Deseret News | Michigan county GOP cancels appearance by Huntsman

Reader comments
Michigan county GOP cancels appearance by Huntsman

Page:
1
2
Next >

wow | 4:14 p.m. April 28, 2009

I could support Huntsmans stance on civil unions if it also applied to polygamists - but it doesn't - so I judge him as a silly political opportunist and an embarrassment, not a leader.

RIP GOP | 4:26 p.m. April 28, 2009

Now is the best time to splinter on issues and push away those in the GOP that have different views then yourself. Get rid of the RINOs and watch the party die. No room for difference of opinion in the Grand Ole Party........

Cinci | 4:27 p.m. April 28, 2009

Props to Kent County for standing up and being counted. We need more who will stand for what is best for our country.

Comments continue below

YEA!!! | 4:38 p.m. April 28, 2009

Atleast he's going to listen to education reform! He could use some help on that.

Self-imposed limitations | 6:23 a.m. April 29, 2009

Couldn't that Michigan group have listened to what he said and asked questions about it? Are they really that threatened by the idea of listening to someone who only agrees with them 99%?

Anonymous | 7:01 a.m. April 29, 2009

Ideological purity. No wonder the GOP is becoming marginalized by its own actions. So much for the big tent. The GOP really is pathetic.

Anonymous | 7:10 a.m. April 29, 2009

Their loss. What a bunch of idiots. Though I'll always support Mr. Huntsman, I can't say the same for the GOP in general.

uncannygunman | 7:14 a.m. April 29, 2009

One could almost coin the term "ideological cleansing."

GOP Shrinking Tent | 7:20 a.m. April 29, 2009

Who would have thought the party of Lincoln and Reagon would implode so quickly. Keep it up GOP, only the extremist will be left and hopefully a moderate new party will emerge leaving the Grand Ole Party as irrelevant as their "anti-everyone who isn't like me" party platform.

Voice of Reason | 7:31 a.m. April 29, 2009

Anyone that actually looks at the recent fall of the GOP will immediately recognize it is because the GOP has lost its conservative foundation, and has moved to the left of where it's historically been in modern times. The GOP will not revive by making itself into "liberal lite", despite the wishes of many lefties. It will only revive by returning to its conservative roots, and reflecting the core values which remain fundamentally conservative for the silent majority of Americans.

Liberals, do not mistake conservative anger at what Bush and the recent GOP Congress did as a "shift to the left." This anger stemmed from the fact that Bush & the GOP Congress moved too FAR to the left with their deficit spending, cozying up to destructive liberal social ideas, and unwillingness to stand up for what is right.

Spencer W. Morgan | 7:36 a.m. April 29, 2009

Wow that's just what we need in 2012. Yet ANOTHER CFR member, Socialist Republican weenie.

Knowwhat | 7:42 a.m. April 29, 2009

Liberal's are the biggest ideolog's there are and have no room for anyone who disagrees with them. Harry Reid is a prime example. Remeber he knows someone who has a gift.

Kevin | 7:47 a.m. April 29, 2009

Hmmm... A very counter-intuitive thought... This may be a way out for the GOP. All the fuss will continue generate attention and elevate Huntsman as a moderate Republican nationally. If he were to become the leader of the national party... It could happen. I doubt this is a conscious strategy.

Conservatives Win | 7:51 a.m. April 29, 2009

Look, the Republicans tried the whole "big tent" philosophy in 2008 by nominating a very moderate Republican. Then the election was a disaster. The U.S. is still a center-right country, despite what is portrayed by the loud voices on the left and in the media. Repuplicans win elections when they nominate Reagan conservatives. Huntsman is a joke. He is an embarrassment to the party and to the state. He's a lightweight who is trying to please everyone, and he doesn't stand a chance at getting nominated now or ever....unless he pulls a Specter.

Sandy | 8:12 a.m. April 29, 2009

I hope Huntsman doesn't gain the national stage. I'm one Utahn who doesn't like him. There's just something false . . .

As for why the GOP is failing, it isn't only because it's moving right, it's because the culture is moving left, and how can politician survive without someone to vote for him?

Huntsman can't deny that giving gay couples more and more of the rights of heterosexual married couples will indeed undermine marriage. For me, the biggest issue is children, which gays can't have except by adoption or artificial means. Huntsman needs to address this if he's going to throw his support to civil unions. Marriage is made for the rearing and protection of children and families. Two men or two women can't make a child, and shouldn't be raising them. They made this choice when they decided not to curb but instead give in to homosexual urges. How can the inching toward legalizing of this relationship avoid the support of rearing children in these unions, and ultimately calling it marriage? That's the issue Huntsman needs to address, but will assiduously avoid to promote his presidential agenda.

