Jon Huntsman
Thank you to ABC for interviewing Jon Huntsman this Sunday. As with all candidates for the Republican Nomination for President, I want to thoroughly review them to determine who in my mind I want to support as the best candidate to be our next President.
Governor Huntsman told us the following:
The American people are crying out for someone from the middle ground. All the GOP candidates are far right and Obama is far left.
None of the GOP candidates have any good ideas for getting the country back on its feet. Here is what Governor Huntsman identified as his top three priorities:
1. Most important is tax reform. The governor wants to lower rates and broaden the base.
2. Get the regulatory monkey off our back.
3. Energy independence
On the other GOP candidates Governor Huntsman gave us the following evaluations:
Romney - inconsistent - to list all the inconsistencies we would be here all afternoon
Perry - Huntsman stated that Perry's comment about Ben Bernanke equating printing money for political reasons as "close to treason" was un-presidential. He criticized his comments on Global Warming and Evolution with a "Tweet" as follows: "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Huntsman then went on to tell us that the minute the GOP becomes known as the anti-science party we will lose severely. He placed Perry as an extremist.
Bachmann - her claim that her policies as president would bring gas prices down below $2 per gallon is unrealistic. She is not living in reality. He called her position on the Debt Ceiling as "crash and burn."
He would not trust any opponent who shared the Iowa Debate Stage with him because all of them would have allowed the country to default. If we had defaulted the economy would be in turmoil with zero leadership from the rest of those on the stage.
Essentially he lambasted all of his GOP opponents for living on the fringe and he painted them all as name callers.
Just what was Governor Huntsman doing on Sunday morning except name calling? He ridiculed his opponents in this race in such a disrespectful manner that I could not possibly support him. But then he took another step at the very end of the interview. He ridiculed the good people of Iowa for their selection of Michele Bachmann by saying New Hampshire picks presidents. They pick something else in Iowa.
I was appalled. From beginning to end I found myself unable to consider him a serious candidate. Let me state the reasons why.
To begin, the Americans I hear screaming are not screaming for someone in the middle, they are screaming to end the Obama imposed nightmare of tyranny and lawlessness. I have heard many good ideas on the debate stages, perhaps the best have come from Newt Gingrich but the others have put forward ideas as well.
For another Republican to equate any candidates hard stance on the Debt Ceiling with default is disingenuous. There was not one candidate on that Iowa stage who promoted default. The method used by some to automatically equate the opposition to an increase in the debt ceiling with default is unfair and misleading. With that comment Huntsman lied to me and to everyone listening.
His three priorities are all important but they are certainly not in the order of importance that I would identify. His number one is probably a number four or even a number five. This doesn't make it unimportant but it certainly is not as important as controlling the deficit by cutting Washington's insatiable appetite for spending. Number one through three must include the repeal of Obamacare and other outrageous government spending programs, the elimination of all the over-regulation that is killing American industry and energy independence. Thus, I agree with him on two out of three.
His criticism of Perry for his statement on Evolution and Global Warming indicates that it is Governor Huntsman who is the obvious non-scientist, not Perry. Both are unproven theories, not proven science. The latter, Global Warming is being more and more discredited every month as we begin to recognize the cycles of earth orbits, moon orbits, and natures massive energy on this earth and within our solar system extend to things like climate and weather as well. So yes, Governor Huntsman, I call you crazy.
HIs mockery of Representative Bachmann was childish. If the price of gasoline was $1.87 when Obama took office then why is a return to that price unrealistic? All that a President Bachmann must do is unchain the oil industry, eliminate the hold of the EPA and the Department of Energy on harvesting our abundant natural resources and kill Obamacare. All are within the Michele Bachmann plan and if the economist I listened to the other evening is correct, in this economy a barrel of oil should be selling for $30. If this is correct and if the $1.87 price was based on the price for a barrel of oil at or above $70 then why wouldn't it be possible to return gas prices to levels below $2?
His remark about the inconsistencies of Romney were sophomoric. Rather than tell his audience that he didn't have enough time to list them all, why didn't he simply tell us one or two?
I don't know what kind of a governor Jon Huntsman was in Utah. His entry in the race I initially met with a big welcome. The more the merrier. However, as I listen to the candidates I do so cautiously to enable me to eliminate some so that I might direct my energy to candidates I can more easily support. I obviously have nothing in common with Governor Huntsman. I find him disrespectful and quite frankly, I remember better candidate comments in interviews during my high school elections for class president. Huntsman placed a nail in his own coffin on Sunday morning, something that a candidate would be better off allowing other candidates to do. Campaigns are hard enough. Huntsman self-destructed.
