Religious Progressives Will Soon Outnumber Conservatives, Yet They Remain Largely Silent

One of the things that I find maddening is the way in which the Christofascists have been allowed to define the image of Christianity in the minds of much of society even as their over all numbers shrink and the number of religious progressives and so-called "Nones" grows.  The result is that to many, especially, among the younger generations, religion is something ugly and abhorrent and best defined by hate and bigotry.  Much of the phenomenon, in my view, is the fault of two forces;(i) the Republican Party's continued prostitution of itself to the ugliest elements of the Christian Right (a similar thing is happening with racists and white supremacists in the GOP base) and (ii) the laziness of the main stream media which gives foul individuals like Tony Perkins a platform and almost never challenges their lies and dishonesty.  A piece in Think Progress looks at the rise of the numbers of progressives who maddeningly too often fail to challenge the hate filled Christofascists.  Here are excerpts:

One-in-five Americans are religious progressives, according to a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Using a religious orientation scale that “combines theological, economic, and social outlooks,” researchers argue that while the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans continues to rise, a growing coalition of young, diverse, and politically-active Americans are connecting their faith with progressive values.

“Our new research shows a complex religious landscape, with religious conservatives holding an advantage over religious progressives in terms of size and homogeneity,” Dr. Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute, said in a press release. “However, the percentage of religious conservatives shrinks in each successive generation, with religious progressives outnumbering religious conservatives in the Millennial generation.” 

According to the survey, 23 percent of people aged 18 to 33 are religious progressives, while 22 percent are nonreligious and 17 percent are religious conservatives. By contrast, only 12 percent of those aged 66 to 88 are religious progressives, whereas 47 percent are said to be religious conservatives.

Religious progressives are also more ethnically diverse than religious conservatives, a fact that bodes well for the Democratic party as the country becomes more racially varied. And when it comes to economic issues, religious progressives are actually more passionate than other liberals about eradicating income inequality; the study found that 88 percent of religious progressives said that the government should do more to help the poor, more than any other group polled.


While it’s too soon to know whether the survey signals a groundswell of faith-based progressivism, the findings echo the recent rise of an increasingly vocal—and increasingly influential—”religious left.” For example, progressive religious leaders are heading up the ongoing “Moral Monday” protests in North Carolina, citing their faith as they decry the draconian policies of the state’s Republican-dominated legislature.


[T]he study found that although religious liberals are passionate about progressive causes, they aren’t interested in imposing their beliefs on others: only 29 percent of religious progressives believe a person has to believe in God to live a moral life, as compared to 74 percent of religious conservatives.

These moderates and progressives need to get off their asses and forcefully confront the Christofascists.  Otherwise the Christofascists will continue to force their beliefs on all and kill the Christian brand in the long run.   Like others I know, when I hear someone say they are "saved" or a devout Christian, my immediate assumption is that they are not nice people and probably major league liars and hypocrites.

Former GOP Governor of Florida Endorses Obama

I'm sure the Christfascist/Tea Party base of the GOP is shrieking and spraying spittle as they get wind of the fact that a popular former GOP governor of the state of Florida has endorsed Barack Obama over the out of touch and "let them eat cake" ticket of the Republican Party.  True, Charlie Crist has his detractors and many believe he is gay notwithstanding his relatively marriage a woman, but in the final analysis he recognizes the extremism and toxicity of today's Republican party.  In a column today in the Tampa Bay Times, Crist endorsed Obama and laid out his reasoning, much of which coincides with my own views as a former GOP activist before the Christofascists high jacked the GOP.  Here are highlights:

I’ve studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I've watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I've seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes. 

As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I'm confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.

Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation's calm through a historically turbulent storm.

The president's response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

[O]nly one candidate in this race has proven a willingness to navigate a realistic path to prosperity.
As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.

But an element of their party[the GOP] has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.

The truth is that the party [the GOP] has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve. 

President Obama has a strong record of doing what is best for America and Florida, and he built it by spending more time worrying about what his decisions would mean for the people than for his political fortunes. That's what makes him the right leader for our times, and that's why I'm proud to stand with him today. 

The Fall Out from Walker's Recall Win in Wisconsin

Yesterday's disastrous victory by Scott Walker in the Wisconsin recall election holds many bad omens for Democrats and average Americans who don't drink heavily from the GOP's Kool-Aid cauldron.  The first omen is that money can buy elections via a constant media barrage (some estimates are that Walker out spent Democrats 7 to 1).  Another is that many voters remain with their heads in the sand until the last moment and can be easily duped to vote against their own long term best interests.   The third is that much more effort needs to be focused on winning the votes of moderates and independents.  No doubt Walker's survival will embolden the extremists in the GOP to take the Wisconsin game plan national - something that doesn't bode well for the country in the long term.  Here in Virginia one can only cringe at what the Virginia GOP will try to do during the 2013 legislative session. When will all of this end?  Only when (i) more of the elderly voter portion of the population that voes for the GOP dies off and (ii) younger voters wake up to the poisonous consequences of the GOP economic agenda and vote in full strength.  A column in the Washington Post looks at how Walker pulled out victory yesterday.  Here are highlights:

Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall offers a number of lessons for American politics more broadly.

First, the gender gap can work both ways. Women voted for Democrat Tom Barrett while men voted for Walker. Indeed, Walker’s share of the vote among women was 12 points lower than his share among men. But he carried males by a landslide: 59 percent to 40 percent. Walker lost women much more narrowly, 52 percent to 47 percent. The lesson is that Republicans can survive a rather big gender gap as long as they win men overwhelmingly.

