I agree that the anti-science remark was triggered more out of desperation from a candidate looking to catch a break in the media at that point than out of disrespect or hostility to anything or any one in particular, It served his purpose by widening the case with moderates and Independents but came across as so tone-deaf in right wing circles you will notice it wasn’t a mis-step that was repeated.
The fact remains there is no way to put together a winning base without appealing to ex-Obama supporters FED UP with the state of things (and there are TONS of them). What has to be kept in mind is that Huntsman is looking to scale up the concepts instituted in Utah without pandering or running away from his record. (Although I wouldn’t mind if he flip-flopped on global warming which isn’t going to fly as a political wedge issue.)
So because Jon is an old-school conservative, his indictment of the problems the party faces in continuing to be out of touch with mainstream America is obviously not an indictment of traditional free market conservative philosophy. It may not be a popular line to take, but if the country were interested in radical solutions by a less than qualified right wing theorist we would be on the verge of a Pres Bachmann, Pres Santorum, Paul, Perry etc., no ?
“The minute the Republican party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem”
“We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party,”
Personally, I would rather see him as a CofS, since he excells management wise, and I think thats his best place. I'm not to keen on beating up on conservatives (it was in an actual interview that he referred to himself as center-right and right of center) just to get ahead. I'll give him a look, but I don't think his chances are honestly that good.