Anonymous | 8:14 a.m. April 29, 2009

If he thinks he is going to enter national politics, this is a good dose of reality. The guy is pompous and sanctimonious.

I don't like civil unions in Utah because then it will be only a matter of time until polygamy is legally samctified which would be rather devastating on numerous levels.

the great cycle | 8:14 a.m. April 29, 2009

I remember well when the Republicans squashed the dems and the Time Mag cover showed an Elephant squashing a donkey and the the whole Clinton shrinking president cover. Republicans gloated and Newt was the king. Dems became Republicans as Specter yesterday and the rolls were reversed from today. The dems didn't win this latest round by becoming more like the Republicans and the Republicans won't take control back by becoming more like the dems. Guaranteed, it will cycle back and if there are any lessons learned, the cycle for the Republicans when back in power will be extended. Just as Obama is undoing the work of Republicans, we will undo him and the dems. Hide and watch!

Ashamed | 8:28 a.m. April 29, 2009

I really regret voting for Huntsman.

Florien Wineriter | 8:28 a.m. April 29, 2009

The Michigan GOP rejection of Huntsman explains why Utah is the Reddest of the Red States,the majority of Utah voters apparently are economic libertarians but cultural reactionariess.

Michigan Money | 8:29 a.m. April 29, 2009

So where is Mitt Romney's Michigan political machine in all of this? Apart from the Romney family legacy in Michigan, you can't dump as much money as he did in the last election cycle without building some type of county influence.

Is this just a preemptive strike to take out moderate Huntsman before Mitt tacks hard right, and announces his perennial candidacy again?

Lowell Steele | 8:50 a.m. April 29, 2009

Good for the Kent County Republicans. We, on the other hand, who re-nominated him (begrudgingly...there was no other viable candidate) and voted for him (same problem...oh, I guess there WAS Super Dell) are the ones who look silly. But, I guess this is the hour of political opportunism. Maybe the Guvnah and Arlen Specter can get together for lunch...now there's a great VP candidate for him!

slowly but sure | 8:54 a.m. April 29, 2009

is the erosion of the social fabric of our nation. More and more people have become immuned about nuance interpretations of marriage and sexual relationships that involved the future of procreation and consequently, the world! This nuance ideas penetrate our society slowly but constantly. I am sorry to learn that Gov. Hunstman subscribes to any form of recognition to relationships that go against every rule of nature and are personally revolting to me.

Louis | 9:00 a.m. April 29, 2009

Huntsman is right about civil unions, it's an issue of equality. That the Republican Party opposes it, shows how far they've gone to the extreme right. The GOP will have to re-evaluate their whole platform to remain a workable party. The gov should consider a change of parties as Specter has. Huntsman is the best thing that could have happened to this state and shows his courage in standing up to the GOP's uncompassionate and damaging stand on the issue.

Specter and Hunstman | 9:01 a.m. April 29, 2009

Hunstman and Specter are operating in the same manner. In their feverish ambition to advance their political carreers or secure their jobs in it are changing parties or supporting positions totally opposed to what most of the state of Utah believes in.

Republican all the way | 9:08 a.m. April 29, 2009

What wrong Taliban Utahns? Huntsman shows a little common sense and compassion (not to mention political savvy) and he is no longer Utah's favorite son?
I as good a Republican I can tell you we will lose the next election.
I am thinking of becoming a Democrat. Alan Specter already left us.

voice of true Republican | 9:12 a.m. April 29, 2009

We as political party are dead. We surely will lose the next elections, and the next one, and the next one.

Huntsman | 9:20 a.m. April 29, 2009

I don't care about his stand on civil unions, it is a non-issue to me, yet I think he should have told the voters his thoughts on it before the election in November.

My issue with Huntsman is fiscal. I don't think he has managed our money well. I didn't like the way he gave Checketts money for the soccer stadium. I'd rather see Caroon (or whoever the SL Co mayor is) go somewhere. He doesn't cave to rich people.

I also think Huntsman is a media hound. I'm not sure he has earned anything, possibly was just given lots of opportunities because he dad is a billionaire.

