ABC’s Karl Despairs GOP Has ‘Lost Only Candidate... Concerned About Climate Change’
“With Huntsman gone,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl despaired Monday night, “the field of Republican candidates has lost the only candidate who favored civil unions for gay couples and said he was concerned about climate change.” In his World News report, Karl recalled how Hunstman once “tweeted: ‘To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.’”
Over on the CBS Evening News, Jan Crawford noted how Huntsman was more popular with the news media than with Republicans: “Huntsman’s campaign never really took off, except among newspaper editorial boards.”
From Karl’s story on ther Monday, January 16 ABC World News, with the matching text of a 2011 Huntsman tweet displayed on screen:
...With Huntsman gone, the field of Republican candidates has lost the only candidate who favored civil unions for gay couples and said he was concerned about climate change. At one point, Huntsman tweeted: “To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”...
Earlier examples of journalistic admiration for Huntsman:
From January 5: “CBS Evening News Touts Huntsman, the ‘Sane Republican’ with an ‘Impressive Resume’”
From December 11: “Amanpour Despairs ‘Sanest’ Huntsman with ‘Eminently Sensible Positions’ Losing to ‘Bombastic’ Gingrich”
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
OK Jon, you're CRAZY!!!!!!!!
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 9:15pm.
OK Jon, you're CRAZY!!!!!!!!
Why so sad, Mr. Karl?
Submitted by mustango on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 9:30pm.
After all, doesn't this mean Obama can now win a landslide re-election on a platform of gay marriage and climate change?
Aww, reporters are just so cute when they pretend it really matters to them who the GOP nominee is.
Ticked off Lamers
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 9:33pm.
The Lamers are actually ticked off because they will not be able to select the Republican candidate this time. Their man is gone!
boy if the Democrats got
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 9:33pm.
boy if the Democrats got their hands on carbon dioxide they could really have fun killing us all. the humane party of "love and peace" would kill again.
Carbon dioxide is a homophobic term
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 10:53pm.
Have you ever heard of a dicycle? Di-weekly or di-annual calendars? How about disexuals?
No!
Why do that call it carbon DIoxide? Why don't they call it carbon BIoxide? I'll tell you why: it's a scheme to avoid any references to alternate lifestyles.
The Republicans started this a long time ago when they intentionally named it Dioxide instead of BIoxide so it wouldn't remind people of a sexual preference. They (evil Republicans) don't want to mention the vast numbers of BIsexuals in the US. Nooooo. They want to hide that fact, treat them like second-class citizens, deprive them of their rights, and eventually kill them by feeding them red meat, Twinkies, and Kool-Aid with artificial dyes. To do this, they (evil Republicans) have resorted to the Big Brother method of changing words that remind us of BIsexual people, such as using carbon DIoxide instead of BIoxide.
More evil crap from George Bush that Birack O'Bama has to deal with. Thank God for Al the Sex Poodle Gore for continuing to remind us of the lessons of Claimategate.
I need some exercise...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 11:48pm.
...think I will go jump on my di-cycle and go for a ride...
It's a what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:15pm.
"I'll tell you why: it's a scheme to avoid any references to alternate lifestyles. "
I know you're being sarcastic, but that got me scratching my head! I didn't know that "alternative lifestyles" were in vogue back in 1754, when "carbon dioxide" was first labeled as such. Heh.
By the way, "di" is Greek, "bi" is Latin. When it comes to chemical terminology, it's all Greek to me, and you, and everyone else!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I heard
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 10:04pm.
Broadcast network newscasts generate untolerable levels of radiation
Well thank goodness
Submitted by Bliggie on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 10:49pm.
Thank goodness the liberals and communists are still focused on Important issues like two men marrying and a phony bogus scientific theory. I mean compared to those two extremely important issue things like the economy and unemployment, al quaida and Islamic fascism, our military being stretched and our security in general definitely fall by the wayside. Keep up the great work!
My thoughts
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 12:23am.
My thoughts exactly.................if we can just get behind that super important issue - gay marraige - and focus more time, energy, and money onto the 'global warming' problem - WHOOPS!! - I mean 'climate change'...............then everything else will fall into place and the world will be wonderful once again.
Of course, the MSM is too damn dense to know that they're part of the scam, so they actually BELIEVE this crap - but the power brokers and the puppet masters know that these agendas are part and parcel to their continuing takeover of our country, our liberty, our freedoms, our economy, and our security.
It's not too late for Huntsman...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 11:52pm.
...The Dem-bulbs can still draft him to primary against "The Teleprompter-In-Chief" since they Love him so freakin' much...
