ONTD Political

Huntsman won't attend Republican convention, cites party's narrow focus

2:35 am - 07/07/2012
There's been a lot of talk lately about the number of Democrats saying they won't attend the Democratic National Convention, including Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Both are from right-leaning states.

But unlike Democrats, who deny that politics are playing a role in their decision, former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman (R-UT) says he'll be skipping the Republican convention in Tampa because of the party's politics and policy positions.

Huntsman, who served as governor of Utah before becoming President Obama's ambassador to China, is widely regarded as a moderate and railed against the party's narrow focus.

"I have had several requests asking about my attendance at this year's Republican National Convention, which I have attended virtually every time since 1984, where I was a Reagan delegate," Huntsman said in a statement. "I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican Convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States. A future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits. I encourage a return to the party we have been in the past, from Lincoln right on through to Reagan, that was always willing to put our country before politics."

Huntsman has, however, endorsed Mitt Romney.

Source.
bellichka 7th-Jul-2012 12:28 pm (UTC)
FYI it's "Jon Huntsman" not "John"... tag is wrong.

Also, smh @

Huntsman has, however, endorsed Mitt Romney.

If he really opposes the currently political climate of the Republican party, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.
thecityofdis 7th-Jul-2012 01:21 pm (UTC)
my impression: i think he's trying to put as much of his money where his mouth is as possible without crossing the "you'll never work in this town again!" line.
intrikate88 7th-Jul-2012 02:36 pm (UTC)
I tend to agree with this. It's some delicate politics and given that he was thought a possible Republican nominee, NOT endorsing Romney could just look petty, while saying he's dumping the RNC as a whole looks less personal and more ideological, with the potential to still retain some influence in a less-crazy version of the Republican Party.

I mean, Huntsman didn't like Romney before he became the nominee, right? I seem to remember that. He probably just saw it as a choice of endorse vs. end up in the no-man's land of being ranked a nobody by both parties.
bellichka 7th-Jul-2012 02:49 pm (UTC)
That's fair enough, I can see him wanting to be a (large) part of a less-crazypants Republican party. But he could have even switched parties (or remained a Republican) while having a successful career as a diplomat in the Obama administration. All he seems to have proven is that a) his own party doesn't want him, b) he's too chickenshit to switch parties, and c) he's willing to do/endorse what he has to in order to save face. He aligns ideologically moreso with his former boss than Romney, and yet, Romney's the one he's endorsing. No spine, and no reasoning justifies that for me. I know he's _P's Republican Boyfriend™, but the dude is just as willing to sell his integrity as the next.
intrikate88 7th-Jul-2012 03:26 pm (UTC)
but the dude is just as willing to sell his integrity as the next.

Oh, no doubt about that. "Getting into politics" is just about synonymous with "putting your honesty and integrity on the auction block". I don't disagree with him being spineless, but he's playing political games in hopes of gaining some points, somewhere, while not actually having to put up with a completely unproductive cockblock of a party. I think that your assessment of his actions is also a good one, though. He's gambling and hedging his bets and it could go either way.

Sort of off topic and me rambling randomly on a Saturday morning, but I also feel that if politicians want to stick to their principles and ideals and have some integrity, they should quit being politicians and go start some nonprofit to help people in whatever way they can, and that goes for everyone up to and including Obama. Because everything else is just a giant game, and we have more people who genuinely need help than we do politicians who really need to score a few political points.
emptysilentlife 7th-Jul-2012 02:38 pm (UTC)
Ah thanks, I added the correct tag but seem to be unable to remove the other one. I was just quickly going through the list of already created tags and completely missed that I chose the wrong one.
eversofar 7th-Jul-2012 12:47 pm (UTC)
why do people keep forgetting that reagan was not very inclusive? i don't think a return to reagan era politics is going to provide the focus on fiscal issues he's looking for.
moonshaz 8th-Jul-2012 03:11 am (UTC)
I don't know why, but Republicans seem to worship Reagan.



I cannot explain this phenomenon; to me, it's completely unexplainable while at the same time being highly observable! ;p
hinoema 7th-Jul-2012 01:00 pm (UTC)
Huntsman has, however, endorsed Mitt Romney.

Walk the walk or STFD. That is all.
sobota 7th-Jul-2012 03:19 pm (UTC)
there is something rotten in the state of denmark.
tabaqui 7th-Jul-2012 04:00 pm (UTC)
Bah - i am disappointed that my Senator (McCaskill) won't be attending. That's stupid.

And this guy - endorsing Mittens? Wtf, dude. I almost thought you were an okay guy.
lovedforaday 7th-Jul-2012 06:13 pm (UTC)
Those super annoying ObamaClaire commercials must be having some effect.
mirhanda 7th-Jul-2012 04:51 pm (UTC)
that was always willing to put our country before politics.

I think he has gone down the wrong leg of the trousers of time because that line makes no sense in the universe that we inhabit.
sankaku_atama 8th-Jul-2012 01:29 pm (UTC)
A+ Pratchett reference.
mirhanda 8th-Jul-2012 04:04 pm (UTC)
I really love that metaphor. Terry Pratchett is such a brilliant writer.
mollywobbles867 7th-Jul-2012 05:14 pm (UTC)
I encourage a return to the party we have been in the past, from Lincoln right on through to Reagan, that was always willing to put our country before politics."

lolololololololol NO
hammersxstrings 7th-Jul-2012 10:41 pm (UTC)
I really wish he would've won the nomination
bear100 8th-Jul-2012 12:41 am (UTC)
me too (and this is coming from a lib)
delphshadow 9th-Jul-2012 08:49 am (UTC)
All the better; it's hard to have an actual two-party system if one party represents one philosophy and the other says it represents the opposite philosophy as long as it's Tuesday and the moderates agree and no one's calling the party extreme today and today's horoscope tells them that standing on principle will be auspicious today and... you get my drift. If you have one side that represents something and another side that represents practically nothing, there's nothing to debate, voters are cheated of an opportunity to consider two different approaches to the problems of the day, and the trust deficit that Huntsman talks about deepens. It's ironic that Republicans like Huntsman are the reason for this trust deficit: the overall 50% of voters who line up behind the Republicans have learned not to trust them because far too many are John Huntsman.
This page was loaded May 18th 2013, 9:38 am GMT.