-
A Novel Solution to the Immigration Problem: The NAFTA Angle
January 30, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Keeping Eastern Europe in Mind
April 25, 2012 | 1 comment
-
Why Some Government Spending Is Better Than Others …
February 24, 2012 | 3 comments
-
The End of Secularism and the HHS Mandate
February 15, 2012 | 2 comments
-
The Reversal of Proposition 8: A Dangerous Precedent
February 8, 2012 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Press secretary Tim Miller gives the answer, “Mitt Romney beat us,” and then goes on to explain the things Mitt Romney has done well. That’s fine. Mitt Romney probably has been a better candidate this time than in 2008, but the answer regarding Huntsman’s own campaign is far from sufficient.
It is probably too soon for a post-mortem from a member of the team, but at some point I would like to see one of them explain how it is that a successful governor with a strong record managed to be the ONLY candidate in the race who failed to get a turn in the spotlight. We have seen Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain earn serious consideration and high poll numbers. Santorum and Gingrich have both mounted threats to Romney, despite seemingly being finished as office-holders. And yet, Jon Huntsman, a man with a terrific résumé and a solid record, was scarcely able to beat the margin of error.
Why? I think the answer is that he gave off the wrong signals right from the beginning. Huntsman was asked about matters such as climate change and evolution. His answers gave the clear impression that he felt conservative voters have failed to comprehend the rationality and power of science, thus demonstrating that he apparently buys into the standard narrative of the conservative idiot. Voters will never choose the man who appears to hold them in contempt.
He could have held exactly the same opinions he has, but addressed the matter differently. For example, he could have said that he understands the evidence regarding climate change and thinks the primary question for non-scientists is what it all means. Much of the resistance regarding climate change arguments is not so much to the idea of it as to the question of what should be done. The wall begins to rise when the globo-catastrophists list their very expensive demands. Huntsman should have turned the question to those issues rather than making acceptance or denial of climate change the issue. With regard to evolution, Huntsman should have likewlse turned the question to the implications.
A second, though less significant answer, is that Huntsman missed his one big opportunity to make an impression on voters. After coming in third in New Hampshire and getting prime time air to give a speech, Huntsman failed to have any kind of compelling message ready. When Rick Santorum made his big splash in Iowa, he spoke without notes to massive effect. He was ready. Huntsman’s “ticket to ride” speech left his audience wanting more.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Hunter Baker
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/20/huntsmans-team-on-why-they-los
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 11:44PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Casey Abell| 1.20.12 @ 10:11AM
"When Rick Santorum made his big splash in Iowa, he spoke without notes to massive effect."
Yep, the massive effect was fifth place in New Hampshire, a mere thirty points off the lead. Fourth place in South Carolina might well be next.
Anommynous| 1.20.12 @ 12:45PM
Fourth place in New Hampshire, ahead of Newt.
Casey Abell| 1.20.12 @ 1:19PM
Makes no difference - they both got clobbered - but Gingrich actually edged ahead of Santorum for fourth place in the official results from the NH Secretary of State.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim.....ryPres.htm
Anommynous| 1.20.12 @ 3:06PM
I stand corrected.
Brendan| 1.20.12 @ 10:27AM
I said in a comment here that Huntsman needed to go on a show like Mark Levin, and do a mea culpa. Of course, I am a commentator on a blog writing in his pjs... That said, Huntsman started his campaign trying to redo the Reagan speech in front of the Statue of Liberty. It would have helped him if he had actually read the Reagan speech first. So his first shot was not just a dud, but he came out sounding like this was just another election, and that 2010 and the One's abuse of government and disdain for basic American culture did not exist.
