This poll from the Daily Kos shows him running poorly against Sen. Robert Bennett in a theoretical matchup. In case you were wondering, Daily Kos claims Ken is a Democrat, but we have reason to believe Ken is actually an Independent. My question is: why is Ken even being mentioned? Has he said he will enter Utah politics? I did some Googling and could find no announcement that he was being recruited or wanted to test the political waters. Is it that difficult to find a Democrat in Utah (Geoff B asked rhetorically)?
Just as I was about to press “publish” I saw a post from Ken Jennings today on his blog saying he will not run for this U.S. Senate seat. You can read it here. Ken claims he will not run so he can “spend more time with my family. (And when I say “with my family,” I mean, “screwing around on the Internet.”)” Sounds like a non-denial denial to me. (Just kidding, Ken).
One other small point: Ken says he no longer lives in Utah. Oops.
Speaking of Utah politics, Geoff, did you have a chance to read this interview?:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19181.html
It seems like Hunstman is trying to occupy a less ideological position within the party, positioning himself in a way that Mitt Romney might have done, but, for whatever reasons, felt himself unable to do. Huntsman is at least recognizing the reality of generational shifts, and it seems that his vision of the party would be more healthy for it in the long run, than that of the Palins and Jindals who represent an ever-diminishing portion of the electorate.
Bill, interesting segue.
Huntsman strikes me as better than some Republicans, worse than others. I still think Romney is my favorite national politician. As I said on another thread, I’m looking for a combination of Ron Paul on the economy, Mitt Romney on social issues and Joe Lieberman on foreign policy. The closest I’ve seen to that is Mitt. Not that I think he will necessarily be the 2012 candidate, just that he’s the closest of what I personally would like.
As for being a “moderate Republican,” well, McCain was a moderate, and look where it got us. Personally, I don’t think the solution is to become more like the Democrats but instead to stand up for certain time-tested principles. I think it’s hilarious that so many Dems and lefties want Republicans to be “moderates” when they would never vote for them even if they did run as moderate. Just look at how the media turned McCain into a villain and a right-winger when he’s the ultimate moderate. Being a moderate Republican just means you don’t excite the conservative base or the liberal base, which is not much of a strategy.
As for Palin or Jindal, both of them have major problems, and I would probably agree with you on some of them.
I don’t know that moderation is necessarily a bad strategy in a country where independents usually decide the election. I think a more doctrinaire conservative would have lost to Obama worse than McCain did. The liberal base, for example, is excited by Kucinich and Feingold, and the more realistic among them favored John Edwards early in the primaries. It was Obama’s appeal to the broad middle that was the foundation of his success.
I don’t disagree that standing up for time-tested principles is a good idea, although we probably don’t completely agree on the best way to stand up for them, or even the best way to characterize them. Part of the problem for Republicans, at the moment, is that many of them have very little credibility on issues such as fiscal responsibility, corruption, and the rule of law, having involved themselves in scandals or protected those who did, and having voted for so much irresponsible spending. Now that they are out of power they have rediscovered their consciences.
It occurs to me that I did not really address one of Huntsman’s main points, which is that Republicans need to recognize that the younger generation is more likely to be “moderate” on, for example “gay rights” and therefore Republicans should change their position to be more in tune with future voters. I find this argument incredibly silly. Younger voters are also much more likely to be in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution — should Republicans come out in favor of these positions so they can win more votes?
Being in favor of civil unions (which Huntsman kind of endorsed) is a lose-lose position for Republicans. Most gay rights groups are not really interested in civil unions — they want “marriage.” And most social conservatives oppose civil unions because they normalize relationships they feel society should not endorse.
There is a compromise that I support, which is for state governments to make it easier for individuals to draw up private contracts that allow them to, for example, ensure hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, home ownership rights, etc. As a social conservative, I have no problem with two people drawing up a contract, that would be legally binding upon hospitals, that says that Party 1 can visit Party 2 in the hospital if one of them is sick. And I have no problem with a contract that would allow Party 1 to leave all of his worldly goods to Party 2. Government should make it easier for private individuals to draw up such contracts. That would not come anywhere close to providing gay rights advocates with what they want, but it would be a humane thing to do.
Bill, it’s difficult to disagree with your argument that a more doctrinaire conservative would have lost worse than McCain — given the more conservative candidates available on the national scene. I think Romney, for example, probably would have lost worse than McCain. Fred Thompson? Dead in the water. Huckabee is arguably a moderate on economic and foreign policy issues, but even if you say he’s more conservative than McCain, he would have lost much worse than McCain.
