Jon Huntsman: Call me crazy but I believe in evolution and global warming

posted at 6:59 pm on August 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

I too am a fan of Darwin, so that’s one thing Hunts and I have in common.

Another thing we have in common: Neither one of us is winning the Republican primary.

Huntsman made the tweet shortly after Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered comments that cast doubt on evolution — his comments can be interpreted as criticism of Perry.

“To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,” tweeted Huntsman, the former ambassador to China.

Perry has also raised questions about whether humans are contributing to global warming.

According to a Gallup poll taken last year, the number of Republicans who said God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years clocked in at a breezy 52 percent. Another 36 percent said evolution is happening but is being guided by God, and just eight percent joined me on RINO island by believing that evolution is happening on its own. (The last group is also a small minority among Democrats and independents, but not quite as small.) So naturally, if you’re a Republican who’s already under suspicion for being too far to the center, you’d want to chime in on this almost wholly irrelevant issue and alienate the solid majority of religious primary voters who disagree with you. Wait, what?

Here’s something else you’d want to do if you’re trying to beat the rap that you’re more interested in impressing media sophisticates than winning over grassroots conservatives. You’d want to sit for a profile in Vogue magazine (with photos by Annie Leibovitz!) written by a guy who goofs on Palin regularly at Slate and who recently likened tea-party congressmen to “mindless cannibals.” I recommend reading all of it — my favorite line is “One doesn’t cover this campaign so much as join it” — but here’s the passage that makes it all worthwhile:

When we chat at the airport, Mary Kaye tells me about the first time her husband and Obama met, in a holding room at Coretta Scott King’s funeral in 2006. She glimpsed some kind of spark, a connection between the two men, as if they knew that they would figure jointly in some future history.

I admire Mrs. Huntsman’s candor, but the idea that she would volunteer that observation knowing how much of a liability her husband’s service to Obama is among the base is mind-boggling. Serious question: Is Huntsman trying to win anymore or is he playing some sort of long game now? I can imagine a game plan in which he tries to position himself as the fearless yet doomed centrist Cassandra who warned the base not to nominate a candidate too far to the right. If Obama wins reelection, Huntsman gets to do an “I told you so” tour among an adoring media and hope that Republican primary voters will remember when he runs again in 2016. The only problem with that? There are a good half dozen bona fide rock stars who’ll also be positioned to run next time, starting with Marco Rubio and maybe including Christie, Jindal, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley, and who knows who else. Anyone think Huntsman, who’ll have been out of office for five years by 2016 and nine years by 2020, will beat ‘em all? I honestly don’t get his grand strategy.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Evolution? Pretty solid.

But global warming? I listen to the top scientists and careful, methodical statisticians who recognize that climate science is a relatively new science and that drawing long term conclusions is dicey at best.

And, I also like comments like this one:

Hey Jonny,

I trust scientists too. Especially the ones from NASA whose satellites revolve around the earth and monitor heat loss in the atmosphere. The ones who prove unequivocally that global warming does not exist. Who you do you have? Scientists living off government grants that pay them to support government control of our daily lives. Get a grip lib.

volsense on August 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM

So, Huntsman gets a 50 on my test. Fail.

Trochilus on August 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM

But what will the Fox man, Karl Rove, say about these unfortunate comments by Huntsman? Oh, I almost forgot, Rove only trashes conservatives. My bad….

mobydutch on August 18, 2011 at 7:48 PM

(with photos by Annie Leibovitz!)

What… no wild-eyed, rage-o-holic photos?

Disappointing.

The Ugly American on August 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Crazy, stupid, loon, democrat.

SouthernGent on August 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Thanks John, you’ve helped to make up my mind.

You’re toast

Kini on August 18, 2011 at 7:52 PM

According to a Gallup poll taken last year, the number of Republicans who said God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years clocked in at a breezy 52 percent.

Gack.

So naturally, if you’re a Republican who’s already under suspicion for being too far to the center, you’d want to chime in on this almost wholly irrelevant issue and alienate the solid majority of religious primary voters who disagree with you. Wait, what?

