Posted on 11/30/2012 2:16:36 PM PST by drewh
Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said Friday that the Republican Party should stress its "libertarian roots" rather than "fringe" social issues as it evaluates its election losses.
“I think the deliberation about the Republican Party that we’re having is a very healthy thing," Huntsman told CNN. "And if we don’t wind up at the end of the exercise with a mission statement that is one sentence long, then we’re toast. That one statement ought to be, ‘Balance the budgets and get out of people’s lives.’ And you ought to build the party around that because we have strong libertarian roots that go way back to the early days of the Republican Party.
Huntsman went on to warn that the party was occasionally consumed by such "fringe issues, and it gets us stuck in the alleyways of life that take our focus away from what is really important for the American people, and that is individual freedom and that is getting the budgets balanced so people can get on with their lives.”
Huntsman, who was the former U.S. Ambassador to China under President Obama, also urged Republicans to cool their rhetoric surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
"What I'm saying about the Benghazi incident is let's lower the politics," Huntsman said. "Let's let the experts collect the information."
He also downplayed any suggestion that he could serve as Secretary of State, with Hillary Clinton planning to leave the job at the end of the president's first term — although seemingly indicated he would accept the job, if asked.
"I don't play the hypothetical game," Huntsman said. "We have moved on. My history has always spoken to putting my country first, and if I didn't, my two sons at the U.S. Naval Academy would never forgive me."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The thing that always puzzles me is their name, “Libertarians,” because they are not in favor of freedom at all but are very statist and even want state intervention in their favorite causes (which appear to be sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll).
I thought they were such an antiquated bunch that they would have disappeared by now, but they’re still with us. I guess the geriatric hippie crowd (state-supported dope and Viagra) is still with us.
Do what you want, GOP. I voted for Romney, despite my distaste for the man and what he stands for, but this is a bridge too far for me. If you think you can win elections without those nasty social issues, then you’d better hope that you can win elections without the nasty social issues voters such as me.
>> should stress its “libertarian roots” rather than “fringe” social issues
The language of a liberal bootlicker.
‘Balance the budgets and get out of people’s lives.’
Great line. That should have been pounded into the ground until it because all people associated him with during the campaign. It isn’t like we came close to a social conservative in any case.
“Balance the budgets” says absolutely nothing about the size of government, and big government by definition are intrusive in and limiting to people’s lives.
“Just follow the Constitution and we’ll be fine. If the subject is not contained therein, just leave it alone.”
So, we should work to reverse Roe v. Wade, since there’s no right to privacy in the Constitution, and no authorization for the Feds to regulate abortions either. Will do.
Yes, the funny thing is, the Libertarians are the fringe, and the social issues voters are the base of the party. It’s bizarro world.
The Libertarian Party is saturated with libs and anarchists too embarrassed to admit what they are, or have no other home to occupy.
>> not in favor of freedom at all but are very statist and even want state intervention
Not sure how the govt would mandate the use of “sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll”, but it does require the servicing of homosexual activity in various states.
>> The thing that always puzzles me is their name, “Libertarians,” because they are not in favor of freedom
Libertarianism opposes statism.
There are many statist punks in the Libertarian Party that don’t believe nascent life deserves life, liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness. They believe it’s okay to kill nascent life. Not very libertarian.
We move up the Latino and every other vote by actually expressing a message of independence and opportunity. Most Latin Americans came here because they thought they’d have a shot at developing a business and a life, and many of them have. That’s true of any group that was not brought here on welfare.
Africans (such as the Somalis or even Obama’s auntie Zeitunga) are usually brought here on some kind of welfare program, and these programs need to stop right now, although Obama has expanded them enormously at the cost of the Latin American quota.
So get rid of the special welfare immigration programs (which benefit mostly people from Muslim countries) and just start preaching economic opportunity and personal freedom to everybody, not just Latinos.
Also, stop thinking that anybody with a Spanish last name is a wetback. Many people with Spanish last names in the Southwest and California have been here for centuries, long before the Anglos arrived in their areas. These places were traded back and forth between Spain, Mexico and the US for many years as the geopolitical situation of these countries changed.
So another big thing the GOP could do is actually stop focusing on Latinos on a last name basis and just think that a Lopez could be as long-term (or more) an American as a Smith.
Thank you for this accurate observation!
That has always been one of the things that I have found strangest about the "libertarians." I guess it means that you're free to have your sex, drugs and rock n roll if you're already born...but otherwise, you have no rights because you're only a human being when the state says you are.
Libertarians are very pro-abortion, and I have never heard a single one of them address this.
Sounds good! Let's do it!
How?
Except that leftists are in people’s lives 100%. they tell them what to think and what to say and in many places they act almost as social service organizations, Need a car, bud? The Memocratic party through Acorn etc. will help you.
they are IN peopel’s lives and a lot of people love it.
what he means is, Don’t preach morality.
So you don’t need a husband to have a baby. Be a single mom and the Democratic party will supply you with everything.
So. Beat that.
By giving their families and friends a genuine chance at participating in this country's economy.
And no, I don't mean "amnesty". Rewarding people that have already been in this country illegally is the worst incentive.
I'd replace it with a guest worker program, that gives them a chance to do what they really want: earn some money and send it back home. There's nothing wrong with that.
But, for citizenship, they have to go through the same process as everyone else: apply for permanent residency and 7 years later, they can apply for citizenship. No preferential treatment for permanent residency.
Assess a flat income tax on the guest workers, but don't call it Social Security -- because they won't be entitled to any benefits. And, the federal government rescinds all benefits for guest workers: no free health care, no free education, no welfare, etc. They are welcome to work here, but not to become a ward of the federal government. If a state government wishes to provide benefits, that's their choice -- but without federal money.
We will still have the problem with "anchor babies", and that can't be solved without a Constitutional amendment. Yes, I know that some people think it can, but the precedent has already been set and that's impossible to unwind.
Yes, but there are a lot of Republicans that do want to have social issue fights on long settled matters. Santorum got a lot of primary votes and he said as President he would have raised the issue of contraception and explained why it was "not okay".
Much as I don't like Huntsman, he does make a good point. Balance the budget and stay out of people's lives is a winning message - and I suspect it is the general direction the party will go.
“Do what you want, GOP. I voted for Romney, despite my distaste for the man and what he stands for, but this is a bridge too far for me. If you think you can win elections without those nasty social issues, then you’d better hope that you can win elections without the nasty social issues voters such as me.”
Exactly! Even if the GOP wanted to stay away from social issues (why?),,the Dems will force the issues to the table...there is no avoiding them, NOR should there be!
Jon Huntsman? Why won’t she just go away?
Sounds good, but will never happen. The culture of many mexicans is almost as bad as most blacks. that we need to cut off all soccialized spending for immigrants, period, is a great incentive, but we have millions of illegals who have a taste for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.