Now that the Republican primary seems to have solidified as a two-man race between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, candidates like Jon Huntsman are surely questioning whether it’s worth the money and effort to stay in the race. But considering the flaws of Gingrich and Romney, are Republicans missing an opportunity in Huntsman?

President Barack Obama’s campaign could be able to sink Romney’s campaign in 2012 if it can effectively show how much Romney has changed political positions over the years. While running for Senate or governor in the liberal state of Massachusetts, Romney was more liberal. To be fair, this is the only way a Republican can get elected in a liberal state. But Romney said that he explicitly supports Roe vs. Wade, then more recently said, “…as a pro-life Republican, I am in favor of having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.” He was also more pro-gun control, and more supportive of government having a role in health care.

Newt Gingrich has been more consistent over the years, but he has problems of his own. His work for the government mortgage company Freddie Mac is mysterious and has been called everything from lobbying to corruption. His hostile attitude toward the media may turn off independents in the general election.

So, what’s so great about Jon Huntsman? He has experience in the state and federal levels of government, both domestically and internationally. He was elected governor of Utah for two terms, serving from 2005 until he was appointed ambassador to China in 2009. He was ambassador to Singapore under President George H. W. Bush and United States trade representative under President George W. Bush. He was also an executive and CEO of companies and foundations created by his father from 1993 until 2001.

As governor, he cut taxes, reformed education and reduced regulations. During his term, Utah had one of the highest job growth rates in the nation. The Pew Research Center rated Utah the best managed state during his tenure and he left office with an 84 percent approval rating. Thus he has credentials as a conservative, and experience from across several levels of government and in the private sector.

So why can’t he get more support from Republicans? In a crowded field, he has been boxed out along with several other candidates. But more specifically, he was appointed to a role by President Obama, which obviously doesn’t sit well with conservatives.

He also believes in evolution and climate change, but disagrees with a cap and trade system. He supports same-sex civil unions, but opposes same-sex marriage. His tone has sometimes been combative when asked about issues of science. Like Mitt Romney, he is a Mormon, which according to polls causes concern among some people. Huntsman also has no lurking issues I can find except that his father’s company operates in Iran along with many other countries, which would hardly be an issue for most people.

Republicans and conservatives for a while have hurt themselves by being hostile, or seeming to be hostile, to scientific consensus. There are many conservative proposals for how to deal with climate change without major government intervention, so Republicans would benefit from not allowing Democrats to monopolize the issue. Huntsman’s positions on issues like these will help, not hurt, him in a general election against Obama. Considering Huntsman’s moderate conservative political stances, he would probably give Republicans the best chance to win.