Within the Margin

I want to preface this piece saying that had Jon Huntsman been the Republican nominee that I would’ve had a hard time deciding who to vote for in November. While I disagree with many of the former Utah Governor’s stances, he earned a lot of my respect this campaign cycle for not bending to the will of those within his party, staying true to his vision of America and the Republican party, and for making me thankfully that finally there was a Republican politician that sounded reasonable on many fronts. Huntsman the 2012 statesman seemed willing to look past his personal views and instead want to have a discourse with people where you may have conflicting views, but you could walk away knowing your views were heard fairly and you gave his views and thoughts plenty of consideration.

Jon Huntsman’s exit from the Republican Party primaries was written in stone long before the first Caucuses got together in Iowa, and it wasn’t even his fault. Huntsman’s demise in the COP primary was cemented when he put partisanship besides him and accepted the position as President Obama’s first Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. Look, there were many other facets of why Huntsman’s campaign never got off the ground: flying in the face of conservative Orthodoxy and being reasonable about things like Science and Energy policy, the fact that the super PAC that was “co-ordinated” with his campaign (lets be real, the Super PACs and the Federally registered campaign PACs know what’s going on, especially the Super PACs tightly associated with a candidate) was largely financed by his father, and Huntsman wasn’t willing to play ball with the Conservative wing of his party. Those reasons and his inability to raise funds ultimately killed his chances of making a dent in New Hampshire, where he didn’t have to win, but he needed to push Mitt Romney to the brink (something like a 35%-32% finished between Romney and Huntsman) in order to get his actual “ticket to ride” in this presidential primary.

There’s no questioning Huntsman’s conservative bonafides and a look at his political career on Wikipedia(please note read this today: 1/17/2012 or Thursday and later as Wikipedia will “black out” on Wednesday 1/18/2012 in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Now or SOPA Act) will more than confirm this. He was a staffer in the Reagan White House, was appointed an Undersecretary of Commerce and a US Ambassador to Singapore for President George H.W Bush; during the Clinton Administration Huntsman went to the Private sector awaiting the next Republican administration (since saying that sounds better than saying “ran Daddy’s Chemical Corporation until the next Administration post opened”), and was a Deputy US Trade Representative during George W. Bush’s administration. All of this before even running for elective office in a State where winning the GOP Nomination is the hard part and Election Day is a mere formality. He replaced another Bush appointed, Mike Leavitt, in the 2004 Utah Gubernatorial election with 58% of the vote, and won re-election in 2008 with an absurd 77.7% of the vote. His approval ratings at times were as high as 90%, no other Republican elected official in the race could boast those numbers except maybe 1993 Newt Gingrich, but he’d burned those polls long, long ago. That resume alone should have left the 2012 field of electable candidates to Romney and Huntsman, and had Huntsman actually campaigned on that resume he probably would still be running right now.

Huntsman took up the post-partisan appeal, sounding willing and even slightly eager to work across both party lines to put the interests of the country above those of partisan bickering. In terms of campaigning, this is suicide in a primary regardless of party. Yesterday in New York Magizine, John Heilemann states that Huntsman’s disdain for the process ultimately cost him.

Heilemann argues that:

Yet beyond all that, there was a more basic problem: a candidate who seemed to think of himself as superior to the process, love it or hate it, by which we select presidential nominees and elect presidents. As I wrote in a cover story on him and Romney six months ago, Huntsman entered the race sounding more like a diplomat than a politician and acting as if presenting a glittering résumé were enough to claim the big prize. But it isn’t. Hopefully Huntsman understands that now — for it would be a shame for such a smart man to stroll out of the room no wiser than when he ambled into it.

That’s a completely sound argument, but Huntsman didn’t want to be Ron Paul and he wasn’t going to present himself as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry did. Why; because he’s better than that, sure just showing his resume would have been enough for the GOP of 2000 but not this rabidly conservative GOP today; however, Huntsman’s more experienced and seemingly presidential than Romney and the “anti-Romneys.” Yes Rick Perry’s spent more time as a state executive, but what good has that gotten him in this primary as he got lazy in the debate circuit and makes arguments that may sound fine and dandy to fellow conservative Texans, but make most groan. Huntsman’s disdain of the process was a hindrance to him on the trail, but who doesn’t hate the process and the grind required to be in a political campaign, especially one for the highest office in the land. He seemed to have the most cohesive vision, and in all honesty, as a Democrat, he was the only Republican that truly scared me in the Republican primary.

Buzzfeed makes the argument that:

“The party Huntsman imagined — modernizing, reforming, and youthful — could still be born. That might be the reaction to a second smashing defeat at Obama’s hands, or that might be where President Romney takes his re-election campaign. But it’s now hard to see Huntsman leading that change. He bet, too early, on a fantasy, and ran for the nomination of a party that doesn’t exist, at least not yet. His decision tonight to drop out just marks his recognition of that fact.”

It could be born this year as well, that modernizing and reforming zeal is what is hoped for but the group Americans Elect, a non-profit looking to gain ballot access in all 50 states with $30 million cash on hand. If Huntsman really wants to give his post-partisan message and continue on trying to convince the American people he’s electable, this may be a way to do it in place of running for President for another 4 years akin to Mitt Romney after losing the 2008 primaries. I’ll do a more detailed article on American’s elect sometime in the future. It may be the “sore loser” route for Huntsman to attempt this “non-partisan” “third party” route by way of Americans Elect. Hell, an Americans Elect route could actually help Mitt Romney as dissatisfied and/or impressed (or uninformed) Democrats would more likely vote for a post-partisan sounding Huntsman over casting a ballot feeling unsatisfied with President Obama. the likelihood of this is minimal, but it’s at the very least pluasible.

I recognize I’ve spent much of this space opining, but I felt I could do so because Huntsman’s exit from the GOP Primary has no bearing on the inevitable, the Republican Party will nominate Mitt Romney. Any Huntsman voters are likely comfortable voting for Romney, and there aren’t enough Huntsman supporters to really make things even more inevitable for Romney. If the “Anti-Mitt” vote weren’t split, I’d be intrigued by what Huntsman’s exit could have meant, but that’s not the case. Huntsman’s quick endorsement of Romney to me was part common sense (he’s going to be the nominee, crossing him isn’t going to help you) and part hoping it lands him a position (Secretary of State?) in a potential Romney Cabinet.

With Huntsman out, I have no one to really be interested in in the GOP and their manner of ridiculous rhetoric will continue to turn me off from their want for control. I will still attempt to comment on the field objectively, or as objectively as possible, but it is tough to do in the first place.