To hear the commentariat tell it, the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination is resolving itself into a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Maybe.

But maybe not. The New Hampshire primary is still three weeks away, and so far the contest has proved exceptionally volatile. Gingrich's recent ascent in the polls was preceded by the rapid rise and almost equally rapid fall of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and probably a couple of others we can no longer recall. Ron Paul's moment may still be coming.

And there are powerful reasons to doubt whether either Romney or Gingrich has sufficient appeal within the party to prevail. This is mainly because the former has raised the flip-flop to an art form, while the latter has done the same for hypocrisy.

For example, although Romney begat health-care reform while governor of Massachusetts, he now disowns its national twin as illegitimate. One can only wish there were mandatory DNA testing for politicians. Anyway, a sensible stance on health care is only one of many moderate positions Romney once held and has since abandoned, leading many conservatives to wonder whether he will be true to them if elected president. It's a pertinent question. Besides that, on the campaign trail Romney manages to reinforce almost daily the devastating put-down delivered during the 2008 election cycle by then-rival Mike Huckabee, who famously said, “I want to be a president who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off.” Romney did little to dispel this impression with his heartfelt rejoinder to a heckler in Iowa earlier this year: “Corporations are people, my friend,” or with his offer of a friendly $10,000 wager to settle a debating point with Perry. It's hard to forget for a single minute that his candidacy offers the 1% solution to the nation’s ills.

For his part, Gingrich is courting the social-conservative, family-values vote despite a widely publicized background of past marital infidelity. This personal failing was attributable partly, he once said, to an excess of patriotism (really, you can look this up). The former House speaker's populist credentials include having carried between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of debt to Tiffany's in 2005 and 2006. Beyond that, it was disclosed last month that Gingrich received $1.6 million for “consulting” services rendered to the mortgage giant Freddie Mac, among the noirest of conservative betes noires. (By the way, you are free to read “consulting” as “lobbying.”)

All this is not to say, however, that the Republican field does not contain an entirely plausible presidential candidate. His name is Jon Huntsman Jr., and we urge Republicans and independents in New Hampshire to take a second look at the 51-year-old former governor of Utah and former ambassador to China.

What we see is a candidate whose views are solidly conservative, but not myopically so. These individual positions are integrated into a worldview that recognizes the extent to which America's security depends not only on its military prowess but also on the strength of its economy, as measured by opportunity, innovation, competitiveness and energy independence.

For example, Huntsman believes an overhaul of the income tax code is key to competitiveness. He favors lowering rates to 8, 14 and 23 percent, while doing away with what he calls “a maze of credits, deductions, loopholes and temporary provisions.” At the same time, he shows the independence of spirit to decline to sign any of those increasingly popular “no-new-taxes” pledges that hamstring the ability to govern.

On financial regulation, Huntsman favors repeal of the 2010 Dodd-Frank reform law, but not because he thinks the free market is sufficient to regulate itself. Instead, he argues, Dodd-Frank perpetuates the too-big-to-fail mentality while imposing needless burdens on smaller banks that had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2008. His critique is one that should warm the heart of every true conservative: “Capitalism without failure isn't capitalism,” he told the Valley News editorial board last month. One surmises he might favor breaking up the biggest banks.

He also stresses the need for “energy security.” By that he means an end to overdependence on foreign sources of oil, which he says account for 60 percent of America's supply. Huntsman contends that by increasing domestic production and creating “a truly level playing field” for other transportation fuels to enter the market, the United States can not only reinvigorate its economy but also enhance its national security.

Huntsman correctly emphasizes that America's ability to influence developments around the globe depends not only on its military and economic strength, but also on upholding the democratic values it seeks to promote. He honorably distinguishes himself from the rest of the Republican presidential field by flatly rejecting the use of torture in countering terrorism. Paul is the only other Republican candidate who shares this lonely position.

There are many things in Huntsman's policy prescriptions with which we disagree, including his desire to repeal national health care reform. But his moderate temperament and pragmatic outlook speak to us of someone who would govern by facing the facts as they exist and acting accordingly, not by applying an ideological litmus test. We recommend him, in the hopes that the cooler head will prevail in New Hampshire and elsewhere.