poster sums it up...

You hypocrite, first take the RINO horn out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother´s eye.

Is Huntsman still talking?

Getting out of people´s lives is one thing. Getting the life out of people (abortio) is another thing.

A pterodactyl in canary feathers loosed in the mall.
Oh them poo chirruns!
Here we have another leftist wack dictating to the most willing receptive Respend0cavers :{ once Republicans }:
on how they can best serve the LACK
{: Left´s Alinsky Caused Klatch :}.
It ( possibly a he ) is wasting it´s breath. They are already there.

Isn´t Huntsman the one the Dems claimed Zero feared most as an opponent? Watch; he´ll wind up our nominee in 2016. The Dems are adept at framing the opposition.

Who is Huntsman to dictate or speak about GOP politics? If I want input from clowns, I look up Krusty. I want to get rid of the Republican ´elite´ myself but I refuse to listen to someone who contributed to another four years of the traitor-in-chief. Bite me Jon.

I´m confused Mr. Huntsman. It´s okay for the Dems to run on support of abortion, gay rights, free birth control, etc. but it´s bad for the Repubs to run against those "social issues"?
I see. So, in reality we Repubs should just sit down and shut up, or move to the back of the bus.
Gotcha.

Huntsman is right.

Doesn´t make the dems right on abortion. But, it is the law of the land and no one is tying anyone up forcing them to get one. If we do not get Republicans leading from the White House, the senate, and maintain the House, we may see women carrying babies deemed less than perfect forced to get abortions. Our odds of preventing this is greater with the GOP.

Does Huntsman regularly post here? Sure sounds familiar lately.

Huntsman would have lost far worse than Romney. The only reason you know who he is is one- daddy´s money and two- he´s the closest thing to a democrat on the repug side- hence favorable coverage. What the dems call a fellow traveler.

Sorry Karenj..but the fact of the matter is that most people don´t want the government interfering in their lives.

If you don´t want to have an abortion then don´t. They don´t want the Gov´t telling them whom they can marry.

In the GOP primary a candidate has to run so far to the right that they get hung in the general election and we get idiots in the WH.

The only thing that Huntsman got right is avaiding social issues. Morality is best left to the family.

CLOWN

Huntsman is right?

Slavery was law of the land once and no one forced anyone to have slaves. Good grief!!!

It´s the "fringe issues" which define our culture! On the big issues, we can negotiate and come to an agreement--defense, for example. But murdering babies--a fringe issue to Huntsman--cannot be compromised.

Election losses? Doesn´t he mean loss? The GOP still holds the House and has a good chance to take the Senate in 2014. And the Republicans don´t make abortion an issue; the Democrats do. What are candidates supposed to do? Lie if they are personally opposed to abortion? Pledge never to nominate judges who disagree with Roe v. Wade, the worst-reasoned Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott? Like it or not, abortion is an issue a substantial portion of the population cares about. It wouldn´t go away, even if the Republicans nominated Huntsman!

Huntsman is an Obama cheerleader and fan boy.

´social and frnge´ issues should be left at the state level, not the federal level. If California wants to try out free immigration and socialism, let them. If a state is culturally different, then that should be their choice.

This is why the Repubs keep loosing. They want the federal government to control this stuff, just their way. Leave it to the states and get the Feds out of the way. Every state will be better off if we cut out the federal government as the middleman for our choices, our local investments (why should we send the Feds money to skim to give back to us with strings attached as "grants".

Sorry, but I don´t consider 50 million dead babies to be a "fringe" issue. I´m sorry that a few L-Dotters on this site seem to think it is. I suppose Huntsman, el al., would have been okay with continuing slavery too...another social "fringe" issue that many in that time would rather the parties have left alone. Yeeeesh.

Huntsman is correct, although I don´t support him as a candidate. Social issues are losers. I believe abortion is murder, but the government is not going to make people behave according to my moral beliefs and it´s stupid to keep trying to make the government enforce my morality. Libertarianism is the solution. Shrink the government small enough and they won´t be able to pay for abortions.

Does he have a job?

How about avoiding fringe candidates like Huntsman and his dingbat daughters.

Conservatives: GOP should
avoid Huntsman

There, fixed it.

There he goes again! "An idle mind is the devil´s workshop" Daddy Huntsman. Time to find "Sonny Boy" another position in your vast business empire.

Being a man, I can´t have an abortion. But I don´t want my taxes paying for anyone else´s.

Another of the elite telegraphing the future of the Republican Party.

Well, Huntsman, I´d say you are decidedly "fringe."

How about this for a motto? LIVE BY PRINCIPALS. The problem is that the reason many people are miserable is because they failed to live up to tried and true principles of hard work, self-reliance, non-violence, law-abiding, bad law-changing, self-governance. Huntsman is a rich guy but he is not my ideal of a principled man.

Did any of the people bashing Huntsman read the article? I didn´t find much to disagree with. He said we should return to our libertarian roots and avoid fringe social issues. Here´s a hint: the nature of libertarianism does exclude clinging to fringe social issues such as abortion.

What Republicans don´t realize is that there are low income social conservatives who would actually benefit from some of Obama´s giveaways who vote for Republicans because of the social issues. Take those away and these people will either not vote, or decide to vote for the party of giveaways. There will be no reason for these low income social conservatives to vote for the Republicans.

The problem is that you hardline folks do not understand that you will never be able to outlaw all abortion. People will never accept it. Why can´t you compromise and allow for what was initially planned and that is allow people to choose in the first trimester only. The only exception after that period will be for saving the life of the woman. If you allow for people to choose early term first trimester abortions only, you will not only be saving millions of lives (that is your goal isn´t it?) but you will also stop making the party look hypocritical by forcing government to intrude on people´s health issues and their beliefs. The party then will win more elections and stop being perceived as controlling fascists. Scientific evidence already confirms that conception is not a complete human life. It is only the POTENTIAL of life. And as such, there is still a high chance that it will not make it to term. Let people make the choice early but use your clout during this time to try to dissuade them from choosing abortion. You will end up winning many times over toward your goal of preserving life than by approaching it as "all or nothing". "All or nothing" will get you nothing every time.

#18 - If California wants to try out free immigration and can prevent any spillover to other states, let them. But until then, it is indeed a Federal issue, don´t you think?

#31 - Utilitarian death is plainly wrong, from abortion to euthenasia. Providing one survives the womb, it is likely that Americans will face government healthcare managed on a simple principle: Your worth as a taxpayer. Look up "Economic Unit of Value" and understand that the useful work contributed by an individual unit is the measure of its value. If you´re on the low or negative side, such as collecting welfare or Social Security, you´re toast because your value is hardly worth the effort. Do you object? I sure do, beginning with abortion and including Obamacare. We´re all fair game.

#31, I am reminded of the scene in A Man for All Seasons (if you haven´t seen it, I highly recommend it) in which Sir Thomas More is dragged once again in front of an inquisitorial court formed by his friend the Duke of Norfolk, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Cromwell concerning the question of King Henry´s right to divorce the wife the pope had made a special dispensation to allow him to marry, namely Queen Catherine of Aragon, and then marry his mistress Anne Boleyn. The bit of dialogue that I am reminded of is thus:

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I´m not a scholar, I don´t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can´t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

#31.. will you come to Hell with me... for fellowship? Some of us believe that a man or woman´s character matters and so does selling one´s soul for fellowship.

We hardline people. Got it. thanks. We bow to your superior moral sophistication.

And pray for the collapse of communism and conversion of Russia, China and those who aren´t "hardline" after mass.