As a quick aside - CO2 does have a greenhouse effect - so much that we are currently not freezing. That effect follows an asymptote - that is, the majority of that effect has already been baked in, and that it takes tremendously more and more CO2 to impact us - at all (see MIT's Lindzen for more details). What is not modeled correctly is the water vapor feedback. The GW types like to think that it is a positive feedback - meaning that it would amplify the effect that CO2 increases would have. Thoughtful researchers like Spencer and Christie have shown that is in fact negative - as it would have to be for this earth as we know it to still exists after the many historical swings of CO2 that this planet has seen over millions of years. Warmists also ignore the historical correlation between sunspots and temperature - known well before CERN confirmed that the actual causal effect was that the sun, in periods with low magnetic fields (when there are no sunspots) allows substantially more cosmic rays in, which creates cloud formation, which cools down the planet (there were virtually no sunspots during the Little Ice Age). So, it is not just a discussion of the economic effects that separate us from the warmists. It is their misuse of science for political means. Huntsman allowed himself to become their tool, and refused to apologize. He deserved political oblivion.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:49PM
An useful approach for Huntsman on the evolution question could have been thus: "what matters is that I believe G-d created the world. Mechanism of creation is not the crux of this argument."
That is a perfectly appropriate answer.
Global Warming and its anthropogenic possible association appears, increasingly, to be a pile of crap. Much more important are solar effects due to solar patterns.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:54PM
Thanks, Brendan. An excellent discussion of the AGW hoax is found in the novel "The Last Spartan," by John Ringo. (Yes, then I did the other reading, of course. But it's an entertaining place to start.)
Brendan| 1.20.12 @ 10:33AM
I should mention it appears from his article that Mr. Baker has bought into the science too. If so, he needs to hit the books... :-) If not, mea culpa!
Dai Alanye | 1.20.12 @ 10:45AM
CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a stronger one, and on average there's ten times as much in the atmosphere. But you don't see AlGore urging we cover the oceans with Saran Wrap to prevent evaporation.
Nancy in NC| 1.20.12 @ 11:15AM
Huntsman's main problem is that he comes across as a pompous ass. First impressions are so powerful that often one never gets a second chance.
If the junior Huntsman had the charisma and likeability of his father, he would still be in the race.
RJ| 1.20.12 @ 11:55AM
You nailed it Nancy. He does come across as a pompous ass and it was especially bad for him because he is a man of privilege.
Also, in a time of economic and domestic crisis, he emphasized his Ambassador to China experience rather than government reforms as the Governor of Utah. He was not ready for prime time and probably doesn't have the personality for the job.
Grzmlyk| 1.20.12 @ 12:36PM
I agree, he has "elitist" written all over him.
In addition, there is something preternaturally pre-fab about John Huntsman. He seems plastic to me; his looks, his bearing, his inflections - they all seem like they have been practiced for hours in front of a mirror.
Not only does that make him appear to be more mirage than reality, but it renders him eerily bloodless. He doesn't seem to be human.
My god, has his hair ever been mussed?
PCC| 1.20.12 @ 8:32PM
Right on, Nancy.
It's hard to get past his superiority complex. And when you do, you find out he's a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
Other than that, he's fine.
PCP Smoker| 1.20.12 @ 12:08PM
I can't believe the candidacy of a creepy candidate, renown for his chinese and "low-wattage snark," continues to be analyzed on these pages. A couple of days ago, Liberal writer James Antle III quoted Liberal bitch and faggot C. Friedesdok on why Huntsman lost. Preceding that article, an NRO creep was trying to explain why Huntsman was going to lose. WTF!
To the editors, NO ONE CARES ABOUT JOHN HUNTSMAN, HIS PATHETIC CANDIDACY, HIS DAD, HIS CHINESE, OR HIS GOVERNORSHIP. Let's concentrate on finding out who Obama's coke dealer was instead of wasting time with this has been.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:51PM
I'd like to verify Obama's membership in a gay Chicago bathhouse while married to Mooch.
Grzmlyk| 1.20.12 @ 12:32PM
Hunter Baker says, "Much of the resistance regarding climate change arguments is not so much to the idea of it as to the question of what should be done."
Not in my book. My "resistance" regarding climate change arguments is based on the fact that I do not believe massive, intrusive, pervasive government policies should be institutionalized that are based on a HOAX.
There is NO anthropogenic climate change. It is not science. It is a Marxist wealth redistribution scheme that is hiding behind the mask of science. That is what I believe, and I have seen nothing to sway my view; indeed, the arguments put forth by the corrupt science community seem to crumble with rather telling regularity.
