Let us start with the usual disclaimer-I will gladly vote for any of the remaining GOP Presidential candidates in a general election (with the dishonourable exception of Ron Paul). I have briefly hopped on (and off) the Cain Train, I was a Bachmannite for a while, I succumbed to the Texan charms of Rick Perry. Back in the dark days of spring, I even supported Gary Johnson.

But I cannot see any viability for any of these people. All of them have either made catastrophic gaffes, or (in the case of Perry) underwhelmed supremely. So a week or so back I dived into the pool of candidates for what I hope was the last time. And the only person left I can support with enthusiasm is Jon Huntsman Jr.

I know the negatives-he believes in AGW, he worked for Obama, he stabbed the Beloved Leader in the back. I look past them, and I see a hugely intelligent and charismatic man with workable, excellent solutions for America, a positive and strong foreign policy and unwavering commitment to life reflected in his record as Governor of Utah.

He has a record of executive leadership, and in his time as Governor was a serial tax-cutter who worked tirelessly to make Utah the best place in these 50 states to do business. We’ve all heard of the Texas miracle-Utah’s transformation has been just as spectacular.

In Jon Huntsman I see a man who is both politically sharp as a knife, but also essentially a decent man. He has refused to throw mud or sling insults at the opposition, and has remained on friendly terms with people from every side of the political spectrum. His “remarks” about the rest of the field have been condescending, but they represent a man trying to differentiate himself from a primary field where you can’t tell the difference between many.

He is also electable in a way that the others in the lead are not. Newt Gingrich-a bona fide genius, but so intensely dislikeable, and with a rather questionable personal life. The average guy in a swing state with more than a passing knowledge of the Bible, Talmud, Qu’ran, Vedas or just morality will not appreciate a serial divorcer and adulterer. Rick Perry-I love the guy, but a lot of people I know don’t. They find him overbearing and a bit uncharismatic once he opens his mouth. Romney-we all know that there are jellyfish with more spine or guts than him. Jon Huntsman (as multiple polls testify) is the antithesis of this: scandal-free, a good speaker, a likeable individual (once you remove the tan and stupid ties).

Who knows-perhaps he’ll collapse and burn out like everyone else. But until that happens, I believe that Jon Huntsman will be the best man to oppose Barack Obama in 2012-and win.

Unnecessary (or should we say unconstitutional) government spending is something which should be opposed by every intelligent woman and man under the conservative banner. Aside from the above unconstitutionality, there are bigger issues-spending means higher taxes (anathema to us all), and a general lack of freedom under a larger government.

So one would be quite rational in thinking that the candidates for President which conservatives support are similarly opposed to such spending.

Thus it came as quite a surprise to me when Michelle Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll. Whilst this is hardly a reliable barometer of who will win the primary, it does give an approximation of conservative thought in Iowa.

So if conservatives oppose spending, and Michelle Bachmann has considerable popularity amongst conservatives, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Michelle Bachmann opposes spending.

This is a calumny of the highest order. And whatsmore, it is a falsehood propagated by Ms. Bachmann herself.

Let us begin with a quote from Ms Bachmann’s website:

I will demand a return to our Founders’ vision of smaller, smarter government within the enumerated powers laid out in the Constitution

Very admirable, I think we’ll all agree. The antithesis of the big, inefficient government which some on the left seek to foist on America.

But if we examine her actions behind the scenes, a rather different picture emerges.

And we begin with the Stimulus. That idiotic piece of psuedo-Keynesian claptrap which was intended to help America recover and instead plunged it (we can say with near-certainty) into a fiscal nightmare so bad that America has lost it’s AAA credit rating, was hours away from a catastrophic default and cannot be taken seriously as an economic force for a long time. Every conservative should abhor it. On Redstate we regularly castigate such figures as Arlen Specter or the Maine Senators who supported it. I suggest we add another name to that list-Michelle Bachmann.

Congresswoman Bachmann attempted to gain funding ($668.5 M) to build a bridge crossing the St. Croix river. Despite it being rejected, Bachmann then wrote several missives to the Administration, requesting money for a rail park, converting MN buses to CNG and the building of a commuter railway in Minnesota. Whilst this would be enough to repulse many, the sheer hypocrisy of vocally criticizing the stimulus whilst begging for stimulus money is highly disturbing.

The last example merely shows Bachmann to have no strong conservative values and to be an opportunist; the next proves her to be a statist.

As those of us who are not of the Muslim or Jewish faiths can testify, the cost of pork has gone up considerably recently. There are many reasons for this, not least government regulation and taxation. But I think we all agree that prices are too high. There are many ways to bring them down, but I think one which would appeal to us conservatives would be to reduce the regulation of the pork industry, as well as ease financial burdens on the state and so reduce state sales taxes.