Heh. He’s toast.

peski on August 18, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Also, that 50 doesn’t mean he is crazy. But it does suggest that he may be a little stupid.

Couple that with the natural suspicions any Republican would have about Huntsman’s sudden resignation from the Obama Administration, and entrance into the Republican Presidential race — at which point EVERY Democrat in sight suddenly declared the guy the one they feared the most and the man to beat — and you have a perfect storm of misdirection and deceit.

Go home, John!

Trochilus on August 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

But global warming? I listen to the top scientists and careful, methodical statisticians who recognize that climate science is a relatively new science and that drawing long term conclusions is dicey at best.

A link to the WSJ that represents the views of one preeminent scientist who stands in the minority. Not very credible. It’s as credible an argument as the body of anti-evolution ‘science’.

Huntsman is in trouble- a candidate with enough of a brain to say that he agrees with 90% of the scientists at US research universities- but not politically correct enough for the politics of the Tea Party.

bayam on August 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

IF Obama should get 4 more….there is no way in hell Huntsman will get it in 2016. By the time Obutthead is done with this country, there will be no more need for new leaders. Obama will have been annointed king!

capejasmine on August 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Well Shep Smith and “Campaign Carl” just now on the show tried to revive Huntsman at the expense of the silly Texan who doesn’t BELIEVE.
They were the ones who snarked about Palin and Africa as a country, right?

Marcus on August 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Yep, Huntsman, you may be crazy after all….

chai on August 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Perhaps he’s still enamored of Obama. A plant?

Mason on August 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM

I believe in God and evolution. It’s not really hard to reconcile evolution and Christianity. As to global warming… call me an agnostic. However, has anybody asked Obama whether he believes that God created the universe. If he says yes, then he believes in some form of Intelligent Design. If he says no, than we know who AP will be voting for.

Mike Rathbone on August 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Did Soros Obama Axelrod and Co really think we would fall for voting for this DemocRat? Huntsman is no conservative…not even a RINO… and we’re no idiots…Oh and their rollout of him was stupid…

CCRWM on August 18, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Well, Huntsman trusts the real scientists. Not the fake ones who’ve been hired to make Al Gore look bad.

Jim Treacher on August 18, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Wait! I got it!! Jon Huntsman could take Shep’s place on Fox!

DrStock on August 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Have to see him in mascara first.

slickwillie2001 on August 18, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Count me in the 36 percent Allah was talking about, and in the 100 percent who believe Huntsman is a DNC plant.

stefanite on August 18, 2011 at 7:31 PM

He could be an establishment plant to make Romney look good.

flyfisher on August 18, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Crazy.

Aronne on August 18, 2011 at 8:20 PM

A link to the WSJ that represents the views of one preeminent scientist who stands in the minority. Not very credible. It’s as credible an argument as the body of anti-evolution ‘science’.

Huntsman is in trouble- a candidate with enough of a brain to say that he agrees with 90% of the scientists at US research universities- but not politically correct enough for the politics of the Tea Party.

bayam on August 18, 2011 at 7:55 PM

It is cute how you kids from the Riddlin generation have been so indoctrinated by the academic community into believing their total omniscience on all subjects. Yet when they attempt to apply their knowledge and fail miserably they have to run with their tails between their legs back to the safety and false reality known as academia. Just ask Christina Romer.

No the two are not comparable, but you are just a government drone so why be honest right?

Oh and nothing on our side is Politically Correct, you are clueless as to the correct application term even though you neo-comm’s have tried your best to co-op the term. Let me give you hint…it was used widespread long before Bill Maher started the push to change its meaning, but I have a feeling his show is older than you have been alive.

ClassicCon on August 18, 2011 at 8:21 PM

i think it is hard to understand the stupidity of the large majority of the political class. Huntsman just knows what is PC, and rather enjoyed his picture in Vogue. No doubt Brooks though that Huntsman struck a masterful, even presidential, pose in that pix…tingle, leg, etc.

Most of these people are so way not qualified to run “the country”. Take Barry (please!). I listened to him in the IL stop. I just listened to the questions part. Very pathetic. His cadence was stilted…often pausing in mid-sentence so as to figure out what the last part of the sentence should be.