Second, Walker’s heavy early spending clearly helped him. The pre-election polls suggested that Barrett was closing in on Walker in the final days, and he clearly was. The exit poll found that eight percent of the voters said they decided how to vote in the last few days, and they went overwhelmingly for Barrett, 69 percent to 27 percent. The rest of the electorate that decided earlier went for Walker . . . . Money matters.

Third, to win, Democrats need to overwhelm Republicans among moderates. Looking at the vote by ideology, you might imagine Barrett won: he carried liberals by 86 percent to 13 percent, and moderates by 54 percent to 46 percent. Walker carried only conservatives, by 86 percent to 14 percent. But the math added up for Walker

Democrats don’t just need to win moderates; they need to win them by very large margins. Victorious Democratic coalitions are inevitably an alliance of the center with the left. . . . . . Turning out your own supporters is essential. But so is fighting for the pure swing voters.

As a gay American, I continue to wonder at times if simply leaving the USA isn't perhaps the best strategy.   I find the GOP down right frightening and a threat to my well being.

Why the GOP Fringe Sets the Party Agenda

As a former Republican and city committee member activist, at times I wonder how the Republican Party became so insane.  Yes, I often discuss the GOP leadership's pact with the Devil - i.e., the Christian Right and then the Tea Party - as part of the cause.  And then there's the issue of the near complete flight of moderates from the party as has enveloped my entire extended family of "Rockefeller Republicans."  But that still doesn't fully explain why the most insane, theocratic and generally delusional elements of the GOP base now seem to set the party's agenda.  David Frum, a conservative not too well loved by the GOP base since he's rational and is willing to yell out "the emperor has no clothes" as a premise that may partly explain the demise of a once rational and generally objective fact embracing political party.  He also focuses on the fact that it is the alleged small government loving red states and the elderly who in fact suck up a disproportionate share of federal government dollars.  Why does the word "hypocrites" spring to mind?  Here are highlights from Frum's column that is written in the context of his new book:

Cindy asks:

The Democrats seem to have found a way to marginalize the far fringes of their base without completely losing their vote, while the Republicans seem currently to have been overwhelmed and taken over by their far fringes. Assuming you agree with that rather generic statement, why do you think that the GOP has been less successful in holding their middle? And, how do you think they can pull back from this current trend? Or, do you think it's possible at this point for that to happen?

About 20% of America calls itself liberal; about 40% calls itself conservative. That asymmetry explains a great deal of the difference between the parties. The Democrats cannot remotely convince themselves that their base can deliver elections for them. They know they must work to broaden their coalition—and to restrain their base. Their base knows it too. 

The bigger Republican base, however, can imagine itself as representing the majority of the country, or anyway, something close to it. All that's needed is one last push! And when you are so close to having everything your own way—why compromise?

That aversion to compromise is intensified by a strange fact of American government. Republicans, the anti-government party, depend on the votes of the elderly, the affluent, and the rural—in other words, the American government's redistributional winners. From the point of view of those voters, any compromise will bring only bad news to them. They like things the way they are now! And—in contrast to more prosperous times in the past—they don't today feel they have anything like the margin of security that would allow them to share.

This is one of the major themes of Patriots: the most affluent have become the most anxious. My selfish protagonist, heir to a mustard fortune, stands in for these winners—and then breaks with them, not because he is so very remarkably generous, but because something in him recoils and rebels at a political game that heaps accumulating rewards on the winners—and only accumulating penalties on the losers.

Do I see hope for such a trend in real life? I don't know. But we need it.

Greed and the fear of change (and those deemed "other") are, in short, their principle motivation.  What makes the utter hypocrisy even worse is that they then wrap themselves in religion and profess their piety even as they flush the Gospel message down the toilet.

Schwarzenegger: GOP Nees to Take Down Its Small Tent

In a piece that will do nothing to endear him to the extremists who now make up the GOP base, Arnold Schwarzenegger has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that takes today's Republican Party to task for its narrowness and rigidity - and shrinking membership.  His lament is all to familiar to me and the many moderates who have fled the GOP as it has become a de facto religious party that embraces ignorance and preaches exclusion for anyone who is not a far right white Christian.  Here are column highlights:

I've been writing my memoirs recently, and looking back at how I came to my political identity has reminded me that this election cycle marks my 44th year as a Republican. I can't imagine being anything else.

That's why I am so bothered by the party's recent loss of two up-and-coming Republicans: San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, currently a state assemblyman, and former assemblyman and current Congressional candidate Anthony Adams, both of whom left the party to become independents. On the one hand, I respect their standing up for principle. On the other, I hate to see them go.

I'm sure they would have preferred to remain Republicans, but in the current climate, the extreme right wing of the party is targeting anyone who doesn't meet its strict criteria. Its new and narrow litmus test for party membership doesn't allow compromise.

It's time for the Republicans who are so bent on enforcing conformity to ask themselves a question: What would Ronald Reagan have done? He worked hard to maintain a welcoming, open and diverse Republican Party. He would have been appalled to see Republicans like Fletcher and Adams conclude that they had no other option than to leave the party.

As president, Reagan worked very well with Democrats to do big things. It is true that he worked to reduce the size of government and cut federal taxes and he eliminated many regulations, but he also raised taxes when necessary. In 1983, he doubled the gas tax to pay for highway infrastructure improvements.  Today, that would be enough for some of the ideological enforcers to start looking for a "real" conservative to challenge him in a primary.

