The G.O.P. Can’t Ignore Climate Change

To my mind, the man who could have defeated Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential contest was Jon M. Huntsman, former governor of Utah and former ambassador to China.  The only problem was that Huntsman is not sufficiently insane or willing enough to be a lying demagogue to win the votes  of the toxic mix of racists, religious extremists and ignorance embracing know nothings that has become the Republican Party base.   A party base that seeks only to have politicians tell it what it wants to hear and who speak in dog whistle code words which fan prejudices against all but white, heterosexual, conservative Christians - those deemed "other" by the self-styled "real Americans."   Despite his rejection by the GOP, Huntsman continues to say what needs to be said rather than what the knuckle draggers and Koch brother cretinous audience want to hear.   In a column in the New York Times, Huntsman takes the GOP to task for its steadfast refusal to accept the reality of climate change.  Here are column highlights:

“TO waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”

These words were spoken by one of the nation’s most passionate conservationists: Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. I admire him for his pragmatism and individualism — foundational traits of the Republican Party. We must summon these qualities and apply them immediately and stoutly to the issue of climate change.

Leading up to the elections of 2008, Republican leaders at all levels were working innovatively across party and ideological divides to address environmental issues, including climate change. They included names like Huckabee, Pawlenty, Schwarzenegger and McCain. I was re-elected with almost 80 percent of the vote in bright red Utah as an environmentally forward-leaning Republican.

But there has been a shift among Republicans on climate change.   Last fall, 50 percent said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth . . . . down from 2006, when 59 percent of Republicans held that view.Perhaps some of this shift has to do with the economic collapse and a resulting change in concerns and priorities. At the same time, many party leaders may have felt the need to run for cover because of growing pressure from the Tea Party. 

What’s been lost is any Republican creative thinking on the issue.

So obtuse has become the party’s dialogue on climate change that it’s now been reduced to believing or not believing, as if it were a religious mantra. 

This approach reached a new low last month during a North Carolina congressional debate at which all the Republican candidates chuckled at a question on climate change — as if they had been asked about their belief in the Tooth Fairy.

The implications were underscored once again on Tuesday, when a team of more than 300 scientists warned in a report to the White House of “mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.”

Our approach as a party should be one of neither denial nor extremism.  . . . . . While there is room for some skepticism given the uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, the fact is that the planet is warming, and failing to deal with this reality will leave us vulnerable — and possibly worse. Hedging against risk is an enduring theme of conservative thought. It is also a concept diverse groups can embrace.

If Republicans can get to a place where science drives our thinking and actions, then we will be able to make progress. We need to plan for the impacts of climate change at all levels of government.

Republicans need to get back to our foundational roots as catalysts for innovation and problem solving.  . . . . As Teddy Roosevelt teaches us, it would be foolhardy to undermine the environmental richness that will serve to empower our future generations.

Sadly, I suspect Huntsman's wise words will fall on deaf ears within the swamp fever ridden GOP base.

Quote of the Day: Jon Huntsman - Conservatives Should Lead the Push for Gay Marriage

This blog and other outlets have argued that gay marriage is a conservative institution and that true conservatives - as opposed to religious extremists and the political whores that pander to them - should support gay marriage because it encourages stable committed relationships.  Outside of gay activists and some converts such as attorney Ted Olson, too many politicians are afraid to state this truth out of fear of the wrath of the animus filled gay haters of the Christian Right.  One who is not plagued by such fears is former Utah Governor and former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman who as Andrew Sullivan reports has made the following remarks:

While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn’t have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.

That was four years ago. Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

I continue to believe that if the GOP had been smart (and not dominated by Christofascists) it would have nominated Huntsman rather than Mitt Romney.  Huntsman is someone I likely could have supported.  Moreover, he might have beat Obama.  Unfortunately, today's GOP is not focused on winning elections but instead on enforcing extremer religious dogma.
 

The GOP's Growing Civil War Over Gay Marriage

Former and active-duty Navy sailors gather before the Gay Pride Parade on July 16, 2011, in San Diego

Few things symbolize the struggle for the soul - a virtual civil war, if you will - of the Republican Party in terms of accepting modernity and reforming itself to recognize a changing society and demographics than the the issue of gay marriage.  Yesterday's filing of a brief arguing that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage by roughly 80 prominent Republicans and conservatives will likely mark a new line in the sand between the competing forces within the GOP and can be expected to cause the religious extremists who were foolishly allowed to infiltrate and take over the party grassroots (which is certainly what happened in Virginia) go utterly berserk.  Nothing threatens the house of cards belief system of these people more that the prospect that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality and that being gay is a normal aspect of humanity for some of us.  (In truth, they should be more worried that Adam and Eve did not exist as historical figures since it undercuts the entire salvation story line).  A piece in the National Journal looks at the struggle.  Here are excerpts:

As Republicans rebound from the 2012 election and plot their future, an uncomfortable debate over gay rights is taking place.

Some party leaders are promoting a more inclusive approach to help the GOP modernize its image and reach across the generational divide. Polls show a narrow majority of Americans--and an overwhelming number of young people--think same-sex couples should have the right to marry. “The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history,” wrote former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman last week in declaring his support for gay marriage.

The marriage debate is expected to reach fever pitch next month when the Supreme Court hears opening arguments in challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage. The massive publicity surrounding these court cases will make it difficult for Republican politicians who want to keep their distance from the debate while offering others a chance to proclaim the party's support for traditional marriage.

Gay marriage opponents warn of consequences if Republicans retreat from championing traditional marriage.  “I don’t think that’s a constructive attitude to take because Republican officials cannot win without social conservatives,” said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. “They are the core base of the Republican Party and the most active volunteers, and it would make no sense to turn their backs on them.” 

Opponents of gay marriage are planning a “March for Marriage” in Washington, D.C., on March 26. The speaker’s lineup has not yet been released. “The fight for marriage is absolutely not over. It’s going strong,” said Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage. “The idea that there’s a consensus on overthrowing marriage is absurd.”

Still, the momentum appears to be on the side of gay right supporters, who won four ballot initiatives in 2012 and are eying marriage equality laws in Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii. Efforts to repeal gay marriage bans are underway in Oregon, New Jersey and Ohio. Barack Obama became the first president to invoke gay rights in an inaugural speech last month.

