Ezra Klein considers the contradictions of the Huntsman campaign:

To many, his candidacy looked like an effort to prove that the Republican Party could still make space for moderates. But Huntsman has taken precisely no moderate positions. When the debate moderators asked if any of the Republican candidates would reject a deal comprised of $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases, Huntsman was right there raising his hand. When it came time to release economic plans, he proposed massive tax cuts for the rich. He has called for a balanced budget amendment.

In perhaps his boldest moment, he tweeted, “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” But like the other candidates on the stage, he opposes policies to actually reduce carbon emissions. In a sense, that really is crazy. It’s certainly crazier than someone who doesn’t believe in global warming opposing policies to reduce carbon emissions.

The contradictions don’t stop there. After all, why did someone with a largely solid conservative record attempt to follow McCain’s campaign strategy from 2000, which confirmed so many conservatives in their enduring contempt and hostility to McCain? Why would the foreign policy realist in the race make the inexplicable error of endorsing preventive war against Iran? How could someone with the most direct foreign policy experience in the race completely fail to hold the ideologues in the field accountable when they have endorsed reckless and dangerous policies? In short, how does a candidate with so many natural advantages manage to fritter them away so quickly? These are some of the things that continue to puzzle me about the Huntsman campaign.

The Huntsman campaign has been something of a puzzle from the start, but the conservative response to Huntsman’s candidacy has also been rather bizarre. On substance, Huntsman is hewing much more closely to current movement conservative line on fiscal and social issues than Romney, but he is widely perceived and treated as if his positions are well to the left of Romney’s. Huntsman has more relevant policy and political experience than Romney, and his record of accomplishments in office is longer, more significant, and more in keeping with current conservative views than Romney’s. He has far more real foreign policy experience than Romney (who has none), and he has a fair amount of specialized knowledge about foreign policy while Romney is famously prone to embarrassing himself when he speaks on major foreign policy questions. There is a division in the current field between several shameless demagogues and a competent, rational candidate with executive experience, but what most people seem to overlook is that Romney is one of the former. In many respects, Huntsman is the anti-Romney so many conservatives keep demanding, but Romney’s reflexive anti-Obamaism is still more viscerally satisfying than Huntsman’s conviction that public service should transcend partisan tribalism.