Some Republicans today aren't even willing to have conversations about protecting the environment, investing in the infrastructure America needs or improving healthcare. By holding their fingers in their ears when those topics arise, these Republicans aren't just denying themselves a seat at the table; in a state such as California, they also deny a seat to every other Republican.
 

Being a Republican used to mean finding solutions for the American people that worked for everyone. It used to mean having big ideas that moved the country forward.  It can mean that again, but big ideas don't often come from small tents.

It's time to stop thinking of the Republican Party as an exclusive club where your ideological card is checked at the door, and start thinking about how we can attract more solution-based leaders like Nathan Fletcher and Anthony Adams.

 . 

What the GOP Would Learn by Picking Rick Santorum

I realize of late that I seem to reference Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum almost daily. But to me, Santorum is the personification of what is wrong with today's Republican Party. He's also a personification of what's wrong with today's version of Roman Catholicism as interpreted and enforced by Pope Benedict XVI, a/k/a God's Rottweiler, and the reactionaries that he has appointed to bishoprics and named as members of the college of cardinals. Turning to the Republican Party, apiece in The Daily Beast reflects on what may over take the GOP if the party's Christianist/Tea Party base is insane enough to somehow deliver the GOP presidential nomination to Santorum. Here are some highlights:

A cleansing bout of craziness in 2012 could be just what the GOP needs. I’m talking about a nominee so far to the right that conservative populists get their fondest wish—and the Republican Party is forced to learn from the result. Namely, that there is such a thing as too extreme.

The dangerous groupthink delusion being pushed in conservative circles over the last few years is that ideological purity and electability are one and the same. It is an idea more rooted in faith than reason.

If Mitt Romney does finally wrestle the nomination to the ground, and then loses to Obama, conservatives will blame the loss on his alleged moderation. The right wing take-away will be to try to nominate a true ideologue in 2016.

But if someone like Rick Santorum gets the nomination in an upset, the party faithful will get to experience the adrenaline rush of going off a cliff together, like Thelma and Louise—elation followed by an electoral thud.

This could be educational. After all, sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you recognize your problems.

Giving a self-identified “full-spectrum conservative” theo-con like Santorum the nomination would mean we’d really have a “choice, not an echo” election in November. Republicans would be forced to confront the fact that talk about Satan attacking America, negative obsessions with homosexuality, contraception and opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest alienates far more people than they attract.

It is absurd that clownish conservative caricatures like Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain were briefly elevated to the top of the polls while more sober-minded presidential candidates with executive experience like Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman Jr. failed to gain any traction. The result is the weakest Republican field in living memory.

it’s been scrubbed from many conservative’s memories that the Tea Party in 2010 used libertarian appeals to attract independents—avoiding more polarizing social issues and instead keeping a tight focus on fiscal ones like reducing the deficit and debt.

But in the wake of 2010, we’ve seen the social-conservative agenda reemerge with a vengeance, because Republican legislators in statehouses and Congress made it a priority. Not surprisingly, this has alienated independents, women, and young voters outside the conservative tribe.

But in a tribal time, ideological apparatchiks have outsize influence. They come to debates armed with their own facts. In their Kool-Aid-laden retelling of recent political history, unsuccessful GOP nominees like John McCain lost because of his independent center-right profile (rather than a backlash against the excesses of the Bush administration or the nomination of Sarah Palin). Barry Goldwater’s 44-state loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is recast as a triumph because it allegedly led to Reagan’s landslide ... 16 years later.

Giving conservative activists everything they want in a presidential nominee would ultimately be clarifying for the Republican Party. It would break the fever that has afflicted American politics turning fellow citizens against one another. It would restore a sense of balance, recognizing that it is unwise to systemically ignore the 40 percent of American voters who identify themselves as independent or the 35 percent who are centrist. After all, a successful political party requires both wings to fly. There’s nothing like losing 40 states to refocus the mind.

As I've noted before, part of me would love to see Santorum as the GOP nominee because it would likely lead to the monumental train wreck that the GOP needs to experience before it will wake up and drive the Christofascists from the party and back into the political wilderness where they belong.

Why the GOP - Thankfully - Won’t Win the Senate

With the decision of Olympia Snowe to resign from the U. S. Senate and not seek re-election, the GOP has likely given the Democrats a new seat after the November elections. In a column in the Washington Post Snowe lays out why she decided to retire, but unfortunately she fails to lay the blame for the toxicity in the Senate and elsewhere in government where it properly belongs: at the feet of the GOP which has become ever more extremist and of a mindset where winning politically trumps what's best for the nation. The other problem with the GOP is that it is staking its future on a demographic base which is literally dying off and seems obsessed with destroying the country rather moving forward with society. A column in The Daily Beast suggest why November, 2012, will not see the GOP gain control of the U. S. Senate. Here are highlights:

When the votes were counted, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe stood alone, the only Republican to oppose a hotly contested amendment that would have granted employers the right to withhold insurance coverage for any health service they find objectionable for religious or moral reasons. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell runs a tight ship, and that was one of the reasons Snowe announced earlier this week that she is ending her campaign for reelection and leaving the Senate. As one of the few moderates left in the Republican caucus, she had grown tired of the pressure to always toe the line. Snowe’s isolation was stark as the amendment was voted down, 51 to 48: almost all Democrats were on one side and Republicans on the other.

