Republican party is 'devoid of a soul', says Jon Huntsman

Republican party is 'devoid of a soul', says Jon Huntsman
Raf Sanchez
The Telegraph

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the former Utah governor and leading Republican moderate said the party must accept "a strong dose of libertarianism" on social issues and allow state governments to move ahead with gay marriage.

Offering his prescription for the party's renewal, Mr Huntsman said the early stages of the Republican presidential primaries rewarded extreme conservatives rather than "long-term competitive candidates" who could effectively take on the Democrats.

Barack Obama appointed the Mandarin-speaking 52-year-old US Ambassador to China in 2009, a decision the newly-elected President hoped would keep Mr Huntsman out of this year's election.

Obama campaign aides openly acknowledged that they believed the two-term governor would be a difficult general election opponent and possibly the most dangerous Republican in the field.

He returned from Beijing in 2011 to media fanfare but his presidential bid collapsed in the early stages as he failed to connect with the conservatives that make up the Republican primary electorate.

Mr Huntsman said that his work for a Democrat president, his belief in climate change and his relatively liberal attitude on gay rights had obscured his conservative stances on budgets, gun control and abortion.

"You get caught up in a lot of the issues on which you're easily dismissed without people giving you proper consideration," he said.

However, the scale of Mitt Romney's defeat in November has left the party reeling and may create a fresh opening for the socially-moderate but fiscally-conservative ideas Mr Huntsman espoused in the primary.

"The party right now is a holding company that's devoid of a soul and it will be filled up with ideas over time and leaders will take their proper place," he said.

Mr Huntsman urged the party to "reflect a little bit on our winning chapters" and face up to a demographic reality where white conservatives represent a shrinking portion of the electorate.

"We can't be known as a party that's fear-based and doesn't believe in math," he said. "In the end it will come down to a party that believes in opportunity for all our people, economic competitiveness and a strong dose of libertarianism."

He said he "absolutely" supported individual states being allowed to implement gay marriage, saying that Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, believed that "equality under the law is an American value".

Mr Huntsman did not rule out a second presidential run in 2016 but said he was not spending his time "looking for some opening that we can fit in".

He said that the three most talked about names for the Republican nomination - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney's former running mate Congressman Paul Ryan - "all deserve high marks individually".

However, he declined to support any of them, saying he believed the party needed to go through "a very competitive process in terms of ideas".

Mr Huntsman joined with a growing number of Republicans in attacking the use of "straw polls" - small-scale, unofficial voting contests among conservative activists - that gave "little blips of momentum and buzz" to far-Right primary candidates.

Both Michelle Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman beloved by the Tea Party, and Herman Cain, the former pizza executive, won straw polls last year but still saw their candidacies implode.

"You look back and you realize [the straw polls results are] fairly artificial and ephemeral and really don't speak to long-term competitive candidates that can actually go the distance on the big issues of the day," he said.

Mr Huntsman cautioned that the improving economy would put Mr Obama's Democratic successor in a strong position for 2016 but said that eight years of incumbency would take a toll on the President's party.

"The one thing that is as sure as the rising tomorrow is that the Democrats will become lazy and they will take their off the ball," he said. "We will see more crony capitalism in Washington as the state grows and that's the kind of thing Americans hate."

I cannot say anything against this. I agree 100%.

Bryant wrote:

Mr Huntsman said that his work for a Democrat president, his belief in climate change and his relatively liberal attitude on gay rights had obscured his conservative stances on budgets, gun control and abortion."

This is whats he's right about. Conservative Republicansd dont like him, dont want him and he should throw off his disguise as a Republican and be what he truly is...a libertarian. Make one wonder why he did so poorly as a GOP candidate eh?

Because Republicans clearly disagree with the man's pov.

Dennis324 wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Mr Huntsman said that his work for a Democrat president, his belief in climate change and his relatively liberal attitude on gay rights had obscured his conservative stances on budgets, gun control and abortion."

This is whats he's right about. Conservative Republicansd dont like him, dont want him and he should throw off his disguise as a Republican and be what he truly is...a libertarian. Make one wonder why he did so poorly as a GOP candidate eh?

Because Republicans clearly disagree with the man's pov.

He isn't a libertarian and likely would do poorly amongst them. Jon Huntsman is a moderate and a realist. If the GOP ever wants to regain the White House they better start supporting the likes of him. If he runs again I'll likely donate.

Eh, maybe I was quick to label him a libertarian. But he may as well be. Libertarians love him. He was praised by the libertarian Cato Institute.