Still, gay Republicans feel excluded from most conservative corners, including the high-profile CPAC conference last month that will showcase likely presidential contenders and other rising stars in the party.   .  .  .  .  “If people are concerned about the future of the conservative movement, they know we need to broaden our appeal,” said the group’s executive director Jimmy LaSalvia. “They need to deal with the political reality of this issue, and beating the drum against gay marriage is a political loser.”

LaSalvia's mistake is that he talks as if the Christofascists were logical and reasonable.  They are not and I do not see them leaving the alternate universe bubble to embrace objective reality much less gay marriage.  Instead, I suspect we will see growing hysteria and attacks on Republicans who try to move the GOP into the 21st century.

Prominent Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Tony Perkins and other professional Christians who enrich themselves by disseminating anti-gay hate are going to be ever so pissed at a new development:  dozens of prominent Republicans have signed a brief supporting the right of gays to marry and asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8.  While Bobby Jindal and others in the GOP refuse to acknowledge that anti-gay policies are toxic for the GOP's long term viability, the Republicans who signed this brief can see reality and know that they must support equality in the long term or perish.  Here are highlights from a New York Times piece:

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election. 

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. 

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.” 

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions. 

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.  .  .  .  .  Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed.

[T]he presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.” 

In making an expansive argument that same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory, the brief’s signatories are at odds with the House Republican leadership, which has authorized the expenditure of tax dollars to defend the 1996 marriage law. The law defines marriage in the eyes of the federal government as the union of a man and a woman. 

Experts say that amicus briefs generally do not change Supreme Court justices’ minds. But on Monday some said that the Republican brief, written by Seth P. Waxman, a former solicitor general in the administration of President Bill Clinton, and Reginald Brown, who served in the Bush White House Counsel’s Office, might be an exception. 

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus filing “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.” 

He added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

Yes indeed, the spittle will be flying in sheets in hate group offices around the country.  The GOP needs to accept the reality that the battle against gay marriage is futile.  Meanwhile, I continue to believe that the GOP cannot be saved until the Christofascists are driven from the party and exiled to the political wilderness where they belong.

Jon Huntsman: Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause

Echoing a theme that Andrew Sullivan voiced years ago and which more recently the Tory Party leadership in Britain has embraced, Jon Huntsman has come out for gay marriage and said that the Republican Party needs to shed its anti-gay mindset.  Lest we forget, Huntsman is a Mormon with a conservative although his record when he was governor of Utah sought moderation on gay issues.  Huntsman also argues that the GOP needs to rethink its positions on numerous others, including tax reform and immigration.  Obviously, to the Christofascists and white supremacists in the GOP base, Huntsman is a heretic.  Personally,  I believe that Huntsman is a pragmatist who sees the GOP's homophobia as harming the Republican Party's long term viability.  So long as religious denominations are free to recognize or not recognize same sex marriage, civil marriage should be open to all committed loving couples, gay or straight.  Here are highlights from a piece in The American Conservative written by Huntsman:

The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has focused on cosmetic solutions to, say, our underperformance among ethnic and young voters. This is a mistake: we cannot cross this river by feeling for stones. Instead, we need to take a hard look at what today’s conservatism stands for.

Conservatives can start by examining how Republicans working with Democrats have governed in several successful states, including Utah; free-market-based healthcare reform, tax reform that eliminated deductions and closed loopholes to bring down rates, and practical education reforms that spoke to 21st-century realities.

Instead of using immigration reform as a wedge issue, like many leaders in Washington, Utah passed legislation to help manage immigration based on our real economic needs.  .  .  .  .  Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors.

And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans.

While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn’t have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.

That was four years ago. Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.

I have always liked Huntsman and believe that the GOP threw away its chance of winning in 2012 by kicking Huntsman to the curb.  Huntsman's only crime, if you will, was that he wasn't a nutcase and wasn't willing to prostitute himself to the worse elements of the GOP base.  He sees the future while the gay haters and racists in the GOP are trying to recapture a past that will never again exist - if it ever even existed as they like to think it did.  Will the GOP listen to his wisdom?  Probably not.  I can just image the spittle flying at FRC and other hater groups that control far too many of the GOP's policies.

Jon Huntsman Slams the GOP Again

It is interesting to see a conservative like Jon Huntsman repeatedly slam the lunacy of today's GOP.  I personally believe that had Huntsman been the GOP nominee instead of Romney, the election results might have differed..Huntsman is correct that the party has become too extreme and unwilling to accept objective reality not to mention simple math.  The problem is now that the GOP base has become so insane that the GOP nomination process makes it nearly impossible for a non-extremist - or someone unwilling to prostitute them-self to the extremists - to secure the nomination. It is also noteworthy that Huntsman indicated that states should be allowed to enact gay marriage laws - something anathema to the GOP's Christofascist elements.  Here are excerpts from an article in the Daily Telegraph:

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the former Utah governor and leading Republican moderate said the party must accept "a strong dose of libertarianism" on social issues and allow state governments to move ahead with gay marriage.

Offering his prescription for the party's renewal, Mr Huntsman said the early stages of the Republican presidential primaries rewarded extreme conservatives rather than "long-term competitive candidates" who could effectively take on the Democrats. 

 he scale of Mitt Romney's defeat in November has left the party reeling and may create a fresh opening for the socially-moderate but fiscally-conservative ideas Mr Huntsman espoused in the primary.
"The party right now is a holding company that's devoid of a soul and it will be filled up with ideas over time and leaders will take their proper place," he said.

Mr Huntsman urged the party to "reflect a little bit on our winning chapters" and face up to a demographic reality where white conservatives represent a shrinking portion of the electorate. "We can't be known as a party that's fear-based and doesn't believe in math," he said. "In the end it will come down to a party that believes in opportunity for all our people, economic competitiveness and a strong dose of libertarianism."

He said he "absolutely" supported individual states being allowed to implement gay marriage, saying that Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, believed that "equality under the law is an American value". 

Mr Huntsman cautioned that the improving economy would put Mr Obama's Democratic successor in a strong position for 2016 but said that eight years of incumbency would take a toll on the President's party. 