Democrats said it [the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”] was so broadly written that employers citing moral objections would be empowered to cut off everything from prenatal care for children of single mothers to HIV screening.

A Republican activist who worked on Capitol Hill and who does not want to be quoted says the debate over the availability of contraceptives is “way bigger than a wedge issue” because it goes against settled thought for two generations, and makes the Republican Party look out of touch. “Younger people hear [a debate about contraception] and think those people are Martians. They are unlike me or anybody I know or care about. Republicans risk becoming irrelevant to a whole generation of people, and I include Catholics in that.


Six months ago, Republicans were talking confidently about taking the Senate next November, widening their lead in the House and having a really good chance to win the White House. A debate about social issues that many think has gone off the rails capped by Snowe’s surprise resignation is the latest evidence that their predictions are widely off the mark, particularly in the Senate where Republicans need four seats to gain control. That seemed easy enough with 23 Democrat-held seats being contested, some of them in red states, but Snowe’s departure will likely put Maine into the Democratic column, and Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken consumer advocate, is probably the one Democrat with a chance to defeat Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

That has not escaped the notice of Republicans, who say that if McConnell had let Warren’s nomination go through to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP wouldn’t be sweating Brown’s seat. “He can chalk that up to his own stubbornness,” says the GOP activist about McConnell. “He may be running a tight ship, but it’s a small ship, a nice small ship of white guys.”

Where are the GOP Moderates?

I often disagree with much of what columnist Nicholas Kristof has to say. But in a column in the New York Times, he provides a good history of the Republican Party and makes the case that it is today's far right extremists in the GOP who are the aberration and "Republicans in Name Only" a/k/a RINO's. The far right and hate-filled "family values" crowd have perverted the GOP into something ugly and Kristof wonders if there's any chance that the party will be able to return to its moderate past. The GOP of today is certainly NOT the party that I and most of my family once belonged to. Today, its hallmarks are the embrace of ignorance, a hatred of anyone who's not a white conservative Christian, and constant attacks on the religious freedom of all but the most extreme Christianists. Here are some column highlights:

The most embarrassing moments to watch this political season have occurred as Mitt Romney has pretended to be an angry, fire-breathing true conservative. The evidence suggests that in his soul he’s a moderate pragmatist . .

Newt Gingrich, Romney’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination, is denouncing Romney with one of the ugliest slurs in the Republican lexicon: a Massachusetts moderate. Other moderate Republicans are savaged as RINOs — Republicans in name only — as if they emerged from an ugly mutant strain.

Yet, in fact, as a new history book underscores, it is the Gingriches and Santorums who are the mutants. For most of its history, the Republican Party was dominated by those closer to Romney than to social conservatives like Rick Santorum, and it is only in the last generation that the party has lurched to the hard right.

“Much of the current conservative movement is characterized by this sort of historical amnesia and symbolic parricide, which seeks to undo key aspects of the Republican legacy such as Reagan’s elimination of corporate tax loopholes, Nixon’s environmental and labor safety programs, and a variety of G.O.P. achievements in civil rights, civil liberties, and good government reforms,” Kabaservice writes. “In the long view of history, it is really today’s conservatives who are ‘Republicans in name only.’ ”

[T]he original Massachusetts moderates were legendary figures in Republican history, like Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge. Theodore Roosevelt embraced progressivism as “the highest and wisest form of conservatism.” Few did more to promote racial integration, civil rights and individual freedoms than a Republican, Earl Warren, in his years as chief justice.

Dwight Eisenhower cautioned against excess military spending as “a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.” Richard Nixon proposed health care reform. Ronald Reagan endorsed the same tax rate for capital gains as for earned income. Each of these titans of Republican Party history would today risk mockery for these views.

What happened? That’s a long and gradual story beginning with Senator Joe McCarthy’s success in galvanizing working-class suspicions of government elites and continues with an angry backlash at changing mores and liberalized abortion laws. Conservative Southern whites moved into the Republican Party. Newer media voices like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck made extremism seem congenial — while making bipartisanship feel treacherous.

[S]ocial conservatives staged a grass-roots overthrow of the moderate Republican apparatus in the late 1970s and early ’80s, and focused on abortion and gay rights. “Moderates simply gave up participating after being ostracized,” Bladine remembers. “It became almost impossible to nominate a Republican for statewide office who had any chance of winning in a statewide vote.”

The question becomes one of when and how - if it's even possible at this point - the GOP can be wrenched back from the haters and ignorance worshipers of the so-called "social conservatives" and Tea Party morons who are now the core of the GOP base. The recapture of the GOP needs to happen for the best interest of the country and a positive future. The current GOP only seeks to drag the nation backward in time.

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.

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.

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.

Are Moderate Republicans Now Drinking Kool-Aid?

As I've noted before, once upon a time I was an active Republican in the days before the Christianist take over of the party. Most of my former GOP "friends" dropped me like a hot potato when I came out and I heard frequent reports of how some had dragged my name through the mud because of my "lifestyle choice." Despite this back stabbing and general nastiness, I've remained in touch with some I knew from that time period - generally those who were moderates, some of whom were criticized by the far right elements for not being extreme enough to satisfy the Pat Robertson crowd.