RINO | 9:37 a.m. April 29, 2009

Huntsman campaigned as a conservative here in Utah, but turned "moderate" in office, joining with Ahnold in his global warming foolishness, pandering to the gay marriage extremists, etc.

The Republican Party will lose again if we nominate a squishy "moderate" like Huntsman. We need strong CONSERVATIVE leaders to save this country from the liberals who are destroying it at an unbelievable pace.

Huntsman is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Good on Michigan for recognizing a RINO and rejecting him.

Huntsman will follow Specter | 9:37 a.m. April 29, 2009

Prediction: John Huntsman will leave the republic party after his second term expires and join Arlen Specter, Barney Frank , Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the far left loons as a democrat. There is no place in the GOP for someone who sells out on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion so Huntsman will find himself a man without a country and will leave for where he is more comfortable.

GOP must not compromise | 9:46 a.m. April 29, 2009

now is the time for the GOP to distinguish itself as the party of morality, belief in GOD, low taxes, small government and strong military that apologizes to NO ONE. Let the far left loons run with there little time in the sun because big ole thunder heads are boiling on the horizon and a storm is approaching. I can see terror attacks again on American homeland. I can see BIG government taxing small business into oblivion. I can see unchecked abortion running ramped across this country. I see reckless out of control pork spending running the national debt to record highs each year. This is what liberalism does and it is sad we didn't learn a darn thing with Jimmy Carter.

VOR | 9:52 a.m. April 29, 2009

duh we're the repulikin party, we're so out of touch with the rest of the world, we're becoming isolationist, we're going to be a party of old rich white cranks who hate everyone and everything, we're not going to be happy until we can pull this country back into the 20th... no, 19th century. Moderate republicans be "darned", you'd better be a right-winged nut job or your not welcomed into the REAL republikin party! You'd better be packing heat if you want to show up at one of our conventions, you'd better be anti-everything too. Long live our demi God Regan.

Signed, the REAL REPUBLIKIN PARTY

CB | 9:57 a.m. April 29, 2009

Ever noticed a waffle ....they have lots of weak spots, so do waffler's. Can't make up their minds about which side they are on, so they try to straddle both sides of the line. Hard to trust someone who keeps leaning over that line, claiming to be a supporter of the other side. Someone once said in substance, it's hard to be truly 'righteous' when you're trying not to offend Satan.

Hatuletoh | 10:02 a.m. April 29, 2009

Michigan . . . Michigan . . . Michigan, hmmm. Oh yeah, I've heard of that place. Real big in the 1930's, wasn't it? Not quite doing so well now, as I understand it.

Perhaps a few words from the governor of a state with one of the most solid economies in the nation would have been germane, regardless of his perspective on the Grand 'Ol Party's favorite wedge social issue.

Mike | 10:05 a.m. April 29, 2009

Huntsman is a light weight.

Haha! | 10:18 a.m. April 29, 2009

I'm glad someone stood up to Huntsman! He's such a joke! He's a liberal claiming to be conservative... look at his stances on important issues and you'll see what I mean. Vote Huntsman Out!!

Dave | 10:38 a.m. April 29, 2009

I could've sworn Huntsman was a Democrat! If it walks, talks, and acts like a Dem. for all intents and purposes it IS a Dem.

I agree with "the great cycle" at 8:14 - what goes around, comes around!

Anonymous | 10:42 a.m. April 29, 2009

I supported Huntsman until he come on in support of this policy.. I will not vote for him again.

wow | 10:45 a.m. April 29, 2009

Death notices of the Republican party are a bit premature and silly. Clinton had a full Democratic congress and it collapsed, creating predicitons of the end of Democrats when Bush was elected. Bush failed because he lost his way - not because the Democrats were better - indeed the public opinion of the Democratically controlled Congress remains as low as Bush's final days. So Democrats should not gloat too much - it is easy to implode when you get too arrogant.

A. Lincoln | 10:52 a.m. April 29, 2009

Perhaps John H. can use his father's money and buy himself an island, preferably close to mexico, and appoint himself to an important position. Then he can rule forever in his own kingdom and be satisfied.

re: Hatuletoh | 11:04 a.m. April 29, 2009

Know why Michigan is in decline? Liberal policies. They don't need a RINO to tell them what they're already doing.

liberal larry | 11:13 a.m. April 29, 2009

It's good to hear from all the "small tent" republicans. By marginalizing themselves with their extreme right wing beliefs they are allowing the Democrats to claim parts of the huge moderate middle. Maybe now we can get some traction on liberal issues like health care, the environment, and tolerance in general. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous | 11:14 a.m. April 29, 2009

If the Republican Party truly returns to its roots: Individual liberty, equality, and limited government, then Republicans should be the FIRST in line to support same-sex marriage! The fact that the Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics who want to override the principles of equality and liberty with religious fanaticism is exactly why the Republican Party is in decline and will not recover unless it abandons religious bigotry!

