he should have been advised of early on was that the New Hampshire one state insurgent McCain strategy requires voters at least have a modicum of faith that they aren’t throwing away their ballot on a candidate the rest of the country hadn’t the foggiest idea even exists. Romney people were not going to peel off to a fringe media candidate with zero national name recognition or backing and right wingers not especially in the face of more pandering conservative alternatives. Huntsman came with such obvious handicaps of to the Tea Party of globalism, elitism, liberal media love, Obama background etc. that Erickson is only making excuses by blaming campaign strategy and then pretending he never knew who this guy was to begin with. Jon was pegged as a Romney stalker by the press, tied at the hip to the global corporate establishment and never had a fighting chance against the more populist Tea Party grassroots candidates. If Cain or Perry etc had panned out as viable contenders, commentators suddenly turned on to Huntsman would be singing a completely different tune about his credentials today.
Center right Independents were there for the taking with a self-financed national introduction to give the impression of a serious effort followed by more focused spending and messaging tactics in New Hampshire and elsewhere. Seems so obvious in retrospect...:)