Windmills

Jon Huntsman, most likely not much longer in the race for the Republican nomination, ought to go all in with reasonableness. Others agree. As surely as Rick Perry is an idiot, Huntsman will lose anyway, so why not free himself to speak truth to teabags? Why not plant his flag squarely in the tiny and otherwise unpopulated territory meant for thoughtful and helpful conservatism?

Because one way or the other, we're about to see teabaggerism boiled down to its dregs. And when the Rs pick a flag-bearer from among their current choices, there will be blood: either a resounding loss come next November (one might hope), or when that person wins and proceeds to put in place the policies that will finish us off as a great nation. Or, maybe, a nation at all. And if there's anything left, and if there's any hope of resurrection, there might be (one might hope), once again, a place for a person of integrity and knowledge in the current cesspool that's enflooded and drowned a once great (or at least credible) party. If that's the case, to have been on record as having stood against the tide could put Mr Huntsman at the front of the next pack. (I know a guy who works for the State Department, in Asia; several of his liberal colleagues who've worked with him have said Huntsman is a Republican they could vote for.)

On the other hand, assuming I'm right -- and you only have to look at pretty recent history to know I am -- after the damage we'd see, who'd want the job to clean it up? It'd only be possible if he had a Congress willing to work with him. And knowing the ability of teabaggRs to cling beyond death to the wrong, their willingness to put holes in a sinking ship and ignore the drowning, if there are any at all left in Congress, any at all willing still to vote for them -- any at all -- he'd as well walk away before he even started.

For the record: I'd love to see Hunstman be the Republican nominee, even recognizing he might just win. But the best part is I think the campaign would be at a level not seen in a long time: factual, detailed, policy-oriented. It would be the closest thing to what might be called a fair and honorable and -- dare I say it? -- honest fight.

[Since I wrote this, it seems Mr Huntsman has been thinking the same way. Good for him. There still might be a place -- if vanishingly small -- for reality-based integrity among conservatives, if no longer in their so-called party.]

[The above is brought to you by the letter F, as in ... you know. Because it's really clear that it'd take more than evidence to open enough eyes, sealed closed as they've been, by Foxorovian design. There is, I'd aver, no evidence, not even the total failure of our country, that would convince teabaggRs they'd been wrong about anything. The proof has been there since Ronald Reagan; it was writ even larger by George Bush and President Cheney. If that debacle didn't convince them (do they even remember it, after all these nearly three years), WTF would?]