Then there was the part about the insipid question from a student about Supply Chain Management (something along the lines of…do you think it’s a good idea Mr. President???). Barry promptly illustrated that, actually, he doesn’t know what Supply Chain Management is. (he seems to think it has something to do with moving products over to China to sell…hmmmm, a little backwards, barry).

But that’s ok. A community activist/lawyer has every reason not to know anything about business….but, barry, just don’t make a fool out of yourself.

r keller on August 18, 2011 at 8:21 PM

OK, Jon, you’re crazy. Satisfied?

Kissmygrits on August 18, 2011 at 8:36 PM

We had better be warming up from 12,000 years ago.

Otherwise you will get a mile of ice over New York… hey, now there’s a thought! Too bad VA gets a climate akin to that of modern AK… but would it be worth it to see Boston and NYC under a mile of ice? Decisions, decisions…

ajacksonian on August 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM

When we are talking about evolution, what exactly are we talking about? I am assuming this is a dig at Christians and their crazy beliefs. But the thing is most Christians believe in the proven science of Darwinism, such as species adapting to their environment over time and those that don’t adapt die out. They don’t believe that man came from ape. But this isn’t proven science. So either I am missing something or this whole darwin debate is about making fun of people who don’t embrace science that hasn’t been proven. The same goes for global warming.

Seriously, am I missing something?

ramrants on August 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM

I honestly don’t get his grand strategy.

Huntsman is running the McCain campaign of last cycle. His problem is that he isn’t McCain, in terms of national name recognition.

But he could win. Don’t laugh.

Assume that the field stays the same, or Palin gets in. Assume Paul keeps pulling his 10-15% in any given state. The only candidates with real money and orgs are Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman and Palin.

Now assume that Romney starts fading in his fight with Perry.

You know who this helps?

Huntsman gains some ground in NH and FL. Then come primary time, he pulls off an upset over a beleaguered Mitt in NH with the help of the indies who voted for McCain and Obama last cycle. He then goes on to win Florida against a divided Perry/Bachmann/(and maybe Palin) base. And after that if it gets down to a Huntsman or Romney vs. Bachmann or Perry or Palin it’s more than plausible that Huntsman/Romney win. McCain did it.

This is exactly what the Huntsman people are thinking.

BocaJuniors on August 18, 2011 at 8:54 PM

They don’t believe that man came from ape.

Seriously, am I missing something?

ramrants on August 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Yes, you’re missing something. Evolution does not say we came from apes.

BocaJuniors on August 18, 2011 at 8:56 PM

What is he saying? Evolution is almost guaranteed. Global warming is a scam, not supported by scientists

proconstitution on August 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I think evolution is consistent with a belief in a Creator. I see more and more that evidence from the real world diverges strongly from global warming model projections.

Evolution +1
global warming -1

People like Chris Matthews accuse skeptics of being anti-science when he gets his science only from press releases.

MaggiePoo on August 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM

I think evolution is consistent with a belief in a Creator. I see more and more that evidence from the real world diverges strongly from global warming model projections.

Evolution +1
global warming -1

MaggiePoo on August 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Ditto.

I was surprised Huntsman doubled down on global warming when he could at least deflect with saying “We should invest in mitigation and economic development, not burden the economy with green taxes.” or something of the like.

BocaJuniors on August 18, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Huntsman never had my vote anyway. His links to Harry Reid are just stomach turning.

ELF to Huntsman: You’re Crazy.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 18, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Mormons believing in evolution? Since when?

Jdripper on August 18, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Yes, you’re missing something. Evolution does not say we came from apes.

BocaJuniors on August 18, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I thought that was the issue. Then what is the issue?

ramrants on August 18, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Not to be a troll but I feel I must comment. First let me say that I am not commenting on the validity of evolution. There are certainly things which are true but we cannot know them to be true. And there are certainly things which are false but we cannot know them to be false. Thank you Kurt Godel. But as I understand evolution and science, it strikes me as poor science for two big reasons:

1.) It’s not predictive. The study of evolution does not predict what species will turn into.