Recently, I had an e-mail encounter with one such moderate (or at least former moderate) which was fairly discouraging because this individual sounded as if their sole source of information was Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. About the only point we agreed on was that the country is in a mess. Missing from my friend's statements was any willingness to accept GOP culpability for any part of the problems facing the country. You know, things like the 44%+ share of the deficit incurred under Chimperator Bush's 8 years of misrule. Also missing was any ability to see another perspective - especially from an LGBT perspective. Indeed, at times I was described as a single issue voter by this individual. Naturally, I disagreed and made a further comment that if the country continued its rightward lurch to insanity, the boyfriend and I might even consider leaving the USA.

This latter remark set off a defense of the USA as the best country in the world and how could I think such a thing. My response was as follows:

It's a sad reality, but the USA is no longer the a land of freedom of religion or equality under the law for all its citizens. No country is perfect, but for LGBT Americans more and more foreign countries offer a better life. I have more legal rights in all of these countries than I have in the USA/Virginia:

Marriage rights:
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Civil unions or domestic partnerships:
Andorra
Austria
Brazil
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
- New Caledonia
- Wallis and Futuna
Germany
Greenland
Hungary
Ireland
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Slovenia
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

I'm not saying any one of them is perfect, but in terms of recognizing me as a full citizen with a valid relationship (and non-discrimination protections in many cases) they offer more than the USA. Republicans and supposed conservatives have no idea - not that most of them even care - of the damage that they do to the lives of LGBT individuals. Gay teens continue to kill themselves in disproportionate numbers yet Bachmann and others in the GOP continue the message of hate. No, I'm not sorry that I posted the remark.

Not surprisingly, that ended the interchange and I've received no reply. Sometimes facing the truth is not easy, but until those in the GOP will take a good look at themselves in the mirror, things are not going to get better. I've never been a "America Right of Wrong" citizen. I believe that sometimes the greatest patriots are those who will speak the truth and criticize what's wrong.

Tea Party Targets Incumbent Senators

I cannot help but relish in some ways the manner in which the GOP's self-created Frankenstein monster - a/k/a the Tea Party - has now turned on those in the party that display a semblance of sanity. Of course, right behind the Tea Party are the ranks of the Christian Taliban - the other twin pillar of the GOP's party base. Politics is about electing candidates to office or so the saying goes. With the Tea Party, one's electability isn't an issue. Rather it's all about adherence to a litmus test concerning ideology. Never mind the fact that in a general election, the Tea Party's ideology is deemed frightening by many. The last round of Senate elections in Delaware and Nevada are a case in point. The Daily Beast has a piece that looks at Senate incumbents now in the cross hairs of the Tea Party. Here are some highlights:
*
Orrin Hatch is conservative by almost any measure, but these days that’s not enough to shield him from the right. There’s a credible challenger in the wings and a real possibility that the Utah senator could become the first establishment casualty of the 2012 season.
*
The Tea Party movement first demonstrated its clout last year by knocking off Hatch’s Utah colleague, Bob Bennett. Now the movement’s activists have served notice that they are displeased with several big-name Republican senators. Hatch, like most of them, is cultivating the grassroots, moving rightward, and hoping to fend off a serious primary challenger.
*
It’s already too late for that in Indiana, where state treasurer Richard Mourdock is taking on Richard Lugar. And it may be too late for Hatch, who could well face Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a self-described “definite maybe” who will decide after Labor Day whether to run. Others drawing conservative scrutiny and complaints are Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Bob Corker of Tennessee.
*
What all this amounts to is nothing less than a redefinition of conservatism—or, at least, the brand of conservatism acceptable to those who have the power to boot Republicans who have long toed what used to be the party line.
*
Many of Hatch’s alleged sins, as reeled off by Chaffetz and the Club for Growth, involve his support for such George W. Bush initiatives as TARP (the bank bailout), the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind education act. He also backed earmarks (unfashionable these days), raising the debt ceiling (once considered a responsible vote to avoid default), and a 2007 extension of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
*
Indiana is another hotbed of unrest. Most of the state’s GOP establishment has endorsed Mourdock and all three national groups are looking at the race. Lugar, facing what conservative “Hoosier Pundit” blogger Scott Fluhr habitually calls “Lugargeddon,” has removed his name from the DREAM Act to help children of illegal immigrants. He recently signed on to a bill to replace the income tax with the “fair tax,” a national sales tax.
*
So far Snowe has two challengers hoping to capitalize on conservative frustration: Scott D’Amboise, a small businessman aligned with the Tea Party, and Andrew Ian Dodge, who heads Maine Tea Party Patriots. Neither is getting much traction.
*
Corker, who has negotiated with Democrats over financial reform and auto bailouts, is a top target of RedState.com founder Erick Erickson. “He pushes the Senate GOP left and toward capitulation. He is contemptuous of conservatives,” Erickson wrote last month. Yet Corker fits squarely in his state’s bipartisan tradition of centrists, and so far no challenger has surfaced. The same is true in Massachusetts, where Brown won a stunning upset last year for Kennedy’s old seat.
*
[W]ill these groups go to the mat next year for conservative challengers who are inexperienced or erratic, who display sub-par fundraising, communication, or organizational skills, in hard-to-win liberal or moderate states? Probably not. For the moment, at least, it seems the maturing Tea Party movement has raised the bar.
*
Time will tell what the Tea Party will do. Meanwhile, opportunists in the GOP who laughed at Tea Part loons attacking Democrats probably aren't laughing so much any more.

