A Name From The Past
Former Governor and Republican Presidential Nominee hopeful, Jon Huntsman is back in the news. And as has been the case in the past, Huntsman is speaking again with reason. Marriage is about committed couples.
Speaking in an article published by “The American Conservative”, Huntsman writes that Republicans need to start leading again on a range of matters that they have previously tried to use as wedge issues. Without saying wedge issues (or at least the ones popular with conservatives) do not resonate with enough voters, Huntsman emphasized how Utah has made some of these issues work to grow the State economy. Marriage Equality and Immigration Reform, Huntsman said, should be Republican issues.
It is still a couple of years before Huntsman must decide whether he will try again for the Republican Presidential nomination. Lets hope he remains interested.
Explore posts in the same categories: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party
This entry was posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:38 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: gop, immigration reform, jon huntsman, marriage equality
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
February 24, 2013 at 3:07 am
At the current rate of GOP’s slide to the right, In a few year Huntsman might as well be running as a Democrat.
February 24, 2013 at 7:45 am
X, if Hillary chooses not to run, Huntsman would be a good choice as a Dem in 2016. Hmmm.
February 28, 2013 at 6:02 pm
X, I would agree with you except that I’d say the GOP has slid far enough that he ought to be a Dem already.
February 26, 2013 at 9:40 am
[…] A Name From The Past (zukunftsaugen.wordpress.com) […]
February 28, 2013 at 6:08 pm
I still remain skeptical about the necessity for so-called marriage equality or whether the term even carries any meaning, but in essence I do agree with Huntsman on this issue, if not many others.
I continue to adamantly maintain the libertarian position that government has no place in the marriage business. I’m not sure how atheists and secularists regard the institution beyond being a domestic contract, but the traditional religious view, regardless of the components, is that a marriage is made between to people and God. (Christians, romantically, liken this to the Trinity, though that is not requisite.) I don’t know that any person, regardless of their theological leanings, should be comfortable with the notion of a union consisting of two individuals and the government.
February 28, 2013 at 6:09 pm
That should read “between TWO people”. I do know the difference between to, too, and two, even if my fingers don’t.
March 1, 2013 at 1:01 pm
T, “too” bad about the typo, it’s ok since I knew what you meant… (frankly I did not pick it up).
“To” the larger point, if someone believes that homosexuality is an acquired condition, there could be logical arguments about societal rules which might discourage the practice… If one sees homosexuality as a result of nature, then either civil unions or marriage between “two” people would seem logical if the “two” were of the same sex or the opposite sex.
Organized religions are in this for maintaining their brand image (and the money that follows). Those religions who see marriage as only possible between one man and one woman are following a dogma they privately think will be the most lucrative for their organization… in my opinion.
March 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm
I’m not normally so uptight about my own typos, but I was afraid this one might cause confusion.
I’m not so generally cynical about religion–though I have certainly encountered first-hand those churches which worship The Profit. Nor am I cynical of branding; birds and bees do it…and flowers, for that matter. As a general rule, however, I would offer that those who are most into anything for the money are the ones who have branded themselves as least so.
I say if a religion can brand itself as anti-homosexual and continue to thrive in the measure it holds most important, be it money, influence, membership, or pogs, so be it. What is increasingly clear is that a political party can no longer carry that brand and continue to thrive by the measure they hold most valuable, which is votes.
The GOP needs to streamline, plain and simple. Until then, they aren’t going to move quickly on this. But political parties are in the business of self-reinvention. It’s what they’re expected to do. Huntsman may well be positioning himself quite well for a frontrunner spot in the future GOP. I doubt it, as his popularity seems greatest outside the party, fairly or not. Time will tell.