2.) It’s not repeatable. The evolution from brain-eating amoeba to elephant has never been repeated in a lab environment.

Any one of those two reasons should be enough to reject just about any “science”. Not only that but those are two reasons that people complain about global warming. Why the pass for evolution? Plus historically evolutionists have been suckered by numerous hoaxes, and frankly I don’t know how testable macro-evolution even is. Again, I’m not claiming evolution is wrong. Just wondering why people don’t have problems with that subject like they do global warming. After all, if you’re really interested in science then you wouldn’t prefer one result over another. Your only interest would be in determining the truth.

PS: Full disclosure, my degree is in mathematics, not biology.

Goldenavatar on August 18, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Huntsman crazy? Crazy like a fox, a delusional, grandiose, self-styled Fox Of Destiny too caught up admiring his bushy tail to notice no one else seems awed by his most total awesomeness.

The country has endured vanity campaigns before although such campaigns are usually conducted by egomaniacal billionaires with too much time on their hands and too few people in their inner circle unwilling to stand up and speak out and give it to them straight.

So no, there is no long-view strategy going on in the Huntsman campaign, just a pack of highly paid yes-men, sycophants and assorted hangers-on telling Huntsman that his time has arrived. I can hear them now: ‘Don’t worry, boss. The numbers’ll go up. They don’t know you yet. When they know you, they’ll love you as we do.’

It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic, especially since Huntsman is an accomplished diplomat with solid executive experience. The country could use him, just not as president.

troyriser_gopftw on August 18, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Mormons believing in evolution? Since when?

Jdripper on August 18, 2011 at 9:15 PM

The LDS Church doesn’t take a position on Evolution. Individuals are free to make up their own minds.

I suppose it depends on how literal you take the Adam and Eve story; and how you define “created”.

I’ve know Mormons who are staunch Evolution supporters, and those who are just as trenched in supporting Adam and Eve.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 18, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Both are absolute hoaxes, so at least he’s being consistent[ly ignorant].

fossten on August 18, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Jon Huntzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…man.

profitsbeard on August 18, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Evolution does not say we came from apes.

Actually man is a type of ape.

If you are talking about modern day gorillas, chimps, and tangs, ie great apes….evolution does not say we evolved from them. It states we have common ancestors.

Modern day humans and chimps (closest cousin) had a common ancestor about 6 million years ago…one branched out to eventually become chimps and the other hominids…most of whom are extinct (homo erectus, neanderthal etc) except us.

Pablo Honey on August 18, 2011 at 10:15 PM

If you believe in evolution, then you should embrace global warming, man made or not. Who are you to say it’s good or bad? Isn’t is just part of the evolutionary cycle? Why is it good to fight it? Based on what? Moral responsibility? How un-evolutionary. Then again, what are “good” or “bad” anyway? A bunch of apes got together and “reasoned” them into existence? What’s reason anyway? Apeful determinism? Who cares?

Oh, right. Jon Huntsman cares. He really does.

somewhatconcerned on August 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Another thing we have in common: Neither one of us is winning the Republican primary

Had to clean up my Coke I was drinking when I read that! Why is this guy running as a Republican. Already said he likes Obama. Romney and Huntsman are both are on the global warming scientist must be right kick. How much is the Mormon Church set to make off of the global warming “junk science?” Quote is from Senator Inhofe.

PhiKapMom on August 18, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Allah posits:

I honestly don’t get his grand strategy.

Could be he’s just a farking idiot. Just a thought….

Tim Zank on August 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Huntsman is Obama’s phantom this year, next year and in 2016.

Schadenfreude on August 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM

According to a Gallup poll taken last year, the number of Republicans who said God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years clocked in at a breezy 52 percent.

This is willful ignorance based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 to 3. It’s not that God could not, it’s that he chose not and left clear evidence that he did not, unless God is a liar. (He’s not.)

Such willful ignorance is characteristic of back in the gospel days Christians who were admonished for remaining under the Law. Shake it off 52% and figure out what the Bible means to you instead of buying in on what it means to somebody else.

Another 36 percent said evolution is happening but is being guided by God, and just eight percent joined me on RINO island by believing that evolution is happening on its own.

