Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman took a startling position in the GOP debates last night — he suggested that the party not “run from science.” After candidates have lined up to reject everything from global warming to evolution, Huntsman is a standout in his Galileo moment in the GOP.
Huntsman stated:
“Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I’m saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can’t run from science. We can’t run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We’ve got to win voters.”
Wow.
I have long admired Jon Huntsman after we testified together before a House Committee when he was still governor of Utah. We then by coincidence flew back to Utah on the same plane. I found him very bright and engaging. I have little doubt that, if the GOP nominated Huntsman, they would win the White House — with many independent and Democratic votes going to Huntsman. He is moderate on many issues and exceptionally knowledgable about business issues. He also believes in science — a promising factor for a president. It is remarkable that such a position would make Huntsman a standout, but that is a measure of the times in which we are living. Of course, he lost the Pope Urban VIII vote.
With Obama at record lows in the polls, the Democrats are hanging their hopes on the GOP selecting an extremist and rejecting Huntsman. It has been pretty clear for months that Democrats are not going to be given a choice in their own party despite the desire of some to dump Obama. The problem is that Obama is now so unpopular that even some of the more extreme candidates might be able beat him.
Last night, Ron Paul won the straw polling after the debate.
Source: CBS
@Elaine,
“And, perhaps, certain men being guided by their penises when they think/thought and make/made important decisions has brought us to where we are today.”
Do men act just as stupidly, greedily, violently, corruptly, as women? Yes they do. Voting your penis is just as stupid as voting your vagina. Except that everyone can define exactly what voting your vagina means, and for the life of me, at the moment, I have no idea what the hell you mean when you talk about men being guided by their penises. Is that something objective and well defined, or just more bullshit, sounds nice, nonsense you spew to make yourself feel better and a victim and above others?
Anyway, I think you do all women and humanity a disservice when you cast women as some historical victim in society. Didn’t they teach you anything useful in your women’s studies classes about women leaders, women soldiers, women scientists, women researchers, women lawyers?
So you are saying that you’d vote for a pro choice Republican, right?
Swarthmore mom
1, September 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm
AY, The very same people that want to force women to bear children also want to end family planning services. The discussion started out with Huntsman, and I disagreed that he would be better for the poor and unemployed than Obama. Read Huntsman’s tax plan. It raises taxes on the poor and middle class and lowers them on the wealthy. At least Obama is trying to extend the middle class tax cut. So that being said what is so great about Huntsman?
*************
Excuse me….After you called me a Republican, a Misogynist and committed the greatest of all which is to disagree by subterfuge….You really don’t expect me to answer whats so great about Huntsman do you?
Rather than using subterfuge to get your point across, tell me what is so great about Obama…or I may have quit listening based upon your accusations….
Blouise, “The Republican war on women is reaches much further than the single abortion issue.”
Exactly.
Abortion is the centerpiece but the architect’s know that if you remove the ability of women to control their own bodies around the whole panoply of womwn’s health issues you basically can control their behaviour (for certain segments of the female population) in other areas such as employment and education. It’s a desire to recast females in the ‘submissive’ mold advocated in the Bible. It also works for the racist fringe that want more white babies, a pov we have had espoused on this blawg in a couple of comments.
@Elaine,
“I do look distrustfully at those that do not consider women’s rights when discussing human rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with me personally. It has to do with lack of consideration for women in general.””
Why don’t you demonstrate I lack consideration for women in general….
Your own comment demonstrates either ignorance or complicity. Time after time modern feminists explain that they are both a human rights movement as well as a movement that prioritizes women over men.
“AY, Keep searching for your “good” republican to replace “bad” Obama. Suppose you think Kagan and Sotomayor are worse than Alito and Roberts, too. Obviously women’s issues are of no concern.”
There is no way to identify SM’s post here as anything other than an uncivil bullshit attack based on bullying.
You can certainly easily disagree with SM and still be a proponent of women’s and men’s equality.
anon,
“So no, voting one issue, voting your vagina, is a losing way.”
And, perhaps, certain men being guided by their penises when they think/thought and make/made important decisions has brought us to where we are today.
😉
@AY, I am just tired of @SM’s constant stream of misandry in thread after thread that goes unremarked, why? Because it’s not PC to do so. Because we think there is some progressive value in bashing men.
And In this thread she calls once more for a black and white vote against someone based on a single issue.
This is the strategy the Corporate Dems use to bludgeon us time and again into voting for Obama and other tools, because any alternative IS DEATH HITLER FASCISTS TEA PARTY RACISTS.
Greenwald took that meme down a month or so back. We should all refuse to be bludgeoned by speech policing, gate keeping bullies insisting that if we don’t vote for their single issue, the result is HITLER.
