Jon Huntsman

Another media/establishment instant darling. This guy bears watching… but not voting for. Yesterday, we watched as former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman attempted to take on the mantle of Ronald Reagan, announcing his candidacy from the same place… in front of the Statue of Liberty, where Reagan announced his 1980 presidential run. Ronaldus Magnus this guy is not. Not even close.

His speech was bland and milquetoast. It was accommodationist blather, full of cup-half-empty assertions of how this country has lost its greatness. He then went on to remind us of our manners, and how he at least would maintain the high ground throughout this campaign. He loves and respects our president, just as he knows Barack Hussein Obama just loves this li’l old country to death, doncha know?

Okay, Governor or not, RINO platitudes or not… this man is no Conservative. The Lame Stream statist press is holding him up as their darling. It’s the same routine all over again.

Republican history has shown us repeatedly that we win when we stick to Conservative principles, and we lose when we stray into the area of ‘moderate’ Republicans. Beware the chosen of the party establishment. These bozos are working as hard against Conservatism and the Constitution as they are the opposition… maybe harder.

Harsh, you say? I think not nearly harsh enough. These so-called party kingmakers are in for a heads-up confrontation with the Constitutional Conservatives. Remember the magic formula… 60+20+20. The Conservative movement is comprised of 60% Republicans, 20% Independents… and surprise, surprise, 20% Democrat. It’s a huge, very powerful coalition.

We need leadership that is not afraid to attack Barack Obama on a personal as well as a policy level. Black, white or ‘other’, he’s only a man… and not a very clever one at that.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2011

Chris Cillizza has argued that the Iowa Supreme Court decision that established gay marriage might disadvantage moderate candidates in the 2012 GOP primary. Cillizza notes that Heartland Iowa, a lefty Iowa blog, lays out a timeframe that would include a November 2011 ballot initiative that Nate Silver seems to think would be close, but the pro-traditional-marriage forces would prevail. (I have to say, I wonder what the presence of married gay couples does to his model)

UPDATE: This even happening would require getting it on the ballot, which would require the cooperation of the Democratic legislature. I kinda doubt that'll happen, don't you?

Anyways, back to Cillizza:

Assuming that time line is right, the fight over the constitutionality of banning same sex marriages would fall right in the heart of the run-up to the 2012 presidential caucus.

And, with the Republican caucus typically dominated by social conservatives, you can imagine the long-term impact today's ruling could have on the presidential jockeying.

At first glance, the decision should help candidates -- like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who are closely aligned with the social conservative wing of the Republican party.

He then argues that this could really hurt Jon Huntsman:

One person who could potentially be hurt by today's ruling is Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) who has staked out a moderate position on the issue -- expressing his support for civil unions earlier this year despite the fact that large numbers of Utah voters oppose the idea. "I'm a firm believer in the traditional construct of marriage, a man and a woman," the governor told the Deseret News. "But I also think that we can go a greater distance in enhancing equal rights for others in nontraditional relationships."

Let me offer another thought. This could lead to a further minimization of the Iowa Caucus. My understanding is that Mitt Romney, who must be considered the front-runner, is already trying to figure out how to avoid Iowa or somehow reshuffle the deck. A number of candidates could reasonably try to skip it.

Iowa Republican Party politics will be very, very interesting over the next couple of years. I expect this to be ask much solved by the rules guys and party officials as by actual voters. But that's really the point of caucuses, isn't it?

Somehow this story seemed befitting of "Turkey Day'. An ambitious Republican signs up with a Democratic oriented agenda of taxes, spending and regulation.  

Evidently to Utah's Jon Huntsman, the new administration is just what America has been waiting for on energy policy. 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081127/energy_western_governors.html?.v=2

Western governors: 'Obama, act quickly on energy'

We must not repeat the mistakes of the past," says the letter signed by association chairman, Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, and vice chairman, Democratic Gov. Dem Brian Schweitzer of Montana. "The future of our nation depends on it."

 

 

 

Among the recommendations are annually spending tens of billions of dollars to develop clean energy technology; establishing an 'aggressive' greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal to help stop global warming; and proposing a mandatory national system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through "market-based mechanisms."

If I recall correctly, efforts to pass "cap and trade" in the Congress died a quick and quiet death. There's never been a vote on Kyoto. The proposal by Canadian Liberals to pass a carbon tax contributed to their worst drubbing in decades. And, hmm, is there something like a recession going on which might suggest higher taxes and consumer costs might actually wreak real damage on real people?

But Jon Huntsman learned from John McCain that if you don't have a base inside the Republican Party for which to run for President, you can get one outside the Republican Party by playing up to the news media. The news media is convinced we are facing an immediate environmental apocalypse; hence they are looking for a Republican greeniac. Governor Huntsman has decided to fill the bill.

Now, I'm hearitly in favor of building a clean free market energy economy. But we ought to do someline akin to the Pickens plan because it makes economic sense to stop enriching adversarial states; not because someone shows a movie with a polar bear on an ice floe. And what this green first approach does is play into the hands of every statist, antidevelopment group out there who wants to see the economy grind to a halt to punish "big business". Not to mention "cap and trade" will be a bureaucratic tax machine likely to crush much of the economy; particularly under Obama's auspices.

I also think it displays incredible chutzpah (folks out west may need a dictionary for that word)to declare oneself an authority on energy issues when your state hardly has any oil wells. Hmm, maybe the Governor whose state actually produces oil might be a more relevant spokesperson?  

Some people are big on saying how wonderful Jon Huntsman is, and how he is going to be the future of the party.  Sorry. we already had Mitt Romney and John McCain run in 2008. This guy seems nothing more than a mash-up of their less attractive features. 

Thought I'd post this little AP story about the big Governor's Global Warming summit, where the once promising Arnold Scharzenegger joined a host of other RINO and Democrat governors in endorsing a grandious solution to the global warming problem.

Hey, what's $500 billion a year between friends?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_summit_10

Now, with the Dow in free fall and GM on the verge of shutdown, you might think there are slightly more pressing immediate problems than whether the temperature in 2050 is going up 0.2C or 0.4C?...especially for the Governors of the epicenter of the financial crisis (NY) and the auto crisis (MI)....naw, got to make sure the media get their "green" moment while their constituents lose all their green.  

By the way, it's mid November. Tomorrow's weather forecast for central CT is a high in the 30's with snow showers http://weather.courant.com/US/CT/Meriden.html.

Central FL has a freeze warning for tonight http://www.weather.com/weather/alerts/localalerts/USFL0163?phenomena=FZ&significance=W&areaid=FLZ036&office=KJAX&etn=0014

Guess that too is an "Inconvenient truth".