Here is a safe place for the believer since it cannot be proved or disproved. Even so, pure evolution, unaffected by the divine would be no less of God if he can be granted credit as designer/creator at the beginning.

Just sayin’. Alternative theories and proofs about Earth amd the origin of species are not anti-God. There is hope for AP.

exdeadhead on August 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Why not? Both evolution and global warming are based on preconceived ideas, which proponents use to interpret and mold scientific facts in a way which “proves” their hypothesis.

JannyMae on August 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Uh, Huntsman is crazy. He’s a Mormon nutbag.

tetriskid on August 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Uh, Huntsman is crazy. He’s a Mormon nutbag.

tetriskid on August 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

I agree that Huntsman is a wacko, but I don’t think it has anything to do with his religion.

Norwegian on August 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I agree that Huntsman is a wacko, but I don’t think it has anything to do with his religion.

Norwegian on August 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Yeah, unfortunately anybody who believes some of things Huntsman believes isn’t playing with a full deck.

He’s out to lunch.

tetriskid on August 18, 2011 at 11:16 PM

OK, Jon, you’re crazy!!!

bflat879 on August 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Sorry to be late for the party-I was at work.
I believe in intelligent design. God created the world and all in it and He’s involved in it today, but the means he used to create it-be it evolution or whatever-isn’t important.
Man-made ‘global warming’ is a joke.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM

w h o ?

amend2 on August 18, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Huntsman reminds me a good deal of Charlie Crist. He could be legit, but I get the feeling that he created an image that he thought would play well with enough voters to get him elected, then stepped inside it. He may well have contempt for Republicans because they aren’t playing the game as he envisioned it, and he might have a point. Republicans have a track record of nominating moderate squishes.

Aardvark on August 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Your outa here dude..

Badbrucskie on August 19, 2011 at 12:34 AM

How much is the Mormon Church set to make off of the global warming “junk science?” Quote is from Senator Inhofe.

PhiKapMom on August 18, 2011 at 10:27 PM

What in the heck does the Mormon Church have to do with this idiot believing in global warming? AND how do they make money from it, since I have never heard a word on it!

Bambi on August 19, 2011 at 12:37 AM

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

By this definition, Evolution is a theory. Creationism and ID are not. Sorry.

HTL on August 19, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Even more sorry for stopping mid-thought. AGW is also not a theory by the definition cited above. And actually, for the same reason as the other two: none of them are supported by “a vast body of evidence”.

HTL on August 19, 2011 at 12:46 AM

It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
HTL on August 19, 2011 at 12:41 AM

By that definition, neither is Evolution. So far, all the “evidence” for evolution has proven to be either an outright fraud (especially during the early years right after Darwin postulated his theory) or explained by Creation/ID theory. There are millions of artifacts and fossils that certainly support the contention that there is intentional design present in their construction, but nothing found so far supports the contention that time and Brownian motion produced everything around us…and can someone explain where the original “stuff” came from that started evolving and eventually produced what we see around us today? For those who believe in a mixture of God and evolution, why would a Being who could create everything instantaneously use the slowest, most inefficient, cruelest “trial and error” method possible to create living creatures? I thought He was also the embodiment of Love? Final thought, since God created Nature according to Creationism, how can Creationism be evaluated by rules within “Nature” since God is outside “Nature”?

Regardless, since the topic is Huntsman’s attack on a windmill, he demonstrated he lacks the savvy to know which issues to engage and which way to engage them. According to the reports and the video I have seen, Perry simply said evolution has some gaps in it, they teach both evolution and Creation (or Intelligent Design) in Texas, and they figure folks are smart enough to decide for themselves. Why would Huntsman make an issue out of that given so many other vulnerabilities Perry has (see Michelle Malkin’s latest blog for details)?

Not trying to “hit and run”, but I have to get up early, so I have to leave. I do follow the conversations, though, so I will check the string again when I have time.

opaobie on August 19, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Huntsman is a halfwit meat puppet for Barack Obama, who is pulling every string and trying to set up Huntsman as his McCain II.