Jon Huntsman to GOP: Avoid "Fringe Issues"

Personally, I continue to believe that if any of the original pack of GOP presidential nomination contestants might have been able to defeat Barack Obama it is Jon Huntsman.  The problem, of course was that Huntsman wasn't crazy or extreme enough to attract the increasingly deranged and theocratic GOP base.  Like Bruce Bartlett and some other rational conservatives who have been ridden out of the GOP on a rail, Huntsman seems to be having some saying "I told you so."  In his latest salvo, Huntsman tells the GOP to avoid "fringe issues."  The problem is that the entire GOP base is now made up of a faction of fringe issue extremists: Christofascists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-tax maniacs, and last but not least the white supremacists.   Thus, Huntsman's recommendation is largely impossible to implement.   Here are highlights from Politico on Huntsman's advice to the GOP:

Jon Huntsman said Friday that if the GOP can stay away from “fringe issues” and instead focuses on bread-and-butter Republican principles, the party will be better for it.

“If we stick to a mantra that says strong individual liberty and economic freedom and a right-sized government, that’s always going to be relevant for the American people based on our constitutional government,” the former Utah governor and presidential hopeful said on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “But we kind of drift in areas where we take on fringe issues, and it gets us stuck in the alleyways of life that take our focus away from what is really important for the American people, and that is individual freedom and that is getting the budgets balanced so people can get on with their lives.”

Huntsman praised the soul-searching the GOP has undertaken since it’s Nov. 6 losses, but added that ultimately, the party needs a simplified “mission statement.”

“We have some structural issues,” he said. “I think the deliberation about the Republican Party that we’re having is a very healthy thing. And if we don’t wind up at the end of the exercise with a mission statement that is one sentence long, then we’re toast. That one statement ought to be, ‘Balance the budgets and get out of people’s lives.’

“So what did the two most important people in this country sit down and talk about yesterday at lunch?” Huntsman said, referencing President Barack Obama’s Thursday meeting with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. “When everything else is done, and the election is wrapped up, it isn’t about social issues. It isn’t about the fringe issues. They sat down and talked about America’s leadership in the world. So at the end of the day, that’s what matters most, to Republicans, and to Democrats. How do you get to where we need to be?”

Of course, jettisoning social issues would drive the Christofascists berserk.  Let's be candid, the far right wants to interfere in everyone's life and dictate what they can believe, how they can or cannot control their own bodies and who they can love.  By all appearances, the Christofascists still have gotten the message that the larger public does NOT want what the Christofascists are selling.

Gary Bauer Insists GOP Can Win If More Antigay

Peter Lorre look alike (at his most creepy, of course) and Joseph Goebbels like propagandist Gary  Bauer has a solution as to how the Republican Party can turn around its losing streak: become more stridently anti-gay.  One can only wonder what kind of mind altering drugs Bauer is taking or what sort of severe head trauma he has suffered to come to this conclusion in the wake of last week's vote on anti-gay initiatives in four states, all of which went down to defeat.  Oh, and let's not forget all the recent polls that indicate that outside of the South, gay marriage is approaching a tipping point of majority approval.  None of this matters in the delusional world of Bauer and his fellow modern day Pharisees.  The Advocate looks at Bauer's batshitery which I am sure the Democrats would love to see the GOP implement to hasten its death spiral.  Meanwhile Jon Huntsman - who in my view might have defeated Obama had he won the GOP nomination - politely says that Bauer is nuts.  Here are highlights:

As Republicans argue about the future of their party, Gary Bauer claims the way to lure minority voters into the fold is by amplifying their antigay policy positions. Recent data, though, seems contradictory to his advice.

Bauer led a PAC called the "Campaign for Working Families" that bought ads during the election for the likes of Missouri's failed Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin — the "legitimate rape" candidate who as congressman tried to ban same-sex weddings on military bases. Bauer said during a discussion on CNN's State of the Union that social issues supposedly unite minority voters.

But on marriage equality, Bauer's contention doesn't match with exit polling or with major polls of Latino voters conducted since President Obama offered his support for letting gays and lesbians marry.

ABC News reported on Election Night that preliminary exit polls showed Latino voters are actually more likely than other voters to back same-sex marriage, with 59% siding with equality.

That finding matched almost exactly with a poll from NBC Latino/IBOPE Zogby in October that found 60% support marriage equality.

Bauer had appeared Thursday on The Janet Mefferd Show and insisted that the reason Romney lost was his failure to talk more about social issues. It's a theme others like the National Organization for Marriage's president, Brian Brown, have also struck.

Former Utah governor and Obama administration ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, was also on the CNN panel and insisted "people don't want to be moralized to, they don't want to be lectured to" and above all they "want to be left alone."

"The Republican Party needs to decide whether it wants to win or lose going forward," said Huntsman, who lost the Republican primary race for president.

Jon Huntsman Reflects on the GOP's Insanity

Of the various GOP presidential primary candidates for the 2012 nomination, the only one I really liked and perhaps could have voted for was Jon Huntsman.  The man is smart, conservative yet not insane, and seemed unwilling to utterly prostitute himself to the Christofascist and Tea Party elements of the GOP base.  Not surprisingly, he was among the first primary candidates to bow out for the very reasons I just listed.  Now, Huntsman speaks his mind in an interview with The Penn Gazette - the newspaper of his Alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.    His comments are largely directly on point.  Not that reality, a respect for science, and sanity in general are exactly attributes of today's GOP.  Here are highlights:

By some reckonings, Jon M. Huntsman Jr. C’87 Hon’10 came across as the most reasoned and nuanced of the Republican candidates. Which, in the Alice in Wonderland universe that is the primary season, may be why he didn’t come close to winning.

“Too much in the way of well thought-out and developed policy papers, and not enough in the way of pandering,” he said drily in a recent phone interview. “Lesson learned.”

When he announced his candidacy in June 2011, the popular former governor of Utah offered detailed policy prescriptions and a worldview that sometimes bucked party trends. (The GOP should not become the “anti-science” party, he warned, and banks that are “too big to fail” are simply too big.) He declined to “run down” either his Republican rivals or President Obama, under whom he had served as US ambassador to China.

Huntsman spoke by phone with Gazette senior editor Samuel Hughes at the end of July.

How difficult is it to get a nuanced message out in the political and media climate today?

It’s almost impossible. As you can tell, I failed miserably at it. My own approach was to say, “I’m not going to pander; I’m not going to do the pledge stuff. I’m just going to tell it like it is.” And I try to describe the world based on what it is, based on my own experiences, either in business, or as a policymaker as governor, or as a practitioner of foreign policy as ambassador. And if people don’t like what I have to offer, I’ll gladly move along, but I’m not going to change the pitch or the tone or the content of my message.

