Comments about ‘Republican party is 'devoid of a soul', says Jon Huntsman’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 31 2012 9:32 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Each party is pulling on the apple cart, one to the left the other to the right, and the desired result is to have it go down the middle of the road. However, in this day of extreme partisanship, one may actually tip over the cart.

What we need is a centrist that can address the issues and that the majority will follow. What we don't need is more partisan bickering and power struggles. But those entrenched in Washington are too addictied to watering at the public trough, which has been an issue for decades.

The one item the Founding Fathers missed is that selfish, self-interested individuals would take over the government and set their own pay, benefits, and working conditions and that as incumbents, it would be nearly impossible to get rid of them. Just look at how some states have had congressmen who have brought home the bacon to their state and the rest of us are hostage to their interests. It's disgusting but we fail to address it at the ballot box.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Yes, right. Like I'm going to listen to Huntsman. The republican party doesn't have to embrace liberalism. They just need to put up better candidates, especially in Senate races. Huntsman outght to just join the Democrat party. He'd feel more comfortable. Bye the Bye, not everyone supports homosexual marriage.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

I'm no surprised that Huntsman is calling for libertarianism.
From his point-of-view during the GOP Primary all he ever got to see was the back of Ron Paul's coat.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

Kinda ironic that this guy would claim it is the party that is souless when this guy lacks anything that could even vaguely be considered a soul. When you lack all principles, convictions, core beliefs, and all of the important things this empty suit lacks then it is more than just irony, it is hypocrisy.

In all my years of studying politicians, and seeing their vapid and hollow personas, this guy has impressed me the most, or should I say the least, as having anything that even vaguely resembles a soul. He is hollow and lacking in spirit, I can see his emptiness just looking at him.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Huntsman is simply too good, too intelligent, and too honest for the GOP.

PP
Eagle Mountain, UT

John Huntsman says that the Republicans should be more centrist by embracing gay marriage and that would get them back in power? Correct me if I am wrong (and I am not so don't bother) the nation in general has rejected gay marriage by an almost 70% margin and Huntsman thinks that it is the magic bullet for Republicans? No wonder the only people in Utah that loved him as governor were the liberals in the state.

One more thing, those that think we need a centrist as a president... We had one. George W Bush.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@Flashback -- I don't think Huntsman is a perfect fit with the "Democrat" party. Sounds like a good old fashioned "Republic" to me. Maybe a bit Libertarian. (By the by, I know the am radio and tv personalities you love are not very well educated and so make this mistake quite frequently, but when used as an adjective, the word is "Democratic" not "Democrat". Common mistake of those who haven't taken an English class since they were 17.)

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

I think the problem is that Republicans are all too ready to throw Huntsman under the bus. I lived in Utah when he was governor and had no problems with him or how the state was run. His family has done a lot to help people. The fact that all too many of the GOP, especially in this state, have such vitriol might just show the "soullessness" and "hopelessness" of the GOP. Let's face it, the GOP in its current form has nothing to really offer to win the elections and the minds of the people other than hoping the economy goes over the cliff, no pun intended. The few R's that speak some common sense like Huntsman are quickly labeled RINOs and become outcasts in the party. It wasn't the fact that Romney was the first choice the R's put up for President (because he was the most reasonable of the choices by far save Huntsman), it was the fact that Santorum was the second choice. That speaks volumes of where the GOP is going and why in the end the GOP couldn't get it done at election time.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Wonder: Apparently you are unaware that when talk-show hosts use the term "Democrat" Party it is being used as a perjorative--not because they are lacking in grammar.

I voted for Huntsman twice but I have never liked him. He's never met a camera he didn't like. He actually is a RINO and not a true Republican. I don't think he could get elected as dog catcher in Utah these days. I think he has proved he is not the kind of person most Utahns would want in office.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

Huntsman is right. The Republican party needs to support gay rights. Most young people voted for Obama, and most of them support gay rights. As the old homophobes die off, this will become increasingly clear. Even the fairly religious of younger groups have a fairly "live and let live" view of homosexuality. Even Romney's track record in Massachusetts was pro-gay-rights, he just had to back track to appeal to the homo-phobic, middle-aged tea party.

Even the LDS Church has loosened its stance on homosexuality the last 30 years and supported increased legal protection, anti-discrimination, and recognition for homosexuals. They've supported housing rights for homosexuals. They've even acknowledged that it is a special situation or "sin", and not just another sin and comparable to murder, theft, etc. This would have been unimaginable a few decades ago.