Since Huntsman won’t even criticize Obama and insists that everything Barack Obama does is peachy keen, I think that makes the point beautifully.

northdallasthirty on August 19, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Remember his fawning notes to Obama and Clinton?

In a hint of what will no doubt be a major issue should Huntsman seek the GOP nomination, someone leaked handwritten letters the former Utah governor sent to Obama and former President Bill Clinton to the Daily Caller’s Jonathan Strong in which he praised the Democratic leaders.

“You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote to Obama in August 2009, underlining the world “remarkable” for emphasis. “It has been a great honor getting to know you.”

In a separate letter that same month, Huntsman thanked Clinton for a “very thoughtful note” the former president had sent him and said he regretted that the two didn’t have more time to talk about China before he was set to leave for Beijing.

“I have enormous regard for your experience, sense of history and brilliant analysis of world events,” Huntsman wrote.

He also offered similar praise for the ex-president’s wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying she’s “won the hearts and minds” of the State Department bureaucracy, which was, he said, “no easy task.”

This man will never be the Republican nominee for dogcatcher, much less higher office, and should probably be kept away from sharp objects.

Adjoran on August 19, 2011 at 3:54 AM

What’s Huntsman trying to do here? Besides further sink his credibility?…

Gohawgs on August 19, 2011 at 4:08 AM

Stunning.

I figured Newt Loops was going to be the first one out for sure.

Tiny Tim ended up first out and Huntsman’s looking to be #2; in every conceivable meaning of the phrase “Huntsman’s looking to be #2.”.

SuperCool on August 19, 2011 at 6:25 AM

Crazy? Nah, how about “stupid”; can I just call you stupid?

Extrafishy on August 19, 2011 at 6:33 AM

All right: Huntsman, You’re crazy (and a gullible fool).

zoyclem on August 19, 2011 at 7:01 AM

Jon Huntsman: Call me crazy but I believe in Joseph Smith, golden plates and global warming…

Okie dokie. But you forgot space aliens!

MNHawk on August 19, 2011 at 7:18 AM

Creationism and ID are not. Sorry.

HTL on August 19, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Since the Big Bang is Creationism, for a scientifically literate, 20th century audience, I take it you don’t think the Big Bang is a valid theory?

Shame what the global warming nonsense has done for the credibility of much of the scientific community.

MNHawk on August 19, 2011 at 7:21 AM

Okay… You’re crazy.

It’s not like he ever had a chance anyways.

jeffn21 on August 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Maybe not crazy, but definitely a tool.

Cylor on August 19, 2011 at 8:32 AM

I will not call you crazy, just finished.

Blue Collar Todd on August 19, 2011 at 8:34 AM

Lots of Mormon-bashing going on in this thread, and it isn’t right. I grew up in a part of Indiana that happens to have a large concentration of LDS members. Many of my childhood friends were Mormons and remain friends to this day. They are, by and large, good people and most of them are rock-solid poltical conservatives who believe in the same country in which I believe. The religion they practice is, to me, irrelevant. They could be Buddhists, for all I care.

It is shameful both Huntsman’s and Romney’s faith is used against them whenever people (both Left and Right) argue against their respective candidacies. Personally, I don’t care for Huntsman at all on the basis of his professed political views, and I’m not keen on Romney, either, whose calculating style and middle-of-the-road pandering leave me cold.

As it happens, I believe a Jewish carpenter from an obscure part of the old Roman Empire is the literal Son of God, that He performed miracles, that He died horribly on a cross, and that He came back from the dead and physically ascended into Heaven in front of hundreds of witnesses. If I tried explaining those beliefs to one of the space aliens NASA is so worried about, I can only imagine the response–unless, of course, they’re Christians, too, which is not so unlikely.

