Huntsman, Gingrich Shine in Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman held their Lincoln-Douglass-style debate on Monday in New Hampshire, though it was less of a “debate” and more like an expert panel. The topic was foreign policy and national security and it was Huntsman’s best performance to date. He rattled off names, dates, locations, types of aircraft, the number of ships in the post-World War II navy, etc. For the first time, a candidate matched Gingrich’s depth of knowledge.
The first topic was Afghanistan and Pakistan. Huntsman wants to end the counter-insurgency and nation-building campaign, leaving behind only a force to gather intelligence, fight terrorists, and train the Afghan army. He recalled a conversation he had with President Hamid Karzai, where the Afghan leader said the West doesn’t understand what it is like to govern a tribal country. Gingrich did not challenge Huntsman on his plan to withdraw faster than President Obama. Huntsman said that Pakistan is at risk of becoming a failed state and described its relationship with the U.S. as “transactional.” He complained that U.S. aid to Pakistan is doing nothing to stem anti-Americanism there. The U.S. should put greater emphasis on its relationship with India, he argued.
Huntsman won the discussion on Afghanistan, as Gingrich did not add anything on the topic. Instead, he argued that the U.S. is not safer since 9/11, and he pivoted to the Middle East. He talked about the depletion of the Christian population in Iraq and the Obama administration’s removal of the word “Islam” from counter-terrorism training materials, calling it a “willful denial of reality on a scale that is breathtaking.”
He called for an energy independence program to make the U.S. the world’s energy reserve, for rebuilding our manufacturing capabilities, for improving our intelligence community so we don’t have to rely on foreign governments, and for a national strategy to defeat radical Islam. He called Iran the leading promoter of Shiite extremism and Saudi Arabia the leading promoter of Sunni extremism.
The next topic was Iran, where Gingrich bested Huntsman. Gingrich said that the U.S. can let Iran get nukes, pursue regime change, or undertake costly military action every 4 years to delay its nuclear program. He ridiculed the idea that the U.S. can know how far away Iran is from a nuclear weapon and simply wait until the last moment. Gingrich argued that if the U.S. does not take part in an Israeli military action, Israel might be forced to use nuclear weapons.
Interestingly, he mentioned the recent D.C. court ruling that Iran’s training of al-Qaeda enabled the group to carry out the 1998 embassy bombings. This ruling received little press coverage, and shows how closely Gingrich follows these developments. Gingrich suggested taking advantage of Iran’s dependency upon gasoline imports and providing “every dissident” with communications equipment and other non-military aid to help them challenge the regime.
Huntsman didn’t offer much additional input on the topic, except to say that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and possibly Egypt will also acquire nukes if Iran does. He expressed doubt that China and Russia will ever approve meaningful U.N. sanctions, and called Iran the “transcendent issue” for the next decade.
On a ticket together?
My thinking too. I did not see the debate, but Huntsman should be considered for VP or other posts. He’d be perfect in 2016 or 2020 for president, after adding VP or Sec State, Defense or Energy (downsize) to an already fine resume.
Frankly, I don’t understand whay Mr. Huntsman is not attracting more support in this cycle. Gov Utah, Huntsman Chem, trade rep, ambassador, good hair and family….whatever these folks are drinking should be passed around.
He’s sort of the anti-Perry. He disdains to signal to conservative voters that he’s one of them, that he shares their deepest beliefs and concerns. The result is that he gets taken for some kind of liberal, even though his positions tend to be solidly conservative– on some issues arguably more conservative than any other candidate’s. For myself, I’d be pleased to see Huntsman anywhere on the ticket.
Agree 100%
Also agree. I didn’t really know who he was and simply bought the conventional thinking that he was just another RINO. Upon further investigation, I think the majority of his positions are the most reliably conservative of all the candidates and he has a solid conservative type of demeanor as well. He just doesn’t market himself to the guns and NASCAR conservative crowd. I hope he gets more traction going forward.
