I don’t know why you seem to be under the impression that criticism of Huntsman constitutes praise of Michelle Bachmann. It seems to me that most people understand that each has virtues and vices that exist irrespective of the other.

“Romney’s inability to distance himself from even more asinine statements by Aiken and Mourdock.” I suppose Romney could have sent a robot from the future to terminate Akin before the Missouri senatorial primary. I don’t otherwise know what more Romney could have done to “distance” himself from Akin after he called on that delusional fool to drop out.

“Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina admitted that Huntsman was the one candidate they were glad they did not have to face.”

Yes, running against the son of a billionaire who openly despised his own party’s voters, and proposed to sharply cut his own taxes and raise taxes for the middle-class. Truly a Democrat’s worst political nightmare come to life. The only reason Huntsman’s economic program didn’t sink him was because his juvenile (yes, that’s the right word) shots at his own party sunk him first. I hope he enjoys the Good Republican chair over at MSNBC.

It’s pretty clear that Huntsman’s vilification of conservative voters was not some sort of miscalculation but the satisfaction of a psychological need to act out. I regret having said anything nice about him.

So yes, Huntsman is a fairly consistent Malthusian Conservative.

Back to Politics:) So you are basically saying that marginal candidates shouldn’t respond on twitter to attacks on previous policy stands? (keeping in mind the character limit, for the critique of smugness)

I mean Huntsman runs a Cancer center. One could think of the theory of Evolution as mere copyright or idealism for stimulating inquiry into the ways in which normal cells mutate. i.e. the study of Cancer is at the same time useful, and in another sense is also serious History. In any case I only trust the scientists on evolution, I don’t believe in it per se, but I believe it is somewhat implied via the Patent (which I am not a phosita for) which does indeed get FDA approval and does in fact help cure/fight cancer. So I believe in the derivatives of the theory of evolution, but if some very sophisticated biologists tells me that he disagrees with Evolution, then I assume he has some insight from some highly specialized angle beyond my Bullshit detection perch, and if via research he can use his applied scepticism of the theory of evolution to craft a drug which fights cancer more effectively in FDA clinical trials, then I am happy. Cancer evolution biology is in my opinion serious History, and useful History, and also in my opinion the way in which via patent wealth actually does trickle down. Just to take a bold IR stance I believe it is also demonstratively a reason we pay more for health care costs. The United States of America puts the rest of the world on a higher indifference curve vis a vis medical research/patent. Who is to say FDR didn’t also dream of a world without Polio?

So now that evolution is out of the way. On to Global Warming. Huntsman is not going to have a distinct position on anthropogenic global warming, that is just plain stupid, it is picking winners and loosers. But he was an administrator of the EPA, under Bush, he saw the best evidence from both sides. He had also signed a climate innitiative as Gov. Global Warming is also an IR issue. He is the one who pushed McCain to accept global warming in 2008. Not that McCain “believed” in it, the division of labor being what it is McCain doesn’t focus on the State Department side of IR. But wait that is not all… Huntsman was also a key person who brought China into the WTO. Anyone who pays attention to imports and exports with China knows that China itself has embarked upon incredible “Green energy” spending most of it comming from/bennefiting the competitive advantage of German multi-nationals like Siemmens. So Huntsman had a clear duty to Obama, and also to american corporate interests like GE to advocate on behalf of global warming and alternative energy development, as well as monitor these issues while remaining sophisticated enough to convince China not to resell nuclear tech for “energy” purposes to North Korea! The U.S. and Germany+France have been very sucessful in convincing China to ramp into Green Energy.

In fact for what it is worth (since tarrifs are essentially a dinosaur) we did put a small tarrif on China’s solar energy panels. In any case Huntsman policy vis a vis China was Obama policy? or Multi-National corporate policy?

In any case Huntsman taking positions on evolution or global warming is not showing showing contempt for most conservatives, but actually treating them as adults.

“I will not be attending this year’s convention, nor any Republican convention in the future until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States — a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits”

I agree, albeit I might either suggest Copyright as a source for the trust deficit(way too much is nothing more than a modicum of creativity fixed in a tangible medium of expression), while pointing out that internationally we have a trust surplus(or a marginal propensity to save in U.S. dollars) this demand for dollars internationally as well as the demand for consumer savings essentially requires budget deficits, and that therefore the desire to ballance the budget is arbitrary and capricious. All policy is hopelessly entwined, but I don’t think John Huntsman represents fantasy, I believe in fact that he is in possession of a realistic account of american foreign policy.