All that said, Romney and Huntsman can worship however and Whomever they choose. None of my business. None of yours, either.

troyriser_gopftw on August 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM

The guy went to work for Obama. He’s tarnished.

unclesmrgol on August 19, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Allah, you say you don’t get his grand strategy. Don’t be hard on yourself, because he doesn’t have a strategy, grand or otherwise. Huntsman is making it up as he goes along, used to getting by as the pretty boy of Republican politics, plagued with a deaf ear to the zeitgeist. He is mere fluff, filler, background noise, and not worth a second’s notice. A juggernaut is going to roll through in 2012– can you hear it coming? Huntsman will get crushed by it, becoming politically extinct. Survival of the fittest indeed!

gajaw999 on August 19, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Suffice it to say that I don’t have a clear understanding of Huntsman’s campaign strategy to win the nomination. He sure has a beautiful family, though. I wish them well.

And you know what? He would make a good replacement for Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

Jaibones on August 19, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Here’s the thing about climate change that the “catastrophic AGW” crowd doesn’t have even the slightest explanation for: the historical empirical data on atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide content is all over the place. Glaciers came, and went. It has been much, much colder, and much warmer throughout earth’s history, according to the Darwinites he loves so well.

So … why? Nearly all of this history pre-dates human existence (again…according to the Darwinistas). So if you think that humans are making it warm (as measured in terms of 1 degree C over a century), what made it warm before and what made it cold enough for a mile-thick glacier sitting on top of Chicago?

Without these explanations you just look like nitwits using mythology to explain things you don’t understand.

Jaibones on August 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM

I honestly don’t get his grand strategy.

Only thing that makes sense to me is that he’s not trying to win. He’s simply trying to be “that” Republican, the one who gets invited on all the talk shows to bash Republicans, the one exception that famous and popular liberals will like and invite out for drinks.

Basically, the Megan McCain path to a career.

Esthier on August 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM

According to a Gallup poll taken last year, the number of Republicans who said God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years clocked in at a breezy 52 percent. Another 36 percent said evolution is happening but is being guided by God, and just eight percent joined me on RINO island by believing that evolution is happening on its own.

But which god are we talking about here? Perhaps it would be best to start building fire temples to honor Ahura Mazda. That way anti-evolution and global warming would both be covered. As for Huntsman I think he is waiting for the right to destroy Romney and then move in as an alternative to the religious zealots.

Annar on August 19, 2011 at 9:58 AM

….still crazy after all these years….

jbh45 on August 19, 2011 at 9:59 AM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 18, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Yes, the LDS Church is neutral on the issue of evolution. Some Mormons believe in evolution but I would bet that most believe in Adam/Eve creation.

As a Mormon myself, I’m a believer in creation.

How much is the Mormon Church set to make off of the global warming “junk science?” Quote is from Senator Inhofe.

PhiKapMom on August 18, 2011 at 10:27 PM

I’d like to see a link to that quote.

And for the record…its bulls*tt. The Mormon Church doesn’t make money off of global warming.

This is another false smear about the LDS Church.

troyriser_gopftw on August 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM

Thank you. I appreciate your comments!

Conservative Samizdat on August 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Without these explanations you just look like nitwits using mythology to explain things you don’t understand.

Jaibones on August 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM

I keep hearing alarmists invoke the precautionary principle: We should destroy all industry and most jobs just in case we’re destroying the planet. I have a counter-proposal: Vampiric, invisible unicorns will attack and kill everyone unless I am paid 10 million dollars, pronto. See, my alarmist fantasies are much cheaper than theirs.

It all makes sense to Huntsman…

theCork on August 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Yup, he’s done.

Ward Cleaver on August 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Yeah, unfortunately anybody who believes some of things Huntsman believes isn’t playing with a full deck.

He’s out to lunch.

tetriskid on August 18, 2011 at 11:16 PM

At least your not a bigot.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 19, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Well that’s a complicated statement.

Call me crazy, but I believe in gravity and the Easter Bunny.

Well, the good news is you’re only crazy for believing in one of those things.

Even climate scientists don’t call it “Global Warming” anymore… because the globe stopped warming and the satellite data called a significant chunk of the previous “observed” warming into question as poorly situated readings and issues with data collection and not real warming.

But you keep believing like the 8th grader who still really thinks Santa Claus is real.. because in the 2nd grade all your friends did so it must be true.

gekkobear on August 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I admire Mrs. Huntsman’s candor, but …


I want my candidates’ spouses to lie to me and others.

