Hunter Baker explains Jon Huntsman’s downfall at Spectator.org:
… 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…
Liberals always explain away resistance as being due to either stupidity, not enough education or just incorrect presentation. They can never admit to being wrong.
“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.”
Another idiot at the American Spectator who ignores the fact that we recognize fraud when we see it, and the junk science is fraudulent and the “researchers” behind the AGW scare are criminals. What we want are prosecutions.
The savvy politician tries to avoid a direct answer to a direct question at all costs, because such answers can often be spun out of context to ill effect.
The savvy politician will take each question as a flag indicating the questioner’s particular area of current ignorance, and pass along whatever information he feels should be shared to alleviate that ignorance.
Questions often have unspoken assumptions behind them that may not be valid, and the smartest way to deal with those questions is to reveal the fallacies in the unspoken assumptions.
Huntsman should have answered that “Climate Change has not been shown to be as imminent a threat to America as the avalanche of Federal spending” – or some such. And that “The questions about evolution do not appear to be something the Federal government should be addressing.”
Huntsman, like many other politicians, was simply tricked by being confronted with a question that asked, on its face, whether he thought such-and-such was right or wrong.
The wise politician knows that it is NEVER in his purview to pass judgement on assertions beyond his personal field of expertise. The wise politician will consider whether such-and-such is an issue that represents a real tangible threat to the people, individually or collectively, whether this issue needs to be dealt with by the people and/or their government, and who to consult for input towards a course of action should action be called for.
For example, with regards to evolution versus creationism, the politician should declare that evolution is a scientific belief that should be taught in science classes and not in churches, that creation is a religious belief that should be taught in churches and not in science classes, and that the First Amendment prevents the government from becoming involved in churches.