How much does that primary fight hurt moderate candidates?

Well, call me naïve. I’ve been twice elected governor. I ran on getting things done, on putting forward solutions, solutions that were not always within the context of my own party, but rather were solutions that I thought were right for all of the people, or at least most of those I represented as governor.  .   .   .   .   And I thought I’d bring that same sort of approach to problem-solving and framing the issues that needed to be addressed to the run for the presidency—only to find that early, at least in the primary phase, you get a fraction of voters turning out in Iowa, in New Hampshire, but certainly South Carolina and Florida. And they want to be, in a sense, entertained. They want red-meat politics. They don’t want solutions. Don’t explain the world in terms of what it is and where you want to take the nation. We want the president vilified. We want the politics of personal destruction.

You’ve said that the Republican Party is not in a good place right now. How much is that the fault of political leaders, and how much the fault of the voters?

Well, we don’t have any political leaders right now, and that’s part of the problem. People will follow leaders, those who offer a vision and offer a pathway forward. I mean, I can name them throughout the last hundred years who have done exactly that. You can’t blame it on the proliferation of media outlets or the blogosphere or the different voices now that weigh in. Leadership is leadership. And we just don’t have it now in the Republican Party.

You said that you believe in the science of, for example, global warming. Why is this an issue? Can’t religion and science coexist in the country?

I’m absolutely of that opinion. But again, my party, at least a lot of the early organizers, don’t subscribe to the idea that our policymaking should be based on science or some empirical connection to science. It’s common sense. And I always used it as governor as well, to drive everything that I did. If the scientific community weighs in on something that should be informing public policy, then we should stop and listen and be informed by people who have spent a lifetime training and researching in a particular subject area. And it will allow us to make better public policy around that. And I think climate change is one such area. It’s fallen victim to politics. Yet when I look at Congress, I don’t see a lot of physicists present. I don’t see any climate scientists. I don’t see people who’ve done a whole lot of research. But everybody’s got an opinion on it.

I say, come on, time out, folks. Let’s turn to those who actually do this for a living. Let them justify the science of climate change. If you let science do what science is supposed to do, they’re going to render a good judgment that’s peer reviewed and based on rigorous scrutiny, and we’re going to have good information on which to base public policy. 

I don't think Huntsman's comments will endear him the the lunatic base of the Republican Party.  That said, one can only hope that should the Romney-Ryan ticket go down in flames as some of us hope, perhaps Huntsman could have another shot in 2016.

Huntsman Criticizes Republican Party, Compares It To Communist China

Former GOP presidential nominee candidate Jon Huntsman has made some statements which, while true in my opinion, are surely going to set the extremists within the GOP off in a major way.  Perhaps my favorite statement was when Huntsman said of the GOP's ideological rigidity "this is what they do China on party matters if you talk off script" and then went on to say "I don’t know what world these people are living in"  in the context of GOP foreign policy views.  Huntsman's comments are timely since increasingly the GOP base seems to live in some sort of alternate universe where facts and objective reality simply do not matter.  Hence the party's effort to re-implement the horrifically failed policies of the Bush/Cheney regime that set the stage for the current economic malaise that continues to grip the country.  A column in Huffington Post and a piece in The Daily Beast look at Huntsman's remarks.  First, these highlights from The Daily Beast: 

Why is Jon Huntsman going rogue? Having utterly flopped in the Republican primaries, the former Utah governor now seems intent on trashing the party.  Here are the possibilities:

--He’s really ticked off at the GOP for failing to see the brilliance of his candidacy.

--He feels he damaged his reputation with his short-lived presidential run and is doing some repair work.

--He’s bored and wants some attention.

Huntsman kicked off his rehabilitation tour Sunday night at New York’s 92^nd Street Y, saying he regretted raising his hand at one debate to oppose an imaginary budget containing $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. “What went through my head is if I veer at all from my pledge not to raise any taxes…then I’m going to have a lot of explaining to do,” he said. Translation: Nuance doesn’t sell well in a sound-bite-driven campaign. Huntsman wishes he had a do-over.

The former ambassador to Beijing also told the crowd he was disappointed that the GOP disinvited him from a Florida fundraiser after he called for a third party. His thumb-in-the-eye line was: “This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script.”

[H]ere’s the Buzzfeed lead: “Former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman took a battle axe to his own party, comparing it to China's Communist Party…” Seems on target to me.  .   .   .   .  The former governor may have a bright future, but it’s probably not as a Republican presidential candidate.

Here are some other highlights from Huffington Post:

Jon Huntsman leveled harsh criticism at his party on Sunday evening, BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller reported, comparing the Republican Party to communist China and questioning the strength of this year's presidential field.

He also criticized the Republican candidates' foreign policy stances, particularly in regard to China. "I don’t know what world these people are living in," Huntsman said. 

He also joked that his wife forbade him to pander to the party's far-right contingent ahead of Iowa's caucuses, which likely hurt him with conservative voters in the Hawkeye State.  “She said if you pandered, if you sign any of those damn pledges, I’ll leave you,” Huntsman said. "So I had to say I believe in science -- and people on stage look at you quizzically as though you're ... an oddball."

"Gone are the days when the Republican Party used to put forward big, bold, visionary stuff," Huntsman said during the February interview with MSNBC that got him disinvited from the RNC fundraiser. "I think we're going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third-party movement or some alternative voice out there that can put forward new ideas."

Huntsman to Exit Presidential Race and Endorse Romney

I have long thought that Jon Huntsman was the sanest and certainly the smartest of the would be GOP presidential nominees. Unfortunately, by definition, that made him unacceptable to the GOP base controlled by Christianists and Tea Party followers who seem to embrace only the dumbest and untethered of the GOP field. Now, apparently facing the reality of what the GOP has become and unwilling to sink money in a lost cause, Huntsman is dropping out of the nomination process and is said to be about to endorse Mitt Romney who hopes to prevail in South Carolina and end the candidacies of Rick Santorum - who in my opinion belongs in a mental institution - and the slimy thrice married serial adulterer, Newt Gingrich. Here are highlights from the Washington Post on Huntsman's planned exit:

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., whose campaign for the Republican presidential nomination never took off, will quit the race Monday morning and endorse former Mas­sachusetts governor Mitt Romney, according to campaign officials with knowledge of the decision.

Huntsman’s move comes less than a week after he placed a weak third in the New Hampshire primary. He had staked his entire candidacy on a strong finish there. Despite the outcome, he had vowed to take his campaign to South Carolina, calling his finish a “ticket to ride” in the upcoming contest, despite the long odds.

By Sunday, however, he had concluded that the better course was to bow out of the race, the officials said. Huntsman will make his announcement in Myrtle Beach, and, according to one campaign official, will urge Republicans to rally behind Romney as the GOP’s best hope of defeating President Obama in November. “There was no sense standing in the way of Romney,” one Huntsman adviser said. “Every vote we took in South Carolina and Florida was from him.”

Huntsman’s decision to leave the contest and support Romney should help the former Massachusetts governor in South Carolina, as he will be the lone candidate making a direct pitch to the establishment wing of the GOP.

The rest of the field — former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), former senator Rick Santor­um (Pa.) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry — are appealing to the party’s most conservative voters. Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) has his own constituency, which is expected to continue to deliver votes for him.

Huntsman’s record as governor included conservative and moderate elements, but he never found a constituency upon which to base his campaign. As a candidate, he seemed out of step with a party that had shifted sharply to the right while he was in Beijing.

Romney Scores Win in New Hampshire

The results of the New Hampshire primary are in and the chameleon, Mitt Romney (pictured above with his beautiful sons) was the winner with 39.2% of the vote followed by Ron Paul at 22.9% and Jon Huntsman at 16.8%. Happily, Rick Perry got less than one percent of the vote and Gingrich and Santorum each received under 10%. One can only hope that Perry will pitch his tent and head back to Texas where is sort of idiocy and bigotry are still considered statesman like. As for Gingrich, one can dream that he'd pack up and leave the campaign trail as well, but i suspect his super over inflated ego will not allow for that - at least not yet. Here are highlights from Politico:

Mitt Romney claimed a decisive and widely expected victory in Tuesday night’s New Hampshire presidential primary, easily outdistancing runner-up Ron Paul and leaving his conservative challengers trailing far at the back of the pack.

The former Massachusetts governor is the first-ever Republican who is not an incumbent president to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and Romney supporters hope his easy finish here will send a signal to the party that it’s time to start uniting behind him.

But even as Romney basked in his win — he addressed a crowd of elated supporters less than half an hour after the polls closed — his rivals signaled that they are now girding for a savage fight in South Carolina’s Jan. 21 primary.

With 69 percent of precincts reporting, Romney was drawing 38 percent of the vote to Paul’s 24 percent. In third place was Jon Huntsman, with 17 percent, followed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both with approximately 10 percent.

Rick Perry, the Texas governor who has largely avoided campaigning in New Hampshire, had less than 1 percent of the vote.

And by finishing third — even 20 points behind Romney — Huntsman gains just enough credibility as a national candidate to press his effort forward in South Carolina. In his election-night remarks, Huntsman urged his supporters to look to the next election later this month. “Ladies and gentlemen, I think we’re in the hunt,” he said. “Third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentlemen. Hello, South Carolina!”

Huntsman, whose anti-war views have earned him applause from young voters as well as moderate-leaning elites, declared in his speech: “Afghanistan is not this nation’s future, and Iraq is not this nation’s future.”

Meanwhile, the candidates who have seemed most menacing to Romney — Santorum, Gingrich and Perry — fell short even of their limited expectations in New Hampshire. Gingrich, who had earned the endorsement of New Hampshire’s powerful Union Leader newspaper, and Santorum, who rolled into the state after an encouraging near-win in Iowa, must now go into South Carolina with no particularly imposing momentum behind them.

I listened to Jon Huntsman speech and candidly, if the GOP had any sense, Huntsman ought to be the nominee. Of course, I'm not a Bible beater or GOP party hack, so my opinions surely carry no weight in those circles.

Will Huntsman Finally Gain Traction in New Hampshire?

Jon Huntsman has consistently shown himself to be the least insane and less inclined to participate in gratuitous gay bashing than the other would be GOP presidential nominees. In my opinion, he's also the GOP candidate that could give Barack Obama the most competition in the general election. Unfortunately, given just how extreme the Republican Party has become, sanity, civility and competitiveness in the general election don't score high points with the Christianists and their alter ego, the Tea Party. Iowa where Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum basically tied for first place underscores this reality. Some think that New Hampshire will prove different and that perhaps belatedly Hunstman will shine and become more competitive. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at Huntsman's chances in New Hampshire. Here are highlights:

Jon Huntsman had his best debate right on time—two days before New Hampshire votes.
And Mitt Romney had his worst debate Sunday morning, finally coming under sustained and substantive fire from his competitors, as well as the debate moderator, Meet the Press host David Gregory.

Remember that New Hampshire is different from all the other primaries in this January gauntlet—it’s open to independents, who make up more than 40 percent of the state’s electorate. And its voters are some of the least religious in the nation, unlike the social conservatives who self-select in the Iowa caucus and dominate in South Carolina.

In total, the arguments that work in the Live Free or Die State translate well to a general election. And that’s why this exchange between Huntsman and Romney, about Huntsman’s service as ambassador to China under President Obama, was so illuminating.

Huntsman: “I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first … He criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country in China. Yes, under a Democrat. Like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They're not asking what political affiliation the president is. I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country: I will always put my country first.”

Huntsman’s invocation of his two sons serving in the military is an essential reminder of a bedrock American tradition: our servicemen and women do not make their service contingent on the political persuasion of the president. That’s because they are patriots first, not partisans. Huntsman deserved the applause he received for that line.

It’s likely too late for the kind of popular surge Huntsman would need to win New Hampshire, though the polls are tightening. He remains the only candidate—including the clown candidates—who has so far been denied a broad surge of support. And, not incidentally, he is probably the most electable of the bunch against Barack Obama.

Statements like his response to Romney about serving as ambassador to China for President Obama are the reason why: “The American people are tired of the partisan division. They have had enough. There is no trust left among the American people in the institutions of power and among the American people and our elected officials … And I say we've had enough. We have to change our direction in terms of coming together as Americans, first and foremost.”