Conservative integrity strikes again.

bifidis on August 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

In the end, Darwin was not a fan of Darwin. But his legacy, and the blindness of unwanted disciples, lives on.

For Mr. Huntsman: Ok, you’re crazy.

Freelancer on August 19, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Crazy, stupid, loon, democrat.

They have treatments for stuttering these days, you know.

drunyan8315 on August 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM

The fool! Sanity = doom in the race for the Republican nomination!

Constantine on August 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

In the end, Darwin was not a fan of Darwin. But his legacy, and the blindness of unwanted disciples, lives on.

For Mr. Huntsman: Ok, you’re crazy.

Freelancer on August 19, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Where did you hear that Darwin wasn’t a fan of Darwin? That sounds stupid, cause it is.

SauerKraut537 on August 19, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Look, its not worth arguing whether global warming exists or not. The fact is the globe has warmed and it has cooled; it is a loosing argument and a trap. The question should be is global warming anthropogenic or not. I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that it is not. That is the winning argument.

JeffVader on August 20, 2011 at 4:13 AM

What ended the last Ice Age?

Akzed on August 20, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Huntsman is simply a DNC plant.

TexasJew on August 21, 2011 at 12:20 AM

I find it pathetically sad that someone even has to say that they believe in evolution. It’s like saying that you believe in electrons, or hydrogen. No one should have to come out and proclaim to the world that they believe in any of these things because the existence of each has been proven not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Despite what some people want so desperately to believe because their sense of self hinges upon it, the world was not created in 6 days roughly 6,000 years ago. The universe is billions of years old and the timeline for life on earth goes back almost 4 billion years. This isn’t what it says in the bible because the bible is the collected and codified writings of Jews and Christians living in antiquity. Genesis is the Hebrew creation myth put into writing. Any relationship it has with physical reality or cosmological history is purely coincidental. The parts of the bible that deal with people and human nature are where the good stuff is to be found

Does this mean that there is no God? Anyone who makes that argument is lying since the question of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God or any God or Gods cannot be falsified based on the flaws found in the creation myth. But of course that won’t stop some christian hating pseudo-atheists from trying. As an irreligious person with no axe to grind nor converts proselytize to, I have no animosity towards people who are religious, but I do find people who pretend to be non-believers when they are actually motivated by malice and bigotry towards Christians to be odious in the extreme. Unable to come out and just say that they hate Christians, they instead pretend to find fault with the tenets of that faith, a faith that they would be disinterested in if they were truly not religious. A faith that they would judge based upon its consequences as much as by its tenets. The value of religion is not in its empirical validity, but in its efficacy. An atheist isn’t someone who doesn’t believe in god, but someone who hates it that you do. They’re emotionally immature losers.

As for Global warming, it appears to be a leftist scam, a manufactured imaginary crisis cooked up to justify policies that they once tried to use other arguments to support. Arguments that failed. Arguments that were bald faced lies and evil agendas wrapped up in sophistry. These arguments went by many names and euphemisms, but the most clear and definite name for them was Communism.

Global warming is Marxism through other means.

leereyno on August 22, 2011 at 2:14 AM

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,” tweeted Huntsman

Believe and trust are not scientific terms.

Huntsman, like all liberals who claim their scientific knowledge, doesn’t know what science even is.

“Trusting” in climate change scientists is right along the lines of “trusting” the NYT’s claim that male penguins standing next to each other or caring for an egg, means they are homosexuals, when it’s obvious that standing next to each other is not sexual attraction and hatching an egg is fatherhood

Huntsman has got himself a religion of politics.

LeeSeneca on August 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Fast-forward to the Huntsman vs Obama debate:

Huntsman: That’s a nice tie Mr President!
Obama: John, I have to say your hair looks great today!
Huntsman: And you and I, we work together on China, right?
Obama: Got that right. No partisan divide there. Are you with me on the global warming crisis?
Huntsman: We’re burning up right now, Mr president!
Obama: That’s great to hear. What about the debt-ceiling?
Huntsman: (looks up) I see no ceiling! Har! Har!
Obama: Raise-the-roof! Raise-the-roof!

virgo on August 22, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2