Personally, I don’t think they would have lost for ideological reasons but instead for different faults as national candidates.
It is also impossible to deny that Republicans lost credibility on fiscal responsibility and on ethical issues.
So, how do the Republican regain that credibility? Not by becoming “moderates” and agreeing with $2 trillion deficits, which is where we are headed. In my opinion, the deficit spending and the re-making of society that the Dems are currently engineering will be THE issues in 2012, and the only way Republicans can regain their strength as a party is to stand in stark contrast to the big government plan that Obama is putting forward. Does that mean not being “moderate?” Yes it does, and halelujah for that!
With such a poor showing in the polls, I am surprised that Ken would not have thought about not thinking about not running for public office sooner. I mean, he should have had the foresight to conduct his own polling rather than let Daily Kos do it for him. He should have known he would poll poorly against Bennett. I, for one, will not be voting for Ken Jennings when he does not run for office.
I have heard Ken say that he is a Democrat (though I do not remember where). Now, he may not have been a registered Democrat, but most people I knew when living in Utah were not registerd with any party because it was not really needed. That is changing with new primary rules on the GOP-side.
In races like these, the Utah Dems have a hard time finding candidates willing to be a sacrificial lamb (it is a lot of time and money). This is particularly the case against Bennett. He is by far one of the most decent elected officials in Utah, if not the US. I think he may be the only Republican that I have voted for (other than in county or city elections).
@Brian Duffin
Brian: You crack me up.
@Chris H.
I don’t know much about Bennett, but I do hear good things about him. We had a similar situation in Arizona with our former governor and current DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano. She enjoyed support from both sides of the aisle and destroyed each Republican who ran against her for governor. She consistently polled well.
So Ken Jennings no longer lives in Utah. Automatically, I start hearing banjos. “First thing you know, ol’ Ken’s a millionaire. Kinfolks say ‘Ken, move away from there.'” Did he move to Beverly Hills too? Does his new place have a cement swimming hole?
Bill, I probably should start a new thread on Huntsman, but here is an expanded story on his views:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19455.html
Basically, Huntsman is saying Republicans should be more “moderate” on gay rights (civil unions), the environment (accepting the global warming religionists’ views) and on immigration (accepting amnesty). I agree with him on one out of three — immigration. I’ve already discussed how I feel on civil unions above. On the environment, I am A TR-style conservationist who believes in public land and believes in recycling and believes in alternative sources of energy but also somebody who rejects the global warming alarmism of the Left and rejects not developing oil and coal and nuclear power, as well as solar, wind and geothermal.
If Huntsman were to run for president, I most likely would support somebody else at this point, but of course we’d have to see who else is running. At this point, I would support Ron Paul over Huntsman (and I am not a big Ron Paul supporter).
I brought up Huntsman not necessarily to praise his moderate credentials, but to remark that he seems to be one of the few Republicans not prisoner to ideology, who is at least trying not to remain cocooned, but to face the reality that at least some accomodations will probably have to made in order not to become, as he says, irrelevant.
Not sure why you keep jibing at climate scientists. There are certainly a few environmental activist kooks out there, but the International Panel on Climate Change is hardly a religious body, and its reports, far from being faith-based, are models of restraint, so much so that each time they put out another one, they have to recognize that their previous findings had been too conservative.
Now there have been recent instances of government being a little too faith-based and not skeptical enough, for instance, the Monica Goodling/Kyle Sampson justice department. Or how about the blind faith of some in the Fed, Treasury, SEC, etc., in the ability of the banks to regulate themselves? I am for free markets and the rule of law, but a certain virulent strain of market fundamentalism has unfortunately dominated in recent years best evidenced by the reverence for the high priest Greenspan, and all the chattering and cheerleading acolytes on CNBC where dissent was mocked when it was allowed to appear at all.
Incidentally, to respond to your earlier point, ever since I was convinced in 1987-88 by the libertarian (Boston, now San Francisco) talk-show host Gene Burns that legislating morality was a hopeless affair, I have been in favor of legalizing drugs. What I have learned since then has only confirmed for me that the war on drugs is a colossal waste of resources and that it is counterproductive, creating more problems than it solves.
@Bill
I think Huntsman could do well. I think Romney’s train has left. Jindal did poorly enough last week that I don’t think he reflects the GOP hope.