He's a left-leaning republican on social issues and that aint gonna fly with conservative republicans. Huntsman supported legislation that would have allowed civil unions for same-sex couples in Utah. That's really a democrat issue now. The true conservatives in the party arent gonna like that.

I also think he's probaly a global warming guy. And while I personally wonder if there's something to global warming, most conservatives in the party dont like this.

So I wont call ya dumb or aDixiecrat. Lol! But I will admit that Huntsman does have some good ideas. He supports a fence on our border and securing the border. He's not a big Cap and Trade guy either. And I agree with him that our tax code is a mess. So he isnt a total failure.

But I'm not sure the GOP will support him. Even if he won the nomination, I would expect GOP turnout to be even lower than it was for Romney. And that would kill the GOP...again.

Speaking of being "devoid of a soul".....

Republicans at war over delay to Sandy aid in 'fiscal cliff' deal

THE Republican leader in Congress was accused of betraying his own party yesterday by delaying relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy, hours after more than 150 of his members rebelled against his "fiscal cliff" compromise.

A number of prominent north-eastern Republicans accused John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, of reneging on a promise to authorise the aid after he postponed a vote to send $60bn (€45.5bn) of relief to the region, which was struck by the storm more than two months ago.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey and a front-runner for the party's 2016 presidential nomination, accused Mr Boehner "of callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state".

"There's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner," Mr Christie said in an attack on the "disappointing and disgusting" actions of his own party.

The governor said Mr Boehner had failed to return four phone calls and that he had "no reason" to believe any future promises from him.

Representative Peter King of New York said the party leader had stuck "a knife in the back" of the people of New York and New Jersey.

Mr Boehner delayed the vote in an effort to avoid antagonising conservatives who were already furious over the so-called "fiscal cliff" vote, which raised taxes on the wealthy but did not include equivalent spending cuts.

Nearly two-thirds of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against Mr Boehner, including his own deputy and several other senior figures. With the backing of Democrats, the deal went through by 257 votes to 167.

However, the Sandy vote was abandoned with little warning on Tuesday night. Mr King said the Speaker had "sneaked off in the dead of night" rather than face the Right of the party.

"There's dysfunction within the Republican leadership and for some reason the Speaker is taking it out on the people of Long Island, New York and New Jersey," Mr King said. During a furious interview with CNN, he said that any New Yorker who donated to his party "should have their head examined".

US President Barack Obama also sent a statement from Hawaii, where he has resumed his holiday, urging immediate action on the package of aid.

The uprising will weaken Mr Boehner's authority as he seeks re-election as Speaker of the House when the new Congress is sworn in today.

Although he is still likely to be re-elected, a number of his own members may vote against him as a signal of their anger.

Representative Michael Grimm, a New York Republican, said Mr Boehner's decision on the storm relief "absolutely" made him question whether he could support him as Speaker. "I feel it's a betrayal and an indefensible, an indefensible error in judgment on the Speaker's behalf," he said.

Mr Boehner's image was further tarnished after it was reported that he told Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat majority leader, to "go f**k yourself" during a confrontation at the White House. His spokesman did not deny the claim.

The twin revolts came at the end of a turbulent several weeks for Mr Boehner, when his failure to control conservative members of his party led to him being sidelined during the budget negotiations.

Democrats and Republicans are likely to engage in another showdown in February, when the US will hit the debt ceiling and will require a Congressional vote to raise the amount the government can borrow to service its $16trn (€12.14trn) debt. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

I get the whole being pissed at the fiscal cliff vote and stuff, but if there's one thing you should be OK to spend money on, it's disaster relief. Of course someone is going to turn around now and say that the way they do disaster relief is bloated, wasteful & inefficient so why pay for it, but so is most things government do (no matter who's in power) and is better to be bloated and inefficient "wasting" money on disaster relief than being bloated and efficient on buying some new shiny shiny toy for the army. And either way, if you don't even make the pretence of helping the people who elected you when they really need help, what good are you as a politician?

Miles1 wrote:

I get the whole being pissed at the fiscal cliff vote and stuff, but if there's one thing you should be OK to spend money on, it's disaster relief. Of course someone is going to turn around now and say that the way they do disaster relief is bloated, wasteful & inefficient so why pay for it, but so is most things government do (no matter who's in power) and is better to be bloated and inefficient "wasting" money on disaster relief than being bloated and efficient on buying some new shiny shiny toy for the army. And either way, if you don't even make the pretence of helping the people who elected you when they really need help, what good are you as a politician?

Been through many hurricanes in my time. Many of them severe.

Why do they need relief funds now???
Who needs the funds???
Do you really understand who is going to get it and why???

FEMA is basically nothing more than an insurance company for those who can't get private insurance. Who can't get private insurance??? In this instance, it is those who built on or near the water. Who built on or near the water??? Same as everywhere really.......the wealthy.

This is not as bad as the article makes it out to be.

Dennis324 wrote:

So I wont call ya dumb or aDixiecrat. Lol!

Can't let it go can you???
Gotta keep on attacking huh???
What, are you like still in Junior High???
Are you such a coward that you have to make off the cuff smart-assed remarks about me, yet not make them to me directly???

Keep it up buddy. Jesus would be proud.

Marconius wrote:

Miles1 wrote:

I get the whole being pissed at the fiscal cliff vote and stuff, but if there's one thing you should be OK to spend money on, it's disaster relief. Of course someone is going to turn around now and say that the way they do disaster relief is bloated, wasteful & inefficient so why pay for it, but so is most things government do (no matter who's in power) and is better to be bloated and inefficient "wasting" money on disaster relief than being bloated and efficient on buying some new shiny shiny toy for the army. And either way, if you don't even make the pretence of helping the people who elected you when they really need help, what good are you as a politician?

Been through many hurricanes in my time. Many of them severe.

Why do they need relief funds now???
Who needs the funds???
Do you really understand who is going to get it and why???

FEMA is basically nothing more than an insurance company for those who can't get private insurance. Who can't get private insurance??? In this instance, it is those who built on or near the water. Who built on or near the water??? Same as everywhere really.......the wealthy.

This is not as bad as the article makes it out to be.

Of course with just a tad bit of investigation, we find out why the bill was shot down. The House Dems filled it with pork.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010313-639198-christie-slams-boehner-on-sandy-relief-bill.htm?ven=rss

http://news.yahoo.com/why-house-gop-left-hurricane-sandy-relief-bill-140335902.html

Yeah, those people in NJ really needed 150+ million for fisheries in Alaska. That was just one.

Marconius wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:

So I wont call ya dumb or aDixiecrat. Lol!

Can't let it go can you???
Gotta keep on attacking huh???
What, are you like still in Junior High???
Are you such a coward that you have to make off the cuff smart-assed remarks about me, yet not make them to me directly???

Keep it up buddy. Jesus would be proud.

Ladies please, if Obama and Boehner can settle their differences and bury the hatchet after the election, and learn to get along amicably, so can you.

Oh wait...

:-P

Miles1 wrote:
I get the whole being pissed at the fiscal cliff vote and stuff, but if there's one thing you should be OK to spend money on, it's disaster relief. Of course someone is going to turn around now and say that the way they do disaster relief is bloated, wasteful & inefficient so why pay for it, but so is most things government do (no matter who's in power) and is better to be bloated and inefficient "wasting" money on disaster relief than being bloated and efficient on buying some new shiny shiny toy for the army. And either way, if you don't even make the pretence of helping the people who elected you when they really need help, what good are you as a politician?

I agree with ya 100% Miles. Though there was some pork attached to the relief bill I think (a slimy trick by the Dems imo), the Republicans have really dropped the ball on this one. Relief should have been given weeks ago. Those folks in NY need hel and that should be of paramount importance.

There's a war going on I think in the GOP and Obama and the Dems are taking full advantage of it. The House is getting outmaneuvered at nearly every turn. I believe this is because the people that make up the GOP are not on the same page and have different loyalties. Where is the House whip for the GOP right now? The Whip is the enforcer. Its his job to ensure party discipline.

So then we just keep business as usual then. Go ahead and fill a bill up with needless stuff and ram it through just 'cause we need to do something to make ourselves feel better.

Now that is stupid, and that is exactly how we got to where we are now.

Of course y'all blame those who want to get rid of the waste instead of those who are really responsible. It is the fault of those who packed the bill full of waste, not the fault of those who said no to the waste.

If we were to really look at it from a logical standpoint, why does the government need to send money anyway??? Isn't that what insurance is for??? I know all the businesses were insured. I know that to buy a house, you must have insurance. I know the owners of rental property have to have that property insured. Pretty much every damn thing in this world is insured these days, so why does the government need to send money??? It goes to those rich people who built on uninsurable property and it goes to insurance companies to make up for the shortfalls.

tUSA truly is doomed isn't it???