Huntsman is history
He is now off my presidential radar.
ADDENDUM: And it's a crying shame. As a third-party candidate, Huntsman in his previous incarnation ( pro-life, and favoring civil unions but NOT "marriage" for same-sex couples) could have not only provided a rational and moderate alternative who put the good of the country ahead of partisan ideological squabbles and restored the comity which in previous ages had (generally) allowed the institutions of the Republic to thrive, while providing social conservatives like myself who have difficulty accepting the ideological rigidity and extremism of those who probably constitute the majority of the Republican party today, and whose social conscience extends to the poor and the disadvantaged as well as to the unborn and the foundational institutions and values of our society, with a viable alternative to choosing which part of our values we have to violate every time we vote.
Now, he will probably serve as a rallying point for those few in the GOP who have been seduced by the mantra of the liberal media that the only way for Republicans to win is to become Democrats in all but name. Even if he won the nomination (it would take the largest miracle since biblical times), he would have no chance of winning; why should the American people vote for an ersatz Democrat when they can vote for a real one?
Even as a third-party candidate, Huntsman would now have virtually no constituency- and no point. He would be no more able to conciliate the Right than any Democrat; he has forfeited any credibility as a conservative he had. Neither would the crazies on the Left be willing to meet him on the moderate center ground; he would be regarded there as a crazy right-winger who might as well be a member of the Tea Party for his still relatively conservative economic policies.
Jon Huntsman could have made history. Instead, he will be a minor footnote in it, if that.
And as I said, it's a crying shame. But instead of making history, Jon Huntsman is history.
Comments