Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 7
Jon Huntsman urges Republicans to support same-sex marriage:

"Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause:

snip....."While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn’t have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.

That was four years ago. Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience...."

Maybe he's positioning for another run at the White House in 2016? Getting the wingnut issues out of the way early on???
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
I don't know the answer to your question.

I do know that Jon Huntsman was the only Republican candidate smarter than a fingernail clipping and the only Republican candidate with a scintilla of integrity and he got less than 1% of the vote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I agree. During the GOP primaries he was quickly the only candidate I had any interest in. The others I was able to quickly dismiss as some combination of evil/corrupt/delusional/stupid.

He was the only one that stated that he did not dispute the Theory of Evolution. All the others did.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 42
Maybe he's positioning for another run at the White House in 2016?

You don't get the Republican nomination by being a moderate Reoublican. Given that the primary process runs first through Conservative NH (Republican side) and then takes a trip to the South, about the last thing you would do is endorse same sex marriage if you want to get more than 12 votes.

I'm guessing it's just the opposite. He has realized that he has no chance of higher elected office and has decided to do the right thing, since he is "sane", by any definition except the that of the rabid right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You don't get the Republican nomination by being a moderate Reoublican. Given that the primary process runs first through Conservative NH (Republican side) and then takes a trip to the South, about the last thing you would do is endorse same sex marriage if you want to get more than 12 votes.

I'm guessing it's just the opposite. He has realized that he has no chance of higher elected office and has decided to do the right thing, since he is "sane", by any definition except the that of the rabid right.


He knows he has no chance of being elected in the current GOP... but, there is a non-zero chance that the GOP will schism, particularly if 2014 goes poorly for them. The Tea Party is pissed about being 'put in their room' and may not suffer the indignity and split off. It would not be a trivial split off, possibly being as much as 20% of the electorate, about 50% of the Republican party. But, the Democratic Party wouldn't come out inscathed. The New GOP would be able to justifiably advertise itself as 'Free of Tea'. so, that 20% of the electorate would gain about about 10 to 15% from the Democrats to become a substantial second party. It would make the Democratic party actually a Liberal party (though not quite as far to the left as the Tea Party would be to the right).

That New GOP would be a genuine centrist party where Huntsman would fit quite nicely, possibly be a luminary.

It all depends on if the Tea Party can get control of enough state level offices in the schism to ensure such easy ballot access as the Democrats and Republicans have enjoyed for generations. If so, we are possibly seeing the emergence of a period of three party rule.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe he's positioning for another run at the White House in 2016?


i certainly hope so, but like the other posters, I think he is too reasonable to be nominated by the GOP. He was far and away their best candidate last time around.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
. It would not be a trivial split off, possibly being as much as 20% of the electorate, about 50% of the Republican party. But, the Democratic Party wouldn't come out inscathed. The New GOP would be able to justifiably advertise itself as 'Free of Tea'. so, that 20% of the electorate would gain about about 10 to 15% from the Democrats to become a substantial second party. It would make the Democratic party actually a Liberal party (though not quite as far to the left as the Tea Party would be to the right).

It doesn't happen that quickly. From the Bull Moose party of the early 20th century to Ross Perot's Reform Party to any other in the modern era, those kinds of changes take time. Heck, Johnson passed the Civil Rights bill in the early 60's and knew it would lose the South for the Democrats, and yet Republicans didn't make significant progress until Reagan in the 1980's. (And yes, there were attempts to start third parties along the way: Strom Thurmond, John Andersen, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and more.

I agree that the Tea Party has a firmer foothold, but thinking 15% of Democrats are suddenly going to switch to the "mid-GOP" party because the fruitcakes have walked would seem to argue that the Democrats are already better by 15%, and I see no indication of that.

If so, we are possibly seeing the emergence of a period of three party rule.

It's only happened with the greatest rarity in 240 years, and never in the modern, mass communication era. Our system is stacked against it, and if the Tea Party cleaves it will decimate Republicans for a full cycle, perhaps two. Not that that would bother me, of course.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would not be surprised to see the Treason Party splinter off. They see other Republicans as lacking "principles", and being too soft. The more mainstream Republicans apparently are attempting to muzzle the Treason Party (McCain recently told one to STFU in some hearing or other). They realize they can't win any big elections with those loons running loose.

But the loons don't see it that way, and won't stand for being silenced.

So a split seems quite plausible.

Would some Dems then defect to the cleansed GOP? Maybe. Not sure how much difference that would make, though. But given that the Dems have moved pretty far right from where they once were, it could be we have two "main" parties that are pretty similar, and then the radical lunatics of the Treason Party. The latter would have no hope of ever winning any national election. Just some local ones. And they even lose some of those when people really hear what they have to say (e.g. no minimum wage, "legitimate rape", ultrasound probing, etc).

I think 2016 already is the Dem's to lose. Even if the GOP manages to come up with someone less stupid than Perry, less nutty than Santorum, and less out of touch than Romney.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If so, we are possibly seeing the emergence of a period of three party rule.

==========
It's only happened with the greatest rarity in 240 years, and never in the modern, mass communication era. Our system is stacked against it,


i agree, but i partly depends how you define it....

had too look : Bull Moose lasted longer than i thought; Perot's Reform Party (19% of vote in '92) still alive; American Independent Party (5 states for Wallace in '68) still alive. but neither are really serious



.. last time a 3d party was seriously viable was pre-Civil War Republicans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
FoolBalance: He knows he has no chance of being elected in the current GOP... but, there is a non-zero chance that the GOP will schism, particularly if 2014 goes poorly for them. The Tea Party is pissed about being 'put in their room' and may not suffer the indignity and split off. It would not be a trivial split off, possibly being as much as 20% of the electorate, about 50% of the Republican party. But, the Democratic Party wouldn't come out inscathed. The New GOP would be able to justifiably advertise itself as 'Free of Tea'. so, that 20% of the electorate would gain about about 10 to 15% from the Democrats to become a substantial second party. It would make the Democratic party actually a Liberal party (though not quite as far to the left as the Tea Party would be to the right).

That New GOP would be a genuine centrist party where Huntsman would fit quite nicely, possibly be a luminary.

It all depends on if the Tea Party can get control of enough state level offices in the schism to ensure such easy ballot access as the Democrats and Republicans have enjoyed for generations. If so, we are possibly seeing the emergence of a period of three party rule.


That is the sharpest piece of political analysis I have seen since the election. I think FoolBalance has hit the nail on the head -- this is exactly what Huntsman is up to. It might even happen as he hopes. Politics could be about to become interesting.

Loren
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
this is exactly what Huntsman is up to. It might even happen as he hopes. Politics could be about to become interesting.

Loren



O.M.G.
Does this mean we are going to be living in "interesting times"?

AM
...wondering how the average citizen out here can protect him/herself.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement