The Thrill of the Huntsman

Since news broke in January that Jon Huntsman was stepping down from his post as ambassador to China, everyone knew he was running for president. His announcement today makes it official. Our highly polarized body politic will almost surely reject the moderate former Utah governor like an infection, but I posit there's reason for Democrats and Republicans to get excited about a Huntsman candidacy.

For Republicans, it's simple: Huntsman has the best chance to defeat the president.

Even with a limping economy and low approval ratings, I suspect Candidate Obama will be able to remind middle-of-the-road voters why they liked him in the first place. If he can earn back trust by sheer force of personality, the GOP needs a wild card. That's Huntsman.

Huntsman fails many a Republican litmus test. He believes in climate change, supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, and was the proud hire of one Barack Obama. These precise traits that hurt Huntsman among Republicans help him with the public at large. I suggested in my last blog that Pawlenty's record could hurt him in a GOP primary. Pawlenty has nothing on Huntsman here. It would require tremendous compromise on the part of your average Republican primary voter to choose a candidate like Huntsman. But when your primary goal is to beat Obama, your priorities shift.

Huntsman appeals directly to the middle roader voter. He's the perfect general election candidate, but following John McCain's defeat in 2008, Republicans won't be eager to trust nominating another moderate. As such, Huntsman might be more appealing to Democrats.

Here's why: Huntsman has the best chance to defeat the president.

Democrats would surely prefer 4 more years of Obama, but a Huntsman win could shape the future of the Republican party for decades. He could set a template for a more moderate Republican, relax the rigidity of the party and attract new members, especially young people. While such a dramatic (perhaps unrealistic) paradigm shift could spell doom for their own electoral success, life would ultimately be easier for Democrats as soon as their opponents aren't so opposing.

If the GOP fails to rally around Huntsman, or even Romney (a similar candidate in more ways than religion, which ought not be any of our business anyway), it's over for them. The longer they dote on a candidate like Bachmann, the further they distance themselves from the White House.

The GOP Formiddable

In 1968, two prominent Minnesota politicians sought the presidency. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, a champion of civil rights and Medicare, and Senator Eugene McCarthy, the ultimate antiwar candidate, were by no means small potatoes. They were statesmen. Forty-some years later, Minnesota once again has the distinction of seeing two of its own vie for that high office.

But statesmen, this time, we ain't got.

Anyone who caught CNN's debate Monday night knows that. Bachmann exceeded expectations, which is a frustrating phrase to type. Why do we always, always play this silly expectations game? Back in school, let's say math class, when I was clearly struggling, the teachers helping me had to think, "Well, he's going to fail the quiz." When I then achieved C- mathematical wizardry, they didn't give me an A. They gave me a C-.

But somehow, every election, we create separate barometers by which we judge the candidates for president. This time, coming out unscathed was all Romney needed in order for a "win." He didn't need to provide the best ideas, or inspire the most confidence. Just sit there, not get hit too hard.

Bachmann apparently needed to do little more than show up. She sounded like her typical, stilted, simpleton self, and according to so-called experts came in second for basically no reason at all. Pawlenty, on the other hand, barely registered. Given the chance to land a few punches on frontrunner Mitt Romney and the former Massachusetts governor's pre-Obamacare health plan, Pawlenty retreated. Perhaps it was because he knew what Mr. Romney's retort may have been.

Where Pawlenty left the governor's office with a $6 billion deficit, Romney ended his term with a $2 billion surplus. Pawlenty's surplus in 2009 was a combination of smoke, mirrors, and one-time federal stimulus dollars courtesy of--you guessed it--Barack Obama. In a GOP primary, this record can be just as damning as having inspired Obamacare.

We here in Minnesota know Bachmann to be a crackpot (really, just a total nutbag), and Pawlenty to be a gutless, cutesy failure. Give it time and the rest of the country will reach the same conclusions. We don't have candidates with the heft of Humphrey or McCarthy, but Minnesota, we've got an entertaining spectacle.

Stay tuned for more thoughts on the GOP field, like why I think Republicans and Democrats ought to be rooting for Jon Huntsman.

The Hangover pt. II

I'm about a full week behind in my analysis of the record-breaking sequel to The Hangover. I left it alone because I thought my review would have been redundant. I walked away from the movie exactly as did many of the critics: It was a cheap reincarnation of the first film. It played out like a Hangover mad-lib with raunchier (but not necessarily funnier) details rounding out an identical plot. But with apparent plans to make a third movie based around these characters, I can at least offer my thoughts on how to redeem the franchise.


The first problem right away is the title. It's difficult to have a movie called The Hangover pt. II, or III for that matter, and not have it revolve around its characters being, once again, hung over. Rather than take a risk and put a little faith in the characters we fell in love with from the first film, they decided not to tell a different kind of story. They should have. And for number three, they can. (My idea for the title: The Wolf Pack Strikes Back.)


Film three should be what film two could have been. Construct a story that has mystery and urgency--the elements that fuel the comedy of these movies--but start out with a brand new template. We could see a story that has fun trying to reconcile Phil's (Bradley Cooper) inner party animal with his low-key husband/father/schoolteacher identity back home. We could certainly afford to see more Doug (Justin Bartha), a character whose absence in the first film was the plot, but whose exclusion this time around feels like a cop-out. Bartha stole the show in the National Treasure movies. They would have done well to include him in more of the story than just the first act and dénouement.


It's very tricky, because the whole magic of film one was the mystery and fun of watching the details of their night of debauchery unfold as they chase one false lead after another. Problem is, it's only good once. Try to repeat it and your story becomes predictable and stale. Just look at the aforementioned Treasure movies. Did anyone like that sequel?


If Hangover II didn't do it for you, check out Bridesmaids. It's what I wish we could have seen in a Hangover sequel (once you take away a few Y chromosomes).