It is a simple human-rights/civil-rights issue and any intelligent human-being, no matter what their own, subjective feelings are, recognizes that.

non believer
PARK CITY, UT

Huntsman was the only intelligent one on stage during the Republican Primaries! I might have even voted for him had he one the nomination. I am an Independant who voted for Omama the last two times only because I did not like McCain and I truly dispised Mitt! Jon was the most qualified of all of the nominee's and the man is liked by both parties. He is not too extreme in either direction and would be good for the Republican Party! Jon Huntsman 2016!

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Flashback and Duckhunter: Huntsman is just trying to tell you what it will take to become competitive again, especially as the demographics shift toward Democrats. There were 8 million more black and Latino voters in 2012 than 2008.

Obama feared Huntsman the most, and as a Democrat my hope is your viewpoints predominate going forward.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@Cats -- Typical of the party that despises education and the educated. I guess it's elitist to use proper English.

Doug10
Roosevelt, UT

Huntsman will continue to be a sore spot for our party. He has a track record and proved to be a good governor.

If USA had a better man than Mitt to run for the leadership of the country we did not find him. Other names being considered are not similar caliber.

We ran the best and we found out we are no longer united as a party and there is nobody who could currently run and win the party and country.

The GOP leaders are not allowed to be less than religious or the bible belt will not vote for them.
They are not allowed to be against illegal aliens or the states of California and Texas will not be behind them. (Incidentally there is a good example of why states should not have the right to do what they want. Getting cheap illegal farm labor now costs the country 1.5 billion a day thanks to CA TX and AZ)
The leader cannot raise taxes no matter the need for income.
The leader has to shrink government.

So far the man has not been born who can cover those bases...so we remain drifting

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

@ PP

I wouldn't classify George W as a centrist. Perhaps others do.

sashabill
Morgan Hill, CA

The GOP doesn't lack a soul - it has too many of them, and they point in all directions.

Wildcat
O-town, UT

@toosmartforyou

I totally agree with you. We need people who are truly willing to compromise. I believe the Obama is far more willing to compromise than George W. Bush was. I think both had some good points and both have had some bad points. W's bad points were starting two wars and Medicare Part D off budget while lowering taxes at the same time. Obama's bad points have been zero prosecution on the bad actors in Wall Street that almost brought the economy down.

What we urgently need is a centrist Congress as they are the legislative branch. Gerrymandering by both parties have created districts that reward belligerence and intolerance--which is why this Congress is the least productive. It would be best to have it gerrymandered in reverse so districts were very competitive ensuring legislators that would have to compromise and not be too extreme. In addition, term limits and campaign finance reform are desperately need. I would also like to see the electoral college eliminated so the candidates are talking to everyone and not just to swing states.

Hope they can both put aside their differences for the best of the country!

runnerguy50
Virginia Beach, Va

Why does Huntsman think he can tell Republican voters how to think ?
If Republican voters don't like gay marriage then so be it.
Bottom line ? Huntsman isn't a Republican, he is a Obama lover.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@10cc

Considering republicans control 2/3rd of the sate house and governnorships, as well as the U.S. House I would say that they are more than competitive. republicans control 2/3rds of all the legislative and executive branches of the states and the federal government. yes it would have been nice to win the presidency but it is obvious that Republicans are still far and away the majority of elected office holders in the country and still control far more legislative bodies, and executive positions, than democrats do. it actually isn't even close.

I find it hilarious that some disaffected republicans like huntsman, a guy that was embarrassingly pounded from the presidential race, and some delude dems like yourself that doesn't even realize that it is YOUR party that is by far in the minority of the government, thinks that we are fool enough to listen to you on what we should do to regain control.

You see we are the ones IN CONTROL, of almost the entire country.

Interesting how you dems consider yourself in control and in charge when you actually only hold about 1/3 of the elective office of the country.

papi_chulo
Ogden, UT

@ non believer
You need to work on your grammar skills, because they are atrocious. (see below for corrections)

"Huntsman was the only intelligent one on stage during the Republican Primaries! I might have even voted for him had he one the nomination. I am an Independant who voted for Omama the last two times only because I did not like McCain and I truly dispised Mitt! Jon was the most qualified of all of the nominee's and the man is liked by both parties."

**The 2nd time you use the word ONE, it should be WON, not ONE. You WIN or LOSE a nomination. You don't ONE or TWO it.

**In case you hadn't noticed, Obama is our President, not Omama or Yomama.

**Dispised is actually spelled despised.

**Nominee's should be spelled without an apostraphe as you are not using it in a possessive context in your statement.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments