Reader comments
Huntsman: the 'Next Big Thing' in politics?

HOW ABOUT MITT ROMNEY AS PRESIDENT AND JON HUNTSMAN
AS VICE PRESIDENT? I THINK 4 YEARS OF PRESS BUZZ
WILL EVENTUALLY BYPASS THE SO-CALLED "MORMON PROBLEM" BY 2012. THEY'LL HAVE MY VOTE.

I just love it when the liberal media (Washington Post) tries to anoint (dictate)who Republican candidates will be. No surprise that they like Huntsman because he kowtows to the Greenies. They're determined to jam the global warming nonsense down our throats.

Huntsman is a reasonable moderate republican.... I even found him reasonable enough to be the first republican to earn my vote for governor. And I was in California when Reagan was running for governor.

But Huntsman is far too decent, moderate and appealing to independent and moderate voters to ever have a chance to win the Republican nomination unless he chages his tune and message and becomes a gutter fighting right wing extremist.

As a result, Republicans will continue to stay pure - with anti-abortion, anti-environment, pro-oil and dirty coal- and will continue to be banished to the wilderness in general elections.

Jim Lews: Huntsman would never, nor should he ever, play second fiddle to Mitt Romney. Huntsman has already proven himself to be twice the governor Romney was, and with another four years under his belt he will truly be a political force to be reckoned with. The Washington Post is just one of many national media outlets that will be watching our governor with greater and greater interest. And well they should.

Why is this information making its way to be published? Obama is not even president yet and we're already speculating the next president. Is the media this desperate for a story? According to the story, Huntsman himself said he only concerned with the governors office for the next four years, and is surprised to see politcal speculation. Move on to a story that has some sort of consequence.

Mormon problem? Wow that is a new concept I had never thought about. This is an earth shattering revelation that being a member of the Mormon Church could be a political liability! This is a idiotic article. Yes Huntsman will be rumored about being a candidate, but really is there anyone in the country that does not know about the "Mormon problem"?

I wouldn NEVER vote for jon Huntsman for president! I think he is a spoiled kid who panders to everyone. Yuk!

A Governor from UT on the presidential ticket. Thats almost as bad as having a Governer from Alaska.
People from smaller isolated states don't have the draw.
Besides, he's LDS. There is little chance in heck of any LDS being supported by the Christian right.

I'm DiaryBarnacle BillMonday 8 Dec 2008with Wendy. Never, never, never.

I'm not sure what happened in my earlier attempt, but what I wanted to say what that I'm with Wendy. No on Hunstman, No, no, NO!!!

I can't imagine any governor from Utah being elected President. He has two strikes against him. He's from a Mountain State and he's LDS. I think the only Mormon who has a chance to be President is Mitt--and I really think he could do it. After four years of the third Clinton White House, I think the country will be ready for a change.

I hope Mitt goes for it again. This year was just a Democrat year no matter who the nominee was. Four years from now will really give Mitt a shot.

Jon Huntsman would be a very formidable national candidate. Moderates and independents wouldn't really care about his mormonism if he carried it off with a little humor and charm. I agree with mchael that his real problem would be the evangelicals, and the far, far, right wingers who are more worried about ideology, than competency.

Romney's troubles have as much to do with this wooden personality, and policy confusion, as his religion.

Being Mormon didn't cost Mitt the presidency - having no backbone and flip-flopping on important issues cost it for Mitt. Jon Jr. doesn't have that problem. He is still a longshot, but would make a great president if the opportunity arose.

I'd vote for Huntsman any day over Mitt. He doesn't have Romney's baggage about changing tune on social issues. He's more bipartisan and not an attack dog like Romney.

The best democrat to be running the state of utah since... well since a long time ago.

Gov. Huntsman the next choice ... that should build his ego more!

Wendy seems to think that wealth and status means spoiled. A very small act can say a lot about a person.....A month ago today I was sitting on a Delta flight to Atlanta waiting for boarding to be completed when I saw the governor and his wife enter the plane. (Obviously his route to the govenor's convention went through Atlanta.) I assumed they would turn left and head into first class. No sooner had that thought crossed my mind, when they turned right, marched down the aisle through coach and sat about 5 rows from the BACK of the plane.

He may be a wealthy man but it made me feel like he was spending my tax dollars wisely. That is a pretty important characteristic in today's economy. (By the way, he gave his wife the window seat.)

I would vote for Huntsman long before even considering to support Mitt Romney. Mitt makes me sick, I feel like he would do anything, say anything and flip flop on any issue to get elected.

From the comments posted here, it sounds like only politicians who meet the following criteria have a chance to become the president:

1. They must serve in one of the more populated states.

2. Their political ideology needs to be either extremely liberal or extremely conservative, and absolutely loyal to their respective parties.

3. They must not be affiliated with any "minority" religion.

I think it's sad that this may be an accurate analysis of our country's political state. Do we really believe that competent political leaders can only be found in California, Texas, New York, Florida or Illinois? How many qualified leaders are automatically eliminated based on this reasoning?

Can politicians succeed in serving the interests of the American majority if the only way for them to be elected is to pander to the extreme left or extreme right?

Should a politician be automatically disqualified from consideration simply because his theological ideology and religous beliefs differ from the majority?

It seems to me that we (as Americans) disqualify many of our best choices based on non-important, arbitrary factors.

And then we complain about how our leaders are corrupt and/or incompetent.

We just finished the 2008 elections a month ago, and now we're already talking about 2012? Can we please have at least two years free of elections talks?