But those pathways appear to be too free market for Ms Bachmann. In her letter to the Obama Administration (as leaked by HuffPo) she requested that the federal government

stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products

Take a moment and let it sink in. A Republican candidate for the Presidency is advocating state purchasing of products. Where in the Constitution is the government required or allowed to do that? Or the Federalist Papers? In fact, the last time I recall state purchasing of products, it was the USSR 40 years ago. Ms. Bachmann has just betrayed herself as a demi-socialist. While her voting record is pristine, at every given opportunity she takes federal money and uses federal power.

Michelle Bachmann is not a true conservative, simple as that. A true conservative despises unconstitutional spending, loathes taxes, is infuriated by Keynesian economics. Whilst Michelle Bachmann would like the world (and in particular Republican primary voters) to think of her as a “Joan of Arc” bravely crusading against federal spending, I believe (and I invite you to join me) that she is as much a backroom dealer, a Washington insider, a RINO as any other woman or man. Let the scales fall from your eyes, and tell Ms. Bachmann to, in the words of John Lennon,

Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.

Today, India celebrates 64 years of freedom and independence. In those 64 years it has progressed from a backwards backwater of the fragmenting empire into a global nuclear superpower and America’s most important ally in Asia.

64 years ago, a man named Mohandas Gandhi realized what colonialism had done to his country. And he chose to fight. Though he wore only a simple, home-spun dhoti, he fought with the same courage and perseverance that Washington did in his blue jacket and musket. Gandhi did not fight with arms, he fought with words. He created a network of people all dedicated to one thing and one thing alone-freedom for India. He united Hindus and Sikhs, Moslems and Christians, Jains and Buddhists. He did not see whether people were rich or poor, he saw whether they wanted oppression or liberty. And thanks to him and other brave visionaries of the time, India is now a free and prosperous country.

In a continent dominated by news of the bully of Asia China, India is often outshadowed. But America should not ignore this friend of a billion people. Rather, America should view it as the anti-China. While China’s growth has been on the back of oppression and suppression, India’s has been on the back of free-market reforms and democracy.

Despite the attempts by Pakistan to destroy this, India remains a peaceful country. Neither the terrible Mumbai attacks (in which 4 Americans died) or the more recent bombings have changed this.

The latest and last bastion of the free market is in India. There, no-one is afraid to be rich. Despite the jungle of red tape and regulation yet to be cut, a street merchant can become a millionaire. Indian outsourcing firms handle huge amounts of American business. Indian factories manufacture vast amounts of American goods. America should not view this as a threat, a competitor, but as a synergy, a partner in the free market with which to trade, to business and to see mutual gain.

There is a definite sense  that China is taking over Asia and fighting a war of economies with America, a war in which America seems doomed to lose. But by holding India close and keeping it strong, America gains an unshakable ally, an ally who will fight to the death for liberty.

In the backstreets of Chennai and Madras, in the glass-and-steel towers of Bangalore, in the rural backwaters of Kerala, India looks to America. It sees America as a vindication of sorts, living physical proof that democracy and liberty will lead to prosperity. That America, another country which fought tyranny and won, is a shining example of how India seeks to be.

So once again, happy birthday India. And may the alliance between India and America grow stronger, and may their shared yearning for liberty become the key to the world changing for the better.

The cabinet of the President is an oft-overlooked part of the Presidential election. Yet no set of individuals influences a President’s policy more than his (or her) cabinet.

So I thought it’d be interesting to pick a “fantasy cabinet” for a prospective Republican President. Put your selections in the comments if you have any.

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Mitch Daniels>A Princeton degree, experience running America’s coffers as budget director, an articulate face to a difficult job.

SECRETARY OF STATE: Jon Huntsman>Represented America on a national stage before, presentable, has the upper hand in terms of language

SECRETARY OF DEFENCE: John Bolton>Tough, relentless fighter for America, not afraid to call a spade a spade, has made significant prior policy contributions

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Arthur C. Brookes>Independent minded, presides over the AEI, experience in theoretical economics, good negotiator

SECRETARY OF LABOR: Scott Walker>Took on the unions before and won, willing to be bipartisan, experienced in the world of labour relations

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Bobby Jindal>Articulate and intelligent, policy “wonk”, brings remarkable knowledge of healthcare, longtime opponent of Obamcare

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION:  Lamar Alexander>Former Secretary of Education, experienced politician, regular critic of America’s education system

SECRETARY OF ENERGY: Rex Tillerson>Prominent corporate Republican, ran major energy firm, knowledge of sector

Of course, I’m not enough of an expert to name every single appointee. But we need to pay careful attention to who the cabinet contains. A good cabinet secretary-Condi Rice, Kissinger, Summers-can turn an apathetic administration into one which can target issues and consolidate gains. A bad secretary-Rubin, Colin Powell, the entire Obama Administration (excluding Hilary)-can either try and micromanage their department to destruction, act as an extension of a bad President or go off on a tangent against the policies of an Administration.

We don’t know if we’re going to win in 2012, but what is certain is that if we do, we need the right team ready.