It’s both sad and striking that such common sense stands out in the current conservative debates—that it takes some measure of courage to speak for national unity rather than just offering red meat about how the president is a secular socialist. But that’s the kind of courage a real president needs. It’s the commitment that can help unify and then lead.

Boston Globe Endorses Huntsman in New Hampshire

After the most insane and reality denying elements of the Christianist/Tea Party base of the GOP in Iowa boosted Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum to a razor thin finish behind Mitt Romney, all eyes are on New Hampshire where hopefully a wooden stack will be driven through the heart of the Santorum candidacy. Now, adding a new mix to the equation is the Boston Globe's endorsement of John Huntsman in the New Hampshire contest. I have long believed that Huntsman is the most rational of the GOP candidates and, while I have reservations on how he would handle gay rights issues, might actually govern in the most reasonable manner. Here are highlights from the Boston Globe's endorsement of Huntsman:

DISSATISFACTION WITH the economy, expressed in spasms of anger toward Wall Street and Washington; the dashed hopes of many who believed that Barack Obama’s election would create a new spirit of unity; and genuine uncertainty about Democratic health care reform — all of these have created an historic opportunity for the Republican Party. Just three years removed from a Republican administration that was roundly judged a failure, the party has a chance to renew itself — to blaze a path to bipartisan action on the budget, to introduce market-based solutions to health costs, and to construct a post-Iraq War network of alliances to promote global economic strength, knowing that true security comes from both peace and prosperity.

So far, Republican presidential contenders have shown little awareness of this opportunity. . . . . Rather than compare creative policy solutions, the candidates have vied for meaningless titles like “true conservative.’’ Rather than outline a vision for a safer world, they’ve signaled a return to Bush-era posturing and disdain for allies who don’t blindly serve American interests.

Among the candidates, only two stand out as truly presidential, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Both have track records of success, and both, through their policies and demeanors, have shown the breadth of spirit to lead the nation. But while Romney proceeds cautiously, strategically, trying to appease enough constituencies to get himself the nomination, Huntsman has been bold. Rather than merely sketch out policies, he articulates goals and ideals. The priorities he would set for the country, from leading the world in renewable energy to retooling education and immigration policies to help American high-tech industries, are far-sighted. He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming.

With a strong record as governor of Utah and US ambassador to China, arguably the most important overseas diplomatic post, Huntsman’s credentials match those of anyone in the field. He would be the best candidate to seize this moment in GOP history, and the best-prepared to be president.

Serving as ambassador to China, the largest economic and military competitor to the United States, is a deeply meaningful credential. Notably, Huntsman’s nuanced foreign-policy vision of economic and strategic alliances stems from his time in Beijing. While other candidates point toward Cold War-style rejection and isolation of China, Huntsman promises deeper engagement. But he had the courage as ambassador to walk among protesters, drawing the ire of repressive Chinese authorities.

His wisdom on immigration also stands out. Though he reluctantly came to support a fence along the Mexican border, he avoids the demonization of illegal immigrants employed by Romney and some other candidates.

Backed by a team including many Bush-era hawks and neoconservatives, Romney offers bellicose language about Iran, forceful denunciations of Chinese currency manipulation, and unyielding - and entirely uncritical - support for Israel.

Already, the religious right, represented by Rick Santorum, and Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul, have pushed Romney in unwanted directions. In New Hampshire, Republican and independent voters have a chance, through Huntsman, to show him a sturdier model. Jon Huntsman would be a better president. But if he fails, he could still make Romney a better candidate.

GOP Political Whores Attend Hate Group Family Leader's "Thanksgiving Form"

You almost have to wonder whether the GOP presidential candidates who attended the so-called "Thanksgiving Forum" would attend a function sponsored say the KKK or some other white supremacy group. But after only a second of reflection, I'd say it's safe to conclude that it's more than likely that they would attend a KKK forum given the sad state of today's Republican Party where religious extremism, ignorance, and bigotry of all kinds are exalted. It's also rather telling that the two most rational of the current GOP candidate line up - who coincidentally also happen to be Mormon - chose not to sully themselves by making an appearance at the hate fest in Iowa. For those unfamiliar with the principal form host, Iowa's Family Leader (the others were Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink, the National Organization for Marriage), the organization is one of the most vitriolic anti-gay organizations anywhere. Earlier in the year, the organization asked presidential candidates to sign a "Marriage Vow" which among other things stated that African-American children born under slavery were more likely to be raised by their slave parents than today under an African-American president. Here are highlights of some of the batshitery that came down last night via Think Progress:

Rick Santorum: ‘Our Country Will Fall’ As A Result Of Same-Sex Marriage - - Rick Santorum reiterated his support for a federal marriage amendment denying marriage to gays and lesbians during Iowa’s Thanksgiving Family Forum. The former Pennsylvania senator promised to campaign against marriage equality in all 50 states and warned that “the family is the bedrock of our society, unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall.”

Newt Gingrich: Occupy Wall Street Should ‘Go Get A Job Right After You Take A Bath’ -- Newt Gingrich charged that the Occupy Wall Street movement believes that “we all owe them everything” and announced, to great applause, that protesters should “go get a job right after you take a bath.”

Michele Bachmann Claims Health Care Reform Will Allow Planned Parenthood To Perform ‘Chemical Abortion’- - - Michele Bachmann claimed that the Affordable Care Act would allow Planned Parenthood to perform “chemical abortion,” during Saturday night’s Thanksgiving Family Forum hosted by the FAMiLY Leader. The claim is a complete misreading of health reform’s regulations, which would require insurers to cover women’s preventive health services without additional cost sharing.

Newt Gingrich: Secularism Is Responsible For ‘All The Problems We Have’ - - - America’s problem are the result of the country’s growing secularism, telling the FAMiLY Leader’s Thanksgiving Family Forum, “A country that has been now since 1963 relentlessly in the courts driving God out of public life shouldn’t be surprised at all the problems we have. Because we’ve in fact attempted to create a secular country, which I think is frankly a nightmare.” He has previously blamed same-sex marriage for the country’s economic woes.

