Romney over Huntsman?
Which I think raises one obvious question: Then why not pick Huntsman?
Romney and Huntsman share a blandness that is unmatched by any other candidate in this race, and most candidates in most other races, all the way down to selectman. They are the groom on the wedding cake. They're nice, clean-cut, well-dressed, and completely non-threatening. They have fabulous, beautiful families, and as far as anyone knows no skeleton has ever haunted their closets. They're diligent, hard-working, and well-studied. Also, great hair.
So why go with Romney over Huntsman? I don't see a powerful argument for doing so. Romney has more money. But what else? A great radio voice?
Huntsman is arguably more conservative than Romney. Even if he's just as moderate, he comes with none of Romney's issues. He never supported an individual mandate for health insurance, and he hasn't the record of flip-flopping. Romney is defined by that . It's what people think of when they think of Mitt Romney. Romney also is closely associated with "Wall Street," which could be a liability in this election, and is something we already know the Obama campaign will exploit. Huntsman has none of those negatives.
Now, I'm not saying Huntsman is a great candidate. I don't think he is. His ability to inspire people is virtually nil. But then, so is Romney's. So if what you want in a candidate is someone who will project an image of cleanliness and good living, who won't offend anyone, and who will be a fine, upstanding representative of the Republican Party (a well respected man of our town, so to speak), and therefore will appeal to moderate and independent voters (I disagree that moderates and independents are looking for that, but then, I'm not a Romney supporter), then you should go with Huntsman. He's even safer and less risky than Romney...