The World Through the Delusional Eyes of the GOP

In a column in the Washington Post that hits at points I've tried to make concerning the reality denying and untethered mindset of today's GOP, E.J. Dionne looks at the Republican Party of today in the post New York 26th election world. Given that the GOP used to pride itself on being the party of educated reality, the transformation of the party into a quasi sectarian party where ignorance is embraced has been truly amazing. The first step towards today's delusional mindset was the leaderships cynical acceptance of reality denying Christianist. The rest of the party's decline decline in recent decades traces from that cynical, short sighted decision. I have no sympathy whatsoever for today's GOP which continues to subvert the Constitution it claims to revere. Here are some column highlights:
*
When Richard Nixon won his 49-state landslide over George McGovern in 1972, Pauline Kael, the legendary New Yorker film critic, was moved to observe: “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon.” All of us can have our vision distorted by the special worlds we live in, and what was a problem for Kael in 1972 is now an enormous obstacle for conservative Republicans.
*
Both the leaders and rank-and-file of the Republican Party devoutly believe “the people” gave them a mandate last November to slash government, including that big-government health-care program known as Medicare.
*
More than that: They see their mandate as including an obligation to oppose any tax increases, period, even if more revenue is essential to balancing the federal budget in the long run.
*
Then came Tuesday’s thunder out of western New York. Democrat Kathy Hochul won her surprisingly comfortable special-election victory in the very Republican 26th Congressional District, largely because of the early endorsement her Republican opponent, Jane Corwin, gave to Ryan’s budget and its Medicare proposals.
*
You wonder: Will Republicans realize that this is their Pauline Kael moment? Will they understand that the anti-government cries they think they hear from “the people” are the voices of no more than 20 to 25 percent of the electorate who constitute the diehard conservative core?
*
And by the way: Hochul’s victory wasn’t just about Medicare. Her most effective ad argued that Ryan was cutting Medicare while promoting tax cuts for the wealthy. . . . Kathy Hochul says cut the deficit but do it the right way: Protect Medicare and no more tax breaks for multimillionaires.”
*
Note to timid Senate moderates who race from the battlefield even before they smell gunpowder: Hochul ran against tax cuts for the rich and won — in a district John McCain carried in 2008 by six points. Republicans might also notice that the voters’ retreat from their party is not confined to the 26th. As Washington Monthly’s always- instructive blogger Steve Benen noted, Democrats picked up formerly Republican state legislative seats in special elections this month in both Wisconsin and New Hampshire.
*
Let’s see: Voters don’t seem to like cuts to Medicare, cuts to education, or tax cuts for the rich. So what are “the people” trying to say? From the beginning, too many Republicans (and too many in the media) saw the Tea Party as a broadly based movement whose extreme anti-government views reflected the popular will.
*
This was never true. The Tea Party consisted of citizens on the right end of politics who were always there but got angrier and better organized after Obama was elected.
*
[M]iddle-of-the-roaders never bargained for what Paul Ryan — or Govs. Rick Scott, John Kasich of Ohio or Scott Walker of Wisconsin — had in mind for them. Now they’re talking back. They’re not as loud as the Tea Party. But as Hochul’s victory showed, they’re starting to be heard.

