Jon Huntsman, who was discussed as a possible Americans Elect candidate, continues his move away from the GOP. He will not be attending this years Republican Convention. Yahoo News has the story.
“‘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,’ Huntsman said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.”
It makes sense to have some focus on IPR, but not too narrow. Too far in either direction is bad.
It’s a judgement call.
I’ve classified this under “non left right parties” because the relevance it has to IPR is the Americans Elect (or hypothetical future centrist party) connection.
I posted an article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago, where a group of lawyers took over his campaign and are suing the Republican party for fraud. I thought that was of interest to third parties, particularly Gary Johnson supporters, and I got similar comments that it wasn’t IPR worthy. I definitely heard that Mr. Huntsman was looking for a third party to run on for a while, but I guess that didn’t happen. So, it’s a judgement call, but I think anything that could affect the presidential race would be of interest to IPR readers.
Fixed.
@8
You’re right, someone should fix that.
NF, I’ve never understood the urge to police IPR. Is there a limited amount of bandwidth that we must conserve or something? So I admit my bias is toward inclusion rather than exclusion. That said, it seems to me that a major partisan figure dissing his party is of interest to third party and independent advocates in the same way that major party primary challenges are of interest.
I’m pretty sure his name is spelled “Jon”.
I know he was looking at Americans Elect BUT… this article seems out of place at IPR. What does he have to do with alternative parties?
“willingness to address the trust deficit”
Does the guy have a suggestion on how to do this. I’ve read good things about the guy but without actual proposals this sounds like so much cotton candy in a world that needs a lot more kale.
Huntsman’s laid back, lukewarm personality may play well in a state like Utah, and it may even do well with the GOP elites, but it will never succeed in winning over the Republican rank-and-file on a national level. Furthermore, I doubt it will do very well with the Democratic rank-and-file either, as they also prefer candidates with more charisma, albeit of a slightly different type.
Sounds like sour grapes.
Even though they nominated Romney, who holds very similar views and rhetoric, apparently the only way the Republican Party can focus “on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States” is by nominating Huntsman himself.
Huntsman was banking on Republicans nominating someone perceived as extremist like Santorum or Gingrich, who would then lose the general election, thus (in his mind) opening the door for a moderate Huntsman 2016 campaign.
With the moderate Romney now as the 2012 nominee, either he wins and becomes the presumptive nominee for 2016, or he loses despite all the negatives against Obama, and Republicans scrap the moderate approach for 2016.
Huntsman should have set a more optimistic deadline for returning to the Republican Party, one that is likely to happen sooner. The End of Time or The Heat Death of the Universe come to mind.
He should be president. He is the only Republican I would vote for.
This guy should be President