quote:[C]onservatives 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.
I personally have always kind of liked Huntsman. I typically vote Democrat, but Huntsman would deserve a second look depending on who he ran against.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Huntsman could have won against the Democrats, but he lost running against the Republicans. He had the best of the Republican Ideals, and the Tea Party couldn't handle them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've long said that the really conservative position on gay marriage should be that good marriages are great for the people in them, the children they raise, and society as a whole and that we should be promoting them to all who can handle them.
I'd have that fight against liberals any day. The bigotry, desire to force others to live according to your religion, and clinging to outmoded gender roles is, unfortunately what gets butts in seats (plus, I'm pretty skeptical that many anti-gay marriage people actually value marriage the way I do - OSC's description of it as a thing that people wouldn't get into unless we force them to is the perfect example of this to me).
[ February 23, 2013, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read a number of insider accounts who said Huntsman was the only candidate of the entire GOP field that actually scared Obama's team. They thought everyone else would be beatable.
And they were right. Huntsman would have mopped the floor with Obama, I think. Everyone else ended up being a carnival sideshow act.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
afaik from all aggregate poll data I was reading, huntsman would have been competitive against Obama, but we can't say it was a done deal.
Still an admirable contrast against the rest of them.
And, it should be noted, it doesn't matter, because Huntsman is not a viable conservative candidate, he was just a viable general election candidate. The two largely don't coexist anymore — american conservatism is at the point where the positions you need to be a viable GOP candidate pretty much destroy your chances at the general election against any decent democratic presidential candidate, and the positions you need to be a viable general election candidate pretty much destroy your chances at the GOP primary.
Which is why Romney was their best shot; he worked his way around this for virtue of being a political shapeshifter. He could put on one mask for the primary and, once he had it out of the way, put on a different mask for the general election. In the knowing terminology of his own staff, having an etch-a-sketch for a candidate was the best shot conservatives had.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've read a number of insider accounts who said Huntsman was the only candidate of the entire GOP field that actually scared Obama's team. They thought everyone else would be beatable.
And they were right. Huntsman would have mopped the floor with Obama, I think. Everyone else ended up being a carnival sideshow act.
Let's say it would have actually been an interesting campaign, for the right reasons. As it was, it was an interesting campaign for other reasons: a sort of sport to see how much Romney could lie and get away with it. As it turned out- a lot, but not enough.