Ironically, Jon Huntsman chose to appear on Saturday Night Live rather than pander to the coven of crazies and haters behind the Iowa event. Huntsman showed some degree of humor - which certainly is more welcome than the hate and negativity of those pandering to the Christianists in Iowa. Here's a video of his appearance:

The Palinization of the GOP

The caption of this post is the title of a new column in the Washington Post by Kathleen Parker - one of the increasingly rare breed of rational, thinking conservatives. Parker will not be winning any friends among the knuckle draggers who predominate in the Christianist/Tea Party base of the GOP, but what she has to say about the cult of ignorance in today's GOP is 100% true. This fusing of religion with politics and a complete abandonment of reason and logic are the reasons why I and so many people that I know have fled the GOP. Other than serious election defeats, I truly do not know what is going to turn around the intellectual decline of a party that once liked to view itself as educated and rational. Here are some highlights from Parker's on target column:

The headline on Democratic strategist Paul Begala’s recent Newsweek essay dodged subtlety: “The Stupid Party.” “Republicans used to admire intelligence. But now they’re dumbing themselves down,” was the subhead. Democrats couldn’t agree more. And quietly, many Republicans share the sentiment. They just can’t seem to stop themselves.

Republicans aren’t really stupid, of course, and Begala acknowledges this. But, as he also pointed out, the conservative brain trust once led by William F. Buckley has been supplanted by talk radio hosts who love to quote Buckley (and boast of his friendship) but who do not share the man’s pedigree or his nimble mind. Moreover, where Buckley tried to rid the GOP of fringe elements, notably the John Birch Society, today’s conservatives have let them back in.

Meanwhile, the big tent fashioned by Ronald Reagan has become bilious with the hot air of religious fervor. No one was more devout than the very-Catholic Buckley, but you didn’t see him convening revivals in the public square. Nor is it likely he would have embraced fundamentalist views that increasingly have forced the party into a corner where science and religion can’t coexist.

Scientific skepticism, the engine that propels intellectual inquiry, has morphed into skepticism of science fueled by religious certitude. In this strange world, it is heresy to express concern about, for example, climate change . . .

[T]he Republican base requires that candidates tack away from science toward the theistic position — only God controls climate. More to the point, Rush Limbaugh says that climate change is a hoax and so it must be. Huntsman may as well be a Democrat.

It takes courage to swim against the tide of know-nothingness that has become de rigueur among the anti-elite, anti-intellectual Republican base. Call it the Palinization of the GOP, in which the least informed earns the loudest applause.

Even so, there are signs that the GOP is recognizing its weaknesses and is ready to play smarter. To wit: The sudden surge of Gingrich, who, whatever his flaws and despite the weight of his considerable baggage, is no intellectual slouch.

Hate All the Presidential Candidates?

The caption of this post is a question that I have to frankly have to answer with a resounding "Yes!" This blog looks at the growing insanity of the Republican party and it's current crop of would be presidential nominees. But, this blog is not exactly kind to Barack Obama who has displayed a continued spinelessness and willingness to break campaign promises while blaming others for his weasel like behavior (don't even get me going on his Christianist BFF's like Rick Warren). Enter a group called Americans Elect that would like to find a viable third party candidate and gain a nomination for the 2012 presidential contest. I like the concept, but given the sad truth is that money - rather than leadership skills, integrity, intelligence, etc. - ultimately decides nominations (and too often elections). A piece in the Daily Beast looks at the effort which seems pure at heart but likely ill-fated. Here are some highlights:

’Tis the season for post-partisanship—again. Last week, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the patron saint of anti-Washington babble, flew to the nation’s capital to accuse “both parties” of “promis[ing] their constituents the world” and giving them “debt and a sluggish economy and anemic job growth” instead. Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, predicted that “unless both parties change, then I think [a third party] is an inevitability.” (“We aren’t doing anything for the people,” the Arizona Republican confessed.) Even Rick Perry got in on the act. “This is not the Democrats’ country or the Republicans’ country,” he told a crowd of Iowans. “This is our country.”

If such plague-on-both-your-houses rhetoric sends a thrill up your leg—and if you’d like to see some independent candidate trumpeting similar sentiments during next year’s presidential contest—then Americans Elect is the 501(c)(4) organization for you.

AE isn’t a third party so much as a “second way” to nominate a president. “Given the level of frustration with the parties, running outside of the two-party system will be a huge asset in 2012, not a liability,” insists Elliot Ackerman, the group’s COO.

Here’s how it’s supposed to work. Americans Elect gathers the signatures required to get on the ballot in all 50 states. (So far, they’ve collected nearly 2 million—two thirds of their goal.) Meanwhile, the group’s 200,000-plus “delegates” gather at AmericansElect.org, answering questions about their views, assembling heterodox policy platforms, and pledging to support their favorite politicians, military leaders, CEOs, college presidents, and ordinary citizens. As long as you’re a registered voter, you’re welcome to participate. In April 2012, successive rounds of online voting will winnow the sprawling field to six finalists. The six, assuming they all want in, will then have to select a running mate from outside their own party. Finally, in June, an Internet convention will choose a nominee to appear, nationwide, on Americans Elect’s ballot line—and at the fall debates, provided he or she clears 15 percent in the polls. The founders claim they have enough cash to go all the way; they’ve raised $21 million so far . . . .

The plan is clever, and the timing is good. President Obama is saddled with near-fatal polling numbers. The Republican Party is so desperate for an alternative to Mitt Romney that they’ve spent a month entertaining the possibility of President Herman Cain. Even Congress hates Congress, and nine out of 10 Americans are “frustrated” with the state of politics. Nearly two thirds of the country wants an independent candidate to run for president. There’s only one problem: who, exactly, will lead the charge?

Ackerman expects to see a few “draft movements” in which “a bunch of Americans get excited about a particular candidate” and convince him or her to run. Names will begin to surface in December.

The top target, however, may be Huntsman, who, with his business background, respectful demeanor, and relatively moderate record, best fits the mold of a “centrist” third-party candidate as imagined by “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” Beltway moderates who comprise the bulk of Americans Elect’s leaders and donors. Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller insists that his boss “is a lifelong Republican and he’s going to run for president as a Republican.” But AE’s brass seems to hope he’ll change his mind.

Fantasy baseball aside, it’s unlikely that any Americans Elect ticket will defy the laws of political gravity and win the White House next November. . . . . The best outcome for Americans Elect, then, may simply be to make a lot of Democrats and Republicans angry — a distinct possibility, given that no one has won the presidency by more than 10 percentage points since 1984. By playing the spoiler, Americans Elect could force the parties to take its direct-democracy methods seriously—and perhaps tinker with their polarizing primary systems in the process.