Hunter Baker can believe whatever he wants - that Gaia is angry and we must assuage her anger with sacrifices in the form of cap-and-trade. Knock yourself out. Throw a virgin into the mouth of a volcano if you want.
But don't make me pay for your pagan religion. And that goes for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, too.
Gadfly| 1.20.12 @ 1:04PM
Huntsman had 3 goals:
Plan A - pull a McCain and hang around until all the conservatives beat themselves up and win by attrition;
Plan B - position himself as a moderate vp for conaervative nominee (like GHWB)
Plan C - position himself asa moderate candidate in 2016, assuming Obama wins and the tea party is less powerful in four years.
Not a terrible strategy, on theory, but he just went too far in the opposite direction from conservatism. Despite his fairly conservative record in Utah, he came off aa liberal more than a moderate. I can't see him ever getting conservatives to back him, and even of the 2016 republican party is more literate than todays republican party, I can't see him undoing the damage he's done this year
Gadfly| 1.20.12 @ 1:05PM
*liberal, not literate
Reid Smith| 1.20.12 @ 1:19PM
Great wrap-up. This was a good read.
jay| 1.20.12 @ 2:48PM
When it comes to evolution, there are those for whom it is a religious test. Asking if one "believes" in evolution is not about scientific thought so much as atheistic dogma. If the yes response is not given, the respondent is not simply wrong, but crazed and unfit. Talking about implications might work better with global warming, but Bjorn Lomborg is not unscathed.
Huntsman, as born out in Nate Silver's stats, positioned himself fairly well for a general election matchup as the person who might split the voters who have not previously left Obama, but are trending away, and combine that with all the Republicans who have no better option and begrudgingly turnout.
Gadfly| 1.20.12 @ 10:56PM
Although I generally respect Nate Silver's analysis, I don't buy that Huntsman was strong general candidate. Anything he gives you in Democrats and independents would be undercut by decreased Republican turnout and enthusiasm. Most democrats are going to vote for the democrat, and much of Obama's criticism in the Democratic party has come from the far left. I can't see many hard core liberals ditching Obama for a pro-life, pro-gun Mormon, and Huntsman doesn't have the common man appeal of someone like Uckabee
PattyMor| 1.20.12 @ 3:36PM
Jon managed to out bland Mitt Romney. Besides that, he just strikes me like a used car salesman. I don't know, they is just something about him that I do not like. And, we don't need more politicans dreaming up reasons to steal our money.
Richard Baker| 1.20.12 @ 7:03PM
Global warming/climate change is a hoax. So much for the "rationality and power of science". What, Political Science?
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 12:05AM
Huntsman gave the impression that conservatives voters fail to comprehend the power and rationality of science.
He did because they do. He was punished for telling the truth. Simple. End of story.
Brendan| 1.21.12 @ 12:39AM
And your qualifications are? Mine are a PhD in heat and mass transfer, with a minor in numerical analysis, with a healthy heaping of statistics. But I'm a minor character compared to my former advisor, who has written several textbooks on transport processes and has ripped apart the basic equation sets associated with GW theory and pinpointed where they have completely blown transport theory (his being retired helps).
Not that you need qualifications to understand that GW theory is bs. Spend some time at climateaudit or wattsupwiththat and any educated layman can quickly get up to speed on the hoax. But you sir, are no educated layman.
Huntsman was punished for being an arrogant ass. End of story.
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 9:29AM
Hunter Baker is artful enough to waltz the issue. He implies that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the theory that human activity is contributing to global warming. But like all scientists, he knows this is only a theory subject to further testing and refinement and he also knows that climate is a complicated multi-variable system. What Baker does artfully is present this in such a way as not to offend the hoaxers. Huntsman was not so graceful.
If the research of your mentor and yours is compelling, the scientific community will take it into account. Consider the demanding standard set by the scientists at CERN who are far from accepting preliminary evidence that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier.
anonymous| 1.21.12 @ 12:28AM
He ran as a Democrat, on the Republican ticket
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 9:33AM
Actually, he ran as an Eisenhower Republican but that party was long ago destroyed by radicals.