Re: RIP | 12:29 p.m. April 29, 2009

The Grand Old Party is well know for core values, principles and steadfastness. We are not a party that conduct polls to determine what our values should be. We do not poll and then switch parties if it does not look good.

The party will prevail because of the consistency - or the nation will teeter even closer to loosing more than just dignity.

re: Anonymous | 12:29 p.m. April 29, 2009

The real anti-gay marriage movement has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with procreation. It's very simple- our future depends on a population increase and homosexuals in committed homosexual relationships CAN'T procreate. Sure, they can live together and contribute to society through community involvement, but they can do that without being married.

We should not allow homosexuals to adopt because the definitive cause of homosexual urges (nature vs. nurture or a mix thereof) is unknown. That being the case, it is in society's best interest to require that children be raised by heterosexual couples, to assure that homosexual influence on the nurture side is avoided as much as possible until adulthood.

Bottom line: we need to incentivize monogamous, heterosexual marriage while continuing to give people who choose to practice homosexual behavior or any other form of legal sexual behavior the right to do so. In that scenario (actuality), everyone has the same rights regarding sexual behavior, no unproductive alternatives to heterosexual marriage are incentivized, and no confusion exists about the requirements or numbers of parties that can enter into marriage. One eligible man, one eligible woman.

I Wish..... | 1:52 p.m. April 29, 2009

everyone would stop using the Dem vs Rep like we are on some kind of team. We belong to America which was founded on principles. I wish we would refer to those principles not what one party or man can do for "me" The word conservative or liberal has no meaning anymore. All the words are all mushed in together. I love to hear people that are founded on constitutional ideas and principles comments and bring us back where many years ago we once were. I challenge everyone commenting here to read the constitution and treat it as a sacred document. Study the document and see what direction we have really gone.

Dear Sandy | 1:59 p.m. April 29, 2009

"For me, the biggest issue is children, which gays can't have except by adoption or artificial means."

Stopping Gay marriage will not keep gays from having and raising children. They already do this with or without marriage. Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with gay adoption, or gays raising children. All it does is keep these children from being raised the the most stable environment that they can.

Anonymous | 2:14 p.m. April 29, 2009

"It's very simple- our future depends on a population increase and homosexuals in committed homosexual relationships CAN'T procreate. Sure, they can live together and contribute to society through community involvement, but they can do that without being married."

So, if you ban gay marriage, all the homosexuals will start procreating? This doesn't make sense. What are you saying?

AGREE | 2:16 p.m. April 29, 2009

I agree with Huntsman will follow Specter... It won't be long until Huntsman, McCain and many other appeasing RINO's will jump and join the Pelosi, Reid crowd.

It is time to either form a 3rd party or reconstruct the Repub Party from the ground up if necessary.

By the way Anonymous: Some people will never accept same-sex perversion as mainstream!

Anonymous | 2:20 p.m. April 29, 2009

"We should not allow homosexuals to adopt because the definitive cause of homosexual urges (nature vs. nurture or a mix thereof) is unknown. That being the case, it is in society's best interest to require that children be raised by heterosexual couples, to assure that homosexual influence on the nurture side is avoided as much as possible until adulthood."

You are advocating something that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gays can and are adopting children right here in UTAH! The only stipulation is that they MUST BE SINGLE. Isn't that silly?

Gay couples in California can and do adopt children all the time. In fact, it is a law that they cannot be discriminated against by a public adoption agency.

Are you advocating taking all children from gay couples? You say that they should be raised in heterosexual families, but what about those children who actually have one gay parent and are being raised by them and their partner? Take them away?

You sound a little un-American to me.

Thank you Sandy | 2:21 p.m. April 29, 2009

I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I would have no problems with civil unions for gays as long as there was a way to keep them from adopting. They argue that their unions aren't hurting anyone and always fall back on the "consenting adults" argument as if that is the bottom line to what should or shouldn't be allowed. As for the children that they want to adopt or have artificially born to them, they are the real victims of these types of relationships since they are brought up into this type of environment. One that isn't natural or normal.

Pete in Texas

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.