The Death Spiral of the GOP Toward Idiocy and Ignorance

At the risk of beating a dead horse yet again, as a former Republican - I was on the local city committee for Virginia Beach for eight years - from a family with a long line Republicans (none of whom count themselves as Republicans nowadays), I am continually appalled at what has become of the Republican Party. A respect for facts, objective reality, and logic no longer reflect the mainstream characteristics of the GOP as a political party and even less so when one looks at the abject ignorance/insanity of the party base. All of this pathetic embrace of ignorance and craziness was underscored by the latest GOP presidential candidate debate that purported to cover foreign policy issues. Andrew Sullivan summed up matters well in a post on his blog. Here are some highlights:

The sheer ignorance, callowness, narrowness of mind and shallowness of thought was greater than any debate I recall on this subject ever.

The days when the GOP could be credibly seen as having more concrete and solid judgment on foreign affairs than the Democrats have long since disappeared into the memory hole. The last Republican president did more damage to American soft and hard power in eight years than any president in history, and, on top of that, besmirched this country permanently with the scar of torture as an instrument of state, something the West had decisively put behind it centuries ago, something that once helped define the United States as a civilized country. But now we have a motivational speaker who knows nothing about foreign affairs, Herman Cain, telling us that he is against torture but also in favor of torture, and then saying he would defer to the military leaders.

Michele Bachmann apparently thinks that Obama has allowed the ACLU to run the CIA, which would come as some surprise to both. Her statement is so insane, so utterly removed from reality, that it would disqualify someone from a high school debating tournament. But again, this preposterous woman is a serious candidate for this farce of a party. Then we have Rick Perry saying this: "For us not to have the ability to try to extract information from them to save our young people's lives is a travesty. This is war. I am for using those techniques."

And so you see that Perry is ignorant of the most basic facts of war, i.e. that there are laws of war, and that torture has been anathema to the American government from George Washington until George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan signed the 1984 Convention Against Torture with the following words: "The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

Notice that Reagan was not quibbling about the precise meaning of "torture". He signed a Convention against anything that could even faintly be considered torture - any "inhuman treatment" of prisoners. This current incarnation of Republicanism is so crude, so un-American, so fascistic in its disdain for the rule of law and its relish for violence that it should have no place in a Western polity. To have leading Republican candidates embrace torture in this way renders it the only political party in the entire Western world to embrace the abuse and torture of prisoners. It is unique in the West in embracing the tactics of totalitarian states throughout the world.

The other man to stand up for America was Jon Huntsman. . . . . "We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project which include liberty, democracy, human rights, and open markets when we torture. We should not torture. Waterboarding is torture. We dilute ourselves down like a whole lot of other countries. And we lose that ability to project values that a lot of people in corners of this world are still relying on the United States to stand up for them."

The debate on Saturday made our choice relatively simple: between Paul and Huntsman. For they are the only men worthy to represent this country without simultaneously betraying it.

The irony, of course, is that much of the Christianist base of the Republican Party does not even recognize Huntsman as a Christian because of his membership in the Mormon Church. Even though Huntsman's positions on torture certainly align more with Christ's Gospel message than do the positions and actions of supposed Christian candidates who all too frequently wear their supposed religious beliefs on their sleeves - much like the Pharisees condemned in the New Testament.

Who Won Last Night's GOP Debate

As noted last night, I watched part of the GOP debate last night. As for who was the loser, I'd say it's the nation as a whole given that in theory last night's line up represents the best the GOP has to offer. I'm not saying that all of the candidates are utter crazy extremists and nut jobs, but some of them clearly fall into that category. The question is, given the sectarian nature of today's GOP, can a non-Kool-Aid drinker win the party nomination. A column in the Washington Post summarizes one view of the winners and losers. Here are some highlights:

WINNERS

* Mitt Romney: Slow and steady won the debate for the former Massachusetts governor. He started off a bit shaky and seemed slightly off his game when Texas Gov. Rick Perry went on the attack right from the start. But, Romney showed his experience and steadied himself as the proceedings wore on — repeatedly giving answers that sounded reasonable and, dare we say it, presidential. Romney continues to execute his strategy: focus on President Obama and the economy while avoiding too much back and forth with his Republican rivals. It worked (again) tonight.

* Jon Huntsman: After a nonexistent performance in the August Iowa debate, the former Utah governor was much more part of the conversation this time around — delivering jabs to Romney and Perry as he tried to contrast his record in the Beehive State with theirs. Huntsman also looked like he belonged on the stage tonight — a major change from his August showing. His biggest problem remains that his tonal approach to the race — sensible moderation — still doesn’t seem to fit the Republican primary electorate. But, for tonight, Huntsman did himself proud.

* First 45 minutes Rick Perry: With all eyes on him, the Texas governor started out strong — delivering a solid answer on jobs and showing a willingness to mix it up with Romney. He was confident without being brash and seemed well versed — or at least well rehearsed — on the issues of the day. If the debate ended after 45 minutes, we might be talking about how Perry had dispelled all doubts about his readiness for the national glare of a presidential race and all it entails.

LOSERS

* Michele Bachmann: The Minnesota Congresswoman was a total nonentity in the debate. At one point, she didn’t say a single word for more than 20 minutes. Bachmann supporters will almost certainly blame the moderators for freezing her out but she needed to find ways to inject herself into the various fights between the likes of Perry, Romney and Huntsman. Bachmann seemed to get the message towards the end of the debate but it was already too late. It felt like she was irrelevant to the conversation tonight — and that’s a bad place for her to be.

* Last Hour Rick Perry: After a strong start, Perry seemed to lose focus — meandering on his answer on Social Security and badly fumbling on climate change. Some of Perry’s struggles in the middle portion of the debate had to do with the fact that he was getting tough questions and having to weather a steady attack from his opponents — he joked at one point that he had become a “pinata” — but that’s what you get when you’re the frontrunner. Perry salvaged the second half of the debate with a very strong answer on the death penalty. But his uneven performance will likely keep the conversation about whether he is a clear frontrunner alive, which is not what the Perry forces wanted.

I don't deny that I will continue to be hoping that Perry and Bachmann self destruct. Fortunately, Gingrich and Santorum are to insane even for most in the GOP base.