GOP Devoid of Ideas and Filled with Narrow Angry People people

The caption of this post is what Jon Huntsman said about the GOP back in 2009. It's a true and accurate statement, of course, but it shows the uphill battle Huntsman faces in winning the GOP nomination with the party primaries to some extent controlled by the craziest and most irrational folks in both the GOP and the country at large. An old New Republic story is resurfacing and it will nor doubt not play well among the Kool-Aid drinker set. Of course, the fact that Huntsman recognized the GOP's problem demonstrates one reason why he's the best news for the party's long term prospects. Maybe not for 2012, but perhaps 2016 if the GOP nominates at nut job this go round. Here some highlights from the 2009 story that are just as true today - maybe even more so - than two years ago:
*
A virtual unknown only six months ago, Huntsman had burst onto the national radar based largely on his declaration of support for civil unions in February [2009]--a shocking position for the Republican governor of the reddest state in the country. He then started using his new platform to brashly criticize his own party. Politico, which in February dubbed him "the fastest-rising star you have never heard of," by March described him as "an articulate, unapologetic, and unlikely spokesman for a new brand of Republicanism." By May, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was describing Huntsman as "the one person in [the Republican Party] who might be a potential presidential candidate."
*
To Huntsman, the economy should be a politician's "focus, laser-like," despite the fact that it doesn't "make for a very colorful and interesting sideshow."
*
Huntsman is certainly right: His skillful stewardship of the state's economy is not what propelled him onto the national stage. Huntsman, who was elected in 2004 as a fairly conventional Republican campaigning on a platform of economic development, first began breaking with his party over environmental issues--for instance, signing the bold Western Regional Climate Action Initiative. He then started taking relatively progressive stands on immigration, unions, and education. As opposed to some of the more conservative Republican governors, Huntsman accepted all the money from Obama's stimulus package offered to the state. "Limited government is important," Huntsman explains, "but I need to make sure that we have a government that actually delivers on issues that people expect us to manage competently and well."
*
By far his most explosive position has been his support for civil unions this year, a clear shift from his support during his 2004 campaign for Utah's constitutional gay marriage and civil union ban--which his spokeswoman says he now favors repealing. The position is particularly surprising in a state where, according to recent polls, 70 percent of people oppose civil unions. "I've always been in favor of equal rights," he says in explaining his stance. "What would Abraham Lincoln be doing if he were around today?" Huntsman says that he has little patience for the traditional "culture war" issues. "I'm not good at playing those games," he tells me. Huntsman was the only 2012 front-runner not to show at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference.
*
But defying all expectations, his popularity barely took a hit, sinking only from 90 to 84 percent. Emboldened, he started taking on the national party, excoriating GOP leaders for their knee-jerk obstructionism and narrow social conservatism. "I don't even know the [Republican] congressional leadership--I have not met them, I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential, completely," he told The Washington Times in a scathing February interview. "Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years."
*
In dozens of interviews over the past few weeks, he has characterized Republicans as "devoid of ideas" and "gasping for air," decrying the GOP's "gratuitous partisanship," comparing it to "a very narrow party of angry people," and describing its strategy as "obstruct and obfuscate … grousing and complaining." When I ask him who he sees as potential leaders for the party, he says with a mischievous grin, "I don't know that we have one."
*
To be sure, Huntsman is no Republican In Name Only; his positions on abortion and gun control still hew quite closely to the Republican line. But he sees himself within a broader GOP tradition. "[Republicans] forget sometimes what Lincoln taught us about individual dignity and equal rights, what Roosevelt taught us about the environment and big stick diplomacy, about American power abroad and how we project it," he says, folding his hands beneath his chin and staring out his window. "We have Nixon who created the EPA, for heaven's sake. People forget that."
*
If Huntsman was planning to run for president, why would he move so brazenly to the left at a time when the GOP seems to be heading rightward? The most obvious reason is that he may actually be a moderate. "I'm not very good at tags," he tells me. "I just try to do my best, and maybe that makes me a pragmatist." He joins a long tradition of moderate Republicans from Utah, despite--or perhaps because of--the fact that the state is the reddest in the country, with the GOP holding every statewide office and more than two-thirds of the state legislature. The GOP lock on Utah politics allows the party to welcome a broader swathe of politicians, and breed leaders who are less combative and ideological than their besieged colleagues in more competitive states. And if Huntsman has learned anything from the failed Mitt Romney campaign, it is that the only thing worse for a Republican than not being a conservative is being a phony conservative.
*
But on a more strategic level, Huntsman was forced to fill the political space that had been left for him by the current front-runners--including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Romney himself--who were all pandering to the conservative wing of the party. Huntsman would have had a tough time competing for the same constituency as them; better to take the long shot that Republicans would be looking for a moderate in three years. In the meantime, he could sit back and let the more conservative candidates beat each other up.
*
Huntsman has a good role-model for his duck-and-run strategy: George H. W. Bush, who went to China as ambassador in the 1970s while Republicans dealt with the Watergate fallout. He was able to avoid the Republican bloodbath at the 1974 polls, and return relatively unscathed from the fracas--eventually making his way to the White House. Heading to Beijing will allow Huntsman to sit out the mess that will probably envelop the GOP over the next few years, and return as a fresh face in time to gear up for 2016. It is also likely that some of his more controversial positions, particularly on civil unions, will become less toxic by then.
*
The ambassadorship also equips Huntsman well for a later presidential run. Representing the United States to perhaps our most important strategic rival will give him top-notch foreign policy chops. And since the 2016 race could well be a competition for heir to the Obama mantle, Huntsman will now have bipartisan cred to add to his youth and proven pragmatism in claiming it; an appointment from the man himself doesn't hurt either.
*
Quoting political historian Theodore White, he told me when we spoke last month that he was happy to defer "to the inevitable cycles of history. Some of them are so inexorable you can't fight against them." In deciding to go to China, he seemed to be conceding that he wasn't going to win the battle for the GOP's soul this time around. Better to wait for the cycles of history to align in your favor.
*
Another big question will be how much Huntsman is willing to sell his soul to the deranged elements of the Christianists and the Tea Party. Yes, politics needs pragmatism. But it also needs some moral solidity and an unwillingness to be a cheap political whore,

Jon Huntsman Tests a 2012 Presidential Run

Many years ago at this point when I was once an active member of the GOP - in the days before the wholesale take over of the party by the Christianists and the debacle of the Chimperator's misrule - party leaders used to say the purpose of the party was to offer up responsible candidates and to win elections. Obviously, the concept of responsible candidates has gone out the window as the GOP has become increasingly extreme, if not outright insane. Now, to appeal the the Tea Party and Christianist base, one needs to prove himself or herself both a religious extremist and only too willing to return to the robber baron era and throw average Americans on the trash heap and allow the majority of the elderly to be faced with inadequate medical care and even poverty in their sunset years. The current field of GOP candidates underscores this sad reality. Enter Jon Huntsman, former Utah governor and ambassador to China. While in office as governor, Huntsman sought consideration on social issues. As ambassador to China, Huntsman has foreign policy bona fides that the rest of the deranged GOP field - e.g., Christofascist Mike Huckabee - lacks. But could he conceivably win the GOP nomination given his Mormon faith and disinclination to use gays and abortion to incite the haters of the GOP base. The Washington Post looks at Huntsman's possible candidacy. Here are highlights:
*
Jon Huntsman Jr. was leaving for dinner here early Friday evening when he was greeted on the front porch of his hotel by another guest. “I’m looking forward to supporting you,” the guest said, “but I haven’t heard you yet.”
*
The remark summed up the anticipation — and the absence of information — that surrounds the former governor of Utah. For the past two years, he was the U.S. ambassador to China, appointed by President Obama. By June, he is likely to be running for the Republican presidential nomination with the goal of unseating the man who sent him to Beijing.
*
With the Republican field still taking shape and dissatisfaction with the choices evident among party activists, the little-known Huntsman and the team of advisers he has assembled think there is opportunity for a fresh face to shake up the GOP race.
*
Huntsman’s first public outing post-China was a nonpolitical event. On Saturday morning, he was the featured speaker at commencement exercises for the University of South Carolina’s College of Arts and Sciences. . . . Huntsman spoke about the harsh repression of dissidents in the country he just left, rather than taking note of China’s economic prowess. In fact, he dismissed the idea that China was “the next big thing.” America, he said, still holds the world’s attention. . . . He will tell skeptical Republicans he went to China out of a sense of patriotic duty, not a personal allegiance to the president.
*
Huntsman might be little known, but he comes to the starting gate with some obvious assets. He is handsome. He is enormously wealthy, thanks to the chemicals business his father built. His resume ranks with those of better-known candidates. He can point to extensive public service not only as governor and ambassador to China but also in the administrations of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. He rides a motorcycle and played in a rock band as a youth.
*
Whether he can fit himself into the new Republican Party is the big question. . . . he was compiling a record that will command scrutiny and, no doubt, questions from his rivals. . . . . That record includes past support for aggressive action to combat climate change with a cap-and-trade regime that is now anathema to many Republicans. . . . On social and cultural issues, he opposes same-sex marriage but has voiced support for civil unions. . . . Offsetting that, he opposes abortion and is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
*
Huntsman’s goal will be to convince Republicans that he is the most electable among the field of candidates. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has not taken sides, calls Huntsman “a guy to watch.” But can a former member of the Obama administration demonstrate he’s best prepared to defeat him?

