Keep your eye on Huntsman

A week or so ago, Utah's Republican Governor Jon Huntsman surprised and shocked people by announcing his support of civil unions. No reason he had to. Just did. In a state that opposes that idea 70-30%.

Now, at the time the speculation was that he was positioning himself nationally. He has no intention of running for a third term as Governor of Utah. He is considered a contender for the Republican nomination. But open support of civil unions? Wow.

Now, he has come out, in an interview in the Washington Times, and called the Republican congressional leadership "inconsequential."

"I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely."

Now if that isn't a shot across the bow I don't know what is. Just dismissing Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner out of hand? Whoa! Wonder how he feels about Michael Steele? The Washington Times also posted video of the interview:

Now that is one scary guy. I don't mean George W. Bush, Vice President Dark Lord or Sarah Palin scary. I mean, if he were to be nominated, he might actually attract votes kind of scary. Imagine, a Republican that wants to have a results oriented message for the voters. A Republican who wants to identify and fulfill the needs of the voters. It's terrifying!

Fortunately for us, I don't think it's going to happen. In 2012, at least. The way things are playing out thus far, it still appears that the Republican Party hasn't fallen far enough to understand that it's the right wing nutjobbies that are the problem with their brand, not the solution. Thus, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal grandstanding about how he will reject about 2% of the stimulus package coming his state's way. Exactly the sort of empty rhetoric Huntsman talks about in his interview. But it's what the "right" wants at the moment.

Huntsman will position himself as the leader of the party if he plays his cards right but not until after 2012. I fully expect the GOP to fall flat on it's collective face in it's rush to the right in both 2010 and 2012. They'll blame 2010 on Obama's popularity and how lucky he was that the recession is starting to lift. It will take a Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin running on a hard right platform and losing badly in 2012 for them to finally start dismissing the idea that they aren't "right" enough.

In other words, I expect 2012 to be kind of like Ford/Reagan in 1976 but in reverse. Oops! We went too far to the right!

If they're smart, they'll learn the lesson sooner and maybe Huntsman will have a real shot in 2012. He resembles, in some ways, the John McCain I might have voted for in 2000 without the 'maverick'. (Although the civil union thing belies that.) That is worrisome to those who want a Dem in the Oval Office. I don't think the Republicans will be smart enough to do it in 2012 but 2016? He's obviously drawing a line in the sand with Jindal. (And not the wishy washy Mitt Romney kind either.)

While I would generally much prefer a Democrat to a Republican in the White House, I could live with what I've seen so far of this Republican. Therein lies the danger. I have seen plenty of political blowups and flameouts in presidential races in just the last 3 years. So who knows what may be 3 or so years down the road? But if this guy is still hanging around at that point, I think it would be best if President Obama kept his eyes open to this Governor if he wants to get a second term.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.