Categories: 2012 Presidential Race
Tags: Hunstman ABC Romney Bachmann Perry
While I do believe that the global economic downturn is the most significant challenge facing our nation today, it is very closely followed by our addiction to fossil fuels. Climate change is not a religion or an opinion-- it is a fact. If we do not take serious action within the next 10 years, our children will not be able to breathe their air, drink their water, or be proud of their parents. WE are the generation who will determine whether the earth remains livable, yet 46% of Americans do not "believe" in climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has conclusively shown that the climate is being unsustainably altered by human activity. By supporting fossil fuels, we are supporting petrodictators, a worlwide anti-democracy trend, and the growth of European nations over our own. The energy revolution is the next frontier, and the U.S. is not only failing to lead the charge but failing to recognize the issue at all. Germany and Denmark are pushing ahead without the U.S., and even China now has a more stringent renewable energy portfolio than the U.S. (which has no nation-wide energy portfolio at all). A tax on carbon would promote innovation, provide income to lower the national debt, improve our national security, improve our balance of trade, be a source of pride for Americans, entice international businesses to build factories and create jobs in the U.S. instead of abroad, and renew America's economy, international standing, and government. THIS is what our 2012 campaign should be about. The fact that Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul all deny that climate change is real and manmade is an indication of how skewed the American political sphere has become.
Reply to this
If you mean that our climate is always changing, yes, that is a fact. If you mean that we should be fearful of the dire consequences man has created by burning fossil fuels, no, that is not a fact. If it were a fact, you could prove it and no, you cannot prove it. What is a fact is that a concerted effort has been undertaken over the last several years to falsify climate data, ignore contrary data and deceive the population in an effort to gain economic power. The panel you cite on climate change has proven nothing. There has been a consensus of opinion by some scientists who are themselves dependent upon the study of climate change that man is creating havoc on the environment. This is not scientific proof. It is pure conjecture by people who lack independence of judgment. A tax on carbon would promote recession or perhaps depression. It would enrich men like Al Gore at the expense of every American, including yourself. The real solution to finding substitute sources of energy is not a tax but to allow all forms of energy exploration and retrieval and allow the market itself to identify cheaper substitute sources of energy. All government and carbon taxes can do is introduce artificial stimuli into a market that works against such research and innovation. You could not be more wrong.
Reply to this
The fact of importance is not that the climate is changing, it is the dramatic rate of change that is critical. The evidence is compelling of the increase in global temperatures, CO2 levels, polar ice melt, etc. The environmental devastation caused by "clean" coal, oil exploration, fracking for natural gas, etc. only exacerbates the problem. You are the one who could not be more wrong. What kind of kick-back do you get from the oil companies for your ill-informed statements? It's time to stop subsidizing industries that continuing destroying the earth as we know it.
Reply to this
Jim,
If you believe the matter of importance is the drastic change in climate then substantiate it. I do not believe it. We know the data that supports your conclusions was fraudulently recorded and we know that scientists who dispute those models were not allowed to publish their rebuttals. Despite your statement about the polar ice melting, I also hear the opposite. CO2 is certainly not a pollutant and a ruling by the US Supreme Court cannot make it one. Scientifically, it is an necessary ingredient to life. Without CO2, we get no O2 and we have nothing to breathe. And please, etc. is not compelling in any kind of an argument for or against an issue.
I believe the normal cycle of the earth, that shows periods of warming and periods of cooling can be explained by the earth's elliptical orbit and its constantly changing proximity to the sun as well as the activity on the sun. This makes more sense than any argument stating that man can have an appreciable effect on the climate of our planet. In the entire scheme of things, we are not so significant.
However, you believe I receive kickbacks from the oil companies. Oh how I wish I did. I would like to work for an oil company. They provide a good product that could be at a cheap price that everyone needs. They are necessary, productive contributors to our economy.
There is only one ill-informed person arguing this topic today and unfortunately, it is you. If you want to convince us that the earth is on a tragic course caused by man's affect on the climate then prove it. Show your data, not your opinion. Debate as an adult and stop the sophomoric rants and talking points of the radical left. Show some substance in your arguments. Tell me about the science that you can prove. Cite your sources and provide your evidence. Until then I would not support one dime of tax money going to fight global warming. The concept is simply too ridiculous.
Reply to this