It seems politicians are like fisherman: always willing to switch to more effective bait.

Jim Antle makes the understatement of the week:

And by seeming open to preventive war in Iran, Huntsman may not be the ideal candidate for foreign policy restraint.

Worse than that, it undermines the main argument for why Huntsman should be taken seriously as a candidate: his reputation for greater foreign policy experience and understanding. In a mostly hawkish field that ranges from the ridiculously alarmist (Santorum) to the irresponsibly alarmist (Romney), Huntsman is supposed to possess the sobriety and sanity that other “mainstream” candidates lack. His “I can’t live with a nuclear-armed Iran” line may be nothing more than lip service, but the fact that he is willing to indulge one of the most dangerous ideas in current foreign policy debate badly weakens the one thing that distinguishes him from the other candidates.

And I do refute most of the “blame China” rhetoric. Yes, they bend many of the WTO rules, and that needs to be fixed, but in reality, we did this to ourselves. It was American corporations & investors who got them their start in their new economy, after all.