So no, voting one issue, voting your vagina, is a losing way.
AY:
interesting analysis.
“The Abortion Issue debate makes up less than 5% of the voter base if I recall…from a segment of NPR…not generally a station frequented by republicans….That is sometimes the margin to elect someone…How does one say this gracefully and not sound like a misogynist, we have greater fish to fry than Abortion at this present moment” (AY)
The Republican war on women is reaches much further than the single abortion issue. But, for the moment, let’s look at the latest republican move on the abortion field
(May, 2011)The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” proposed by Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., one of the House’s leading abortion opponents, would not allow small businesses to deduct the cost of private employee insurance plans if the plans cover abortion. The tax deductibility of policies is the foundation of employer-provided health insurance. The bill would tightly narrow the range of policy choices or lead insurance plans to drop abortion coverage. Eighty-seven percent of private insurance plans currently include such coverage for abortion. We’re not talking federal funds … now we’re talking private insurance plans … the republican party dictating private insurance plans for women.
I’ve registered to be part of a Telephone Town Hall with Senator Sherrod Brown on September 20, 2011 @ 6:30PM. The subject will be the war against women.
Posted at 10:40 AM ET, 09/08/2011
How would Ronald Reagan have fared at last night’s GOP debate?
By Ezra Klein
“There’s no doubt who won last night’s Republican presidential debate: Ronald Reagan. He even got a montage set to the Verve’s Bittersweet Symphony.
But the funny thing is that if the actual Ronald Reagan had been on that stage defending his actual record, he would almost certainly have lost. In fact, he would have been destroyed.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/2011/08/25/gIQAx6vECK_blog.html
LOL! I’ve got to learn to touch-type someday, by the time I type a posting and get it submitted someone else (or 8) has already made the point, discussed it, refuted it or failed to do it persuasively and the discussion has moved on….
+++
Gene H, OOOOH, you’re a subtle mook a’right 🙂
Anonymously Yours
1, September 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm
SWM,
The Abortion Issue debate makes up less than 5% of the voter base…
——–
AY, I disagree. There is a steadily increasing war against women going on in this country and the number of single issue voters over abortion rights is entirely disproportionate to the number of politicians and candidates that expouse the philosophy and the legal leverage they can bring to bear on the issue.
The same people that have chipped away at Roe to the point that some states have made receiving an abortion a series of time consuming, expensive and degrading hoops to jump through are the same people that call contraception ‘silent abortion’ and now are taking that argument into the mainstream. They are the same people and special interest groups that have levered the Hyde Amendment and even more draconian legislation at the state level. they are the same people that advocate ‘no abortion for any- ANY- reason’ and their politicians are bringing that kind of legislation to state houses. They are the same people and special interests that have successfully carved out religious exemptions for pharmacy workers and other health care professionals in the dispensing of contraceptives and other medicines specific to women. They are the same people and special interest groups that have defunded planned parenthood.
Yes, it’s an issue. A big one.
Gene, He is good looking and rich but I guess you could say the same thing about Romney….. Those two have moved ever closer.
In an abundance of caution, I’m not going to say dick about this twist in the conversation. (Gene H.)
I remember a few moons ago when someone (he, who shall remain nameless) jokingly complained that the “mean girls” were after him and asked for some support. No one came to his aid … 😉
AY,
I’ll have to agree with SwMom about Huntsman. I too thought he was possibly a reasonable candidate until I heard his tax plan. He lost any traction he had with me over that issue.
lotta^..^s,
I’m just glad someone picked up the reference. Now if you’ll pardon me, I’ve got to talk to a flatfoot about a gunsel. We’re going to see if we can arrange for a brief detour to the hoosegow. If he cracks wise? Maybe he gets the big sleep. You never can tell. These streets are rough, sister. 😉
AY, The very same people that want to force women to bear children also want to end family planning services. The discussion started out with Huntsman, and I disagreed that he would be better for the poor and unemployed than Obama. Read Huntsman’s tax plan. It raises taxes on the poor and middle class and lowers them on the wealthy. At least Obama is trying to extend the middle class tax cut. So that being said what is so great about Huntsman?
Gene,
Even Ann Richards could be a dick at one time….
I think being a dick and actually having balls are two different things…People can have balls without being a dick…you can be dicked around by people without any balls….
Gene H.
1, September 8, 2011 at 2:41 pm
In an abundance of caution, I’m not going to say dick about this twist in the conversation
——
“Twist” was slang for a woman of easy virtue, one runs across it in those wonderful old detective/noir novels: ‘that twist will take you for everything you got’. I loves me that noir. Don’t get me all free-associating Gene, there lies madness. 🙂