Ross doesn’t see much use in the Huntsman strategy Dan McCarthy discussed yesterday:
When Paul feuded with Giuliani over foreign policy four years ago, he was separating himself from the pack on an issue that actually mattered, both to the Republican electorate and to the country as a whole. Whereas by casting himself as the candidate of capital-S Science, touting his belief in evolution and global warming, Huntsman is staking out maverick-y positions on issues that matter far more to media-intelligentsia types than to most American voters.
No less important in giving Paul a modest advantage last time was the fact that he was the only Republican candidate who would have taken strong antiwar and anti-hegemonist positions. At least for those voters looking for a straightforward attack on Bush-era foreign policy, Paul was the only option, and he campaigned that way. Unless I have missed something, Huntsman has taken positions that are essentially identical to Romney’s views on these issues. Trying to be a less annoying Romney isn’t going to win a lot of support.
Not only were the issues that separated Paul and Giuliani more timely and politically relevant, but they also reflected disagreements on what the candidates believed the federal government should be doing. Having flirted with cap-and-trade as a governor, Huntsman now rejects it, so how does it really differentiate him from the rest of the field that he believes in anthropogenic global warming? When it comes to environmental policy, aren’t Huntsman and Romney currently on the same page as all of the other candidates? It’s not as if there is a large bloc of anti-Intelligent Design, environmentalist Republican voters out there anyway, but if there were they might just as well stick with Romney.
Neildsmith 
What I found offensive about Huntsan’s attack on those who question evolution and global warming (at least AGW) is his lumping together two issues which are completely separate. For the record, I am a firm believer in Darwin’s theory of evolution (as is the world’s pharmacy industry) and completely reject the idea of creative design. In my view, the resistance to Darwin’s theory of evolution is primarily based on a literal belief in the Biblical account set forth in Genesis, as if some relatively backward Jews wandering in the deserts of the Middle East could have any grasp of science when they made no contribution to serious intellectual thought in ancient days.
On the other hand, I am a skeptic when it comes to AGW. Since I have some acquaintance with history, I am aware that the climate of planet Earth has varied wlldly over its 4+ billion year existence, and in some periods the temperature has been as much as 5 degrees or more warmer than today, and that was long before the appearance of man and his automobiles. In fact, one of the disturbing things about the recent controversy about the manipulation of data by pro-AGW scientists was their blatant attempt to obscure the warming period of the Middle Ages (long before the industrial revolution and automobiles). That merely confirmed my skepticism about AGW. Added to that is the fact that the global warming long predicted has not occurred for the last 15 years.
I have previously referred to Rick Perry as “George Bush without the brains.” I must amend that observation in light of his recent comments. He may still have less brain power than Bush, but he clearly is much more articulate than Bush. I noticed that when he criticized AGW he did so in concise and perfectly clear English which basically conveyed the reasons for being a global warming skeptic.
On the other hand, I found his entre into the evolution debate to be utterly appalling. He was asked by a 9-year old “how old was the Earth?” His response was not direct but evasive. He said that Texas schools taught both Darwinian evolutionary theory and “creative design” (which turned out to be false). He then said his questioner was “smart enough” to figure out which was the truer account, leaving no doubt which way he leaned. He thus evaded giving his 9-year questioner a direct answer to his question, and I believe this spells trouble down the line. I recall a debate during the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries when the candidate were asked whether they rejected “Darwinian evolution,” and the only three candidates to raise their hands were Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback, none of whom managed to win the nomination. I can see Perry being pressed on the issue raised by the 9-year old in some future debate. If he answers as he and his ardent supporters believe, “6000 years old according to the Bible,” I think his polls numbers will begin deflating rapidly. I can’t imagine the Republican Party will choose to nominate such an obviously ignorant person.