Walker Appears to be Leading the GOP to Disaster in Wisconsin

As the chart above indicates, GOP Governor Walker is alienating moderates and independents in Wisconsin in a major way. Will Walker and the GOP wake up? Probably not since extremists rarely recognize just how out of the mainstream they have become. Hopefully, they pay a price come the next election cycle.

Jon Huntsman Prepares for 2012 Bid

I wrote in the recent past about the possibility that former Utah governor and current ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, might throw his hat in the ring for the GOP nomination for the 2012 presidential race. It seems that my analysis was on point as the Washington Post and Politico are both reporting that Huntsman will be resigning as Obama's ambassador to China at the end of April and is seemingly assembling a political campaign team. Of course, even if Huntsman runs, the big question is whether or not he can land the GOP nomination. Given that he is a Mormon, is not an anti-gay extremists and is not the brand of delusional lunatic that plays well with the GOP base, can Huntsman pull it off?

*

Obviously, it would be nice to have a GOP presidential candidate who is smart, who is not married to the Christofascist elements of the GOP, and who is not in need of serious mental health intervention (think Palin, Huckabee and Santorum). But candidly, while I suspect he might be presidential material, I have reservations as to how well Huntsman would do in the early primaries. It will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out and whether or not Huntsman can save the GOP from its ignorance embracing and Christianist/bigot base. Not surprisingly, Barack Obama is none too happy because, if he were to get the nomination, I believe that Huntsman could be a serious threat to Obama's re-election hopes. Worse yet from Obama's perspective, Obama might have to start actually shoring up support among his base or run the risk of finding himself abandoned by many who voted for him in 2008. First, here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the charismatic former Republican governor of Utah who appeared to put his presidential ambitions on hold when he became President Obama's ambassador to China, abruptly resigned his post Monday and appears likely to take a shot at ousting his boss.
*
White House officials expressed anger about Huntsman's shift and said late Monday that they doubted he could make a successful run at the presidency.
*
Huntsman's appointment had been widely praised, both for his expertise on China and foreign policy but also as a shrewd political move. Obama's top advisers had long viewed him as a potentially potent challenger in 2012, and sending him to Beijing seemed to successfully avoid that possibility. Moreover, it was a coup for a president looking to show a bipartisan side.
*
Advisers said Huntsman's backers assured him that he could overcome two perceived liabilities with conservative voters who hold sway in GOP primaries and caucuses - his Mormon faith and the fact that he worked for a Democratic president.
*
He [Huntsman] will be a difficult figure to replace. Fluent in Mandarin, with significant stature in the region, he has played an important role in U.S.-China policy as Obama has sought to make the United States more competitive and to build a business alliance with Beijing.
*
Obama and company have been snarky at best towards Huntsman and Politico has more on Huntsman's moves to establish a campaign team. Here are highlights:
*
GOP allies of Huntsman have already begun laying plans for a quick-start campaign should the former Utah governor decide to enter the ill-defined Republican field.

While Huntsman has no direct involvement in it, a group of operatives that could eventually comprise his strategy team has set up an entity called “Horizon PAC” to serve as a placeholder for his political apparatus.
*
The handsome heir to a massive fortune in chemicals manufacturing, he would likely be able to put his own money into the race. And by virtue of his current post as well as past foreign policy and trade posts in GOP administrations, the Mandarin-speaking Huntsman is the only campaign-tested Republican considering a run for president who has serious foreign policy credentials. . . . Huntsman also has a history of taking moderate positions on the environment, immigration and gay rights.
*
Huntsman would likely appeal to Republicans looking for a solutions-oriented leader who’s more sunny than angry.
*
With a serious team of advisers behind him and significant financial resources at his disposal - plus a made-for-media maverick story of the keyboard-playing, motorcycle-driving, Mormon China-hand trying to move his party away from the fringe - there’s little question that Huntsman would have an opportunity to alter the course of the 2012 campaign.