I suspect we will get a steady diet of Huntsman appearing on MESSDNC and the other "Unbiased" media channels in order for him to be baited into bashing the GOP candidates.
Like we won't survive somehow, Jonny?
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 12:16am.
What a hypocrite. He could care less about the Republican party and he could care less about a Republican candidate. He is simply mouthing whatever his editor told him based on Jay Carney's morning telecon.
“......To be clear, I
Submitted by big.league.slider on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:11am.
“......To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.....”
I wouldn't call Huntsman crazy, just scientifically illiterate. Scientific process is based on logical proof and evidence, and not "trust". If Huntsman had even the equivalent of a high school level physics education and access to the internet, he would easily understand that AGW theory is based entirely on scientific fraud.
Besides, as a liberal, the only reason Jonathan Karl would care who the GOP candidate will be is because he thinks that Obama is going to lose.
big.league.slider
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 10:29am.
Though I get your point - to be nitpicky - science isn't based on "logical proof".
logical proof?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:50am.
Though I'm not a scientist, but I do love things science of various kinds, I've always thought of science as illogical until it's somewhat understood, and even then, I wouldn't attribute any kind of logic to something to the nature of "it is what it is."
In essence, science should not be about what YOU(any person, this isn't directed to anyone, just to be clear) want it to be, science should never be used as a manipulative tool to fit an agenda that wouldn't normally fit the facts.
-Jon
jon_torlin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 12:24pm.
I was just being nitpicky in the sense that a "logical proof" is a type of argument which doesn't involve semantics (meanings and references) and so isn't really the basis for science, which obviously does reference things in the real world - particularly empirical things.
In math-heavy areas of science, there is heavy reliance on mathematical/logical derivations but I wouldn't attach the word "proof" to those in the sense that they don't constitute a proof of the theory they are derived from. Derivations are used (in part) to find consequences of a theory which in turn can be tested and which might (or might not) result in supporting evidence for that theory. But even then, empirical evidence which supports a theory doesn't constitute proof.
Having said that, I understand that people use the word "logic" in kind of a loose way. Your suggestion that science is illogical until it's understood is an example. Strictly, it's assumed that any scientific theory or model - no matter how speculative or preliminary - follows basic logic in that it's free of obvious contradictions. But I get the point you were making.
To your last point - I think some in paleoclimatology are trying to do exactly what you suggest. However, having said that, I'm sure there are folks in that area of study who are just trying to do good science and who are trying to avoid all the political crap which seems to have polluted their field.
So which scientific fraud do you speak of?
Submitted by John Francroix Jr on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 10:38am.
Or does it begin with Adam and Eve?
Good morning John
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 10:50am.
Have you ever considered making intelligent comments?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Hi Cocodrie, Any relation to cocoram?
Submitted by John Francroix Jr on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 10:57am.
I heard someone shout "bunk." I was asking a follow up.
Mentally challenged
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:07am.
Yfour posts indicate that you don't have the mental ability to make intelligent comments.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
If you don't have an answer
Submitted by John Francroix Jr on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:08am.
You could simply say so. Or allow the poster whose comments my question was directed to answer the question.
Why should he?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:21pm.
Why should he answer a "question " that should have never been asked? Anyone with even a limited reading comprehension ability would have already known what he was referring to.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why don't you do your own work, Fran Swa?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 11:53am.
Go to Bing, type in East Anglia, e-mails and hacked, and go from there.
Why do liberals always insist that someone else do for them that which they're too lazy to do?
Adam and Eve?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:06pm.
Adam and Eve committed scientific fraud?
As for your question, did you actually READ his comment? He specifically mentioned which scientific fraud he was referring too: AGW theory. Did you miss that part?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Great news then, one still
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:20am.
Great news then, one still useless issue cluttering things up.
Boo hoo-hoo...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 8:58am.
I'm getting the feeling that the media is beginning to realize that they're starting to lose their influence with the public.
Lesson learned? Maybe this time... Or am I just dreaming.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
What a dummy.
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:07pm.
Hey Jonnie, there are also no Republican candidates left who are concerned about speed of the Gulf Stream current.
OH NOES! You mean there are
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:13pm.
OH NOES! You mean there are no more Republican candidates that believe in Global Warming? I was willing to give this crop of candidates the benefit of the doubt when they denounced the Great Pumpkin, and I didn't even abandon them when none expressed a belief in Santa Claus but this is the straw that broke the camel's back! I mean, I bet none of them even believe in the healing powers of crystals for cryin' out loud!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.