After receiving more than 75% of the vote on Tuesday Huntsman has to be considered the person most able to oust Orrin Hatch when he comes up for re-election.
Huntsman said he hopes he can build "coalitions" with willing legislators from both political parties to achieve what he believes must be done. "Not running again (for governor) means no political game-playing — but doing what is right for all Utahns," he said.
The fact that he has promised not to seek a third term (and reiterated that promise) combined with the fact that McCain is not going to the White House means that he will be looking for something to do when this term expires. I’d love to see another popular Republican who would take on Hatch to refresh our senate representation with a Utahn (Hatch can barely find Utah on a map – his politics are all Washington).
Now we just need someone to run against Sen. Bennett in 2010. Perhaps Steve Urquart could do that now that he won’t have to worry about his own re-election in 2010.
Interesting idea….
It’s just part of my ongoing effort to get some representation in Congress. I even wished that Hatch would be named as the new Attorney General last year and campaigned for his opponent the year before. I actually discovered Steve Urquhart because of his short-lived primary challenge to Hatch.
I didn’t vote for Huntsman because I was frustrated with some of the bills he signed when I thought he should have vetoed them, but he’d be better than Hatch, and he’d have a good chance of winning.
I was really hoping that Pete Ashdown could have beat Hatch.
My friend, who is a pretty moderate (and reasonable) republican didn’t vote for Ashdown because she didn’t understand his stance on abortion. (Well, she thought she understood it.)
I didn’t vote for Huntsman either (not now or in 2004) but at the very least he would be a fresh face in the Senate and he is in a very small minority comprised of those people from Utah with enough popularity, name recognition, and money to actually have a chance to beat Hatch (whose popularity completely escapes me).
I like the Urquhart idea. Huntsman isn’t as appealing.
Urquhart does not have the same statewide name recognition as Huntsman and in 2012 he would probably want to keep his state Senate seat unless he was sure of beating Hatch. I suspect that is one of the reasons that he backed down in 2006.
If I were voting in a primary between Huntsman and Urquhart I would pick Urquhart but if I’m choosing which one to challenge Hatch, I think Huntsman has the better chance of getting Hatch to retire to Pennsylvania.
You’re right that Huntsman would be more likely to win but he’s just such a wiener I almost wonder if he’d be any better than Hatch.
Sometimes the right question is – would he be worse? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no.
He may not prove to be better, but I am confident that he would not be worse.
The real solution would be to teach the voters of Utah that the Senate is not a lifetime appointment (Ted Kennedy notwithstanding). Lifetime appointments are for non-elected positions like Supreme Court Justice.
Huntsman would mow down any competition if he were to actually pursue the senate. I think Utahns would love him because he would be like Orrin Hatch II, without the songs. In other words, I wouldn’t vote for him, just as I could not bring myself to vote for Hatch last time around.
There’s a couple of problems with this, however. Hatch is planning on running again. He has been building a huge campaign war chest. I guess he wants to try to outdo Strom Thurmond. Also, Huntsman has previously said that the legislative branch isn’t his kind of thing. His real love is in the diplomat corps. He really would love to be secretary of state or else a high profile ambassador — maybe to China or to the U.N.
I agree with Jeremy and Reach Upward. Urquhart is a politician who cares about his constituents. Huntsman, to a lesser degree than Hatch, but to a degree nonetheless, is enamored by the fame.
I agree with Allie as well, that Ashdown would have been far better than Hatch.
Frank and Reach,
I agree with both of you. I have never voted for Huntsman and don’t prefer him particularly over Hatch – I suggested him simply because I believe that he can compete with Hatch even with the huge war chest. That is an advantage that no democrat can really boast in Utah.
I’m not surprised to learn that he prefers the administrative or diplomatic positions.
No mainline Republican will oppose Hatch for the senate as long as Hatch wants to keep running. Period. It ain’t going to happen.
Urquhart tried it briefly last time because he can be a bit of an upstart. That cost him when he wanted to improve his leadership position in the Utah House. That was likely a factor in his decision to go to the Utah Senate.
I said last time Hatch ran that despite what I think about him, most Utahns have no incentive to toss him. Unlike me, they are not terribly displeased with him. Unless there is another cultural shift that causes the Democrats to become socially conservative (like the shift the other way that brought Hatch to power), Hatch would have to be caught committing adultery or murder (or drinking alcohol) for most Utahns to turn on him. Until something like that happens, Utah in general will keep re-electing him in large numbers.
Reach,
Everything you have said is unfortunately true. (That doesn’t mean I have to like it.)
My comment about my friend was inappropriate. Sorry to be off topic, but my view of why she did or didn’t vote a certain way wasn’t accurate, and I wanted to publicly apologize to her.
I can understand that you’d like some one to replace Hatch. At the very least I’d like him to feel a large enough threat to get his attention.
But why send Huntsman to the senat. Why not the oval office.
What do we gain by sending Huntsman to the oval office? (Assuming he could even get there – and I don’t see why he’s have any better chance than Romney did.)