ROMNEY’S ATTACK ON NEWT’S EXTRATERRESTIAL CAPITALISM
Click my name to read the article.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and I consider it only a matter of time before a dirty bomb is detonated in an American city. My response would be very harsh in terms of immigration and retaliation.
The real response will probably be for the President to visit the closest mosque to show how racist we’re not and so Muslims don’t get any angrier.
If Pearl Harbor happened today we’d send the Japanese an apology with a note to please not get even more angry.
I’ve been a Newt enthusiast ever since I first read his book “American Solutions” nearly half a decade ago. One of the most impressive things Newt has done since leaving Congress has been the creation and establishment of “American Solutions” — his far-ranging “think-tank” composed of mostly non-governmental leaders from fields such as health-care, energy, defense, etc.
These folks, many of them retired as the top leaders in their respective fields with the expertise and “gravitas” to look deep into the “American Crisis”, met and discussed not only the nation’s problems, but also solutions that actually would work in the real world and that would be accepted by the Americam people.
Ideas like linking unemployment benefits to required job-training in needed skills, is only one such solution that actually makes sense to most Americans.
Thus, many of Newt’s so-called “wild ideas” are not wild at all, but ideas that have been conceputalized, reviewed and vetted by some of America’s most creative minds.
C(I’m hoping you can)an you counter the claim that Newt is a right wing , big government progressive?
Can you counter the claim that Newt is a right wing , big government progressive? (I’m hoping you can)
Janet: I’m not sure what you mean by a “right-wing, big-government progressive.” As compared to what? I guess if you use Ron Paul as your bench-mark, Newt could be considered an advocate of “big government.” But in my view, Paul is an “isolationist idealogue” who will endanger not only America, but the entire West. But hey, that’s just me.
After reading “American Solutions” it appears to me that Newt advocates transforming many of the current non-effective functions of government and government departments into programs and departments that actually work for the people they were created to serve.
Take unemployment benefits. A Ron Paul would argue that the federal government should butt out of unemployement issues. He makes a rational argument that the Constition does not mention any role here for the federal goverment. While Paul is correct, does anyone seriously think the federal government is going to reliquish its role in employment issues, or retirement benefits, or health care for the elderly and needy?
I think Newt realizes that these extra-constitutional functions are, for the foreseeable future, locked into place. The vast majority of people not only accept the federal role, but demand it. If they are ever to be relinquished, it will happen only gradually through the persuaion of the electorate that they’d be better served if the states assumed the responsibility for these functions, not far-off Washington.
Therefore, since the federal government will not likely slough off these functions any time soon, then it is incumbent that we find better, more efficient ways of fulfilling the functions that most people demand. One classic example of a Newt Gingrich approah is, as I mentioned above, the requirement that those receiving unemployment benefits must enroll in a training course that would create the skilled labor force we are now so sorely missing (right now, more than a million American jobs can’t be filled because we haven’t trained people to fill them.)
Is this a “big government” solution to a very real problem? Or is it a “wise governement” solution? Beginning next month in Iowa, you’ll have the chance to decide.
Newt and Cain debate, and both look good. Newt and Huntsman debate, and both look good.
Meanwhile Romney is busy doing the same thing he did in 2008 — running negative ads against his fellow candidates, thus undercutting the Republican field as a whole.
Interesting. The rap is that Gingrich is an egotist and it is “all about him”, so would be a bad President… But these two debates suggest that he is in fact respectful of others’ views and can discuss them in a civilized way. Insight perhaps into how a Gingrich cabinet might function? Respectful, high-level discussion with open minds around the table? Sounds good to me.
Newt strikes me as a collegial guy at heart, despite those that complain about his ego.
Interesting, that word – collegial. I didn’t think about this when choosing that term, but actually Newt is really the more ‘college professor’ kind of personality, rather than Obama. Good professors collaborate and brainstorm with their students – they don’t lecture down from on high. Last time I taught, I used to tell my students (intro course, rookie students) that if they consistently did not understand a particular professor, it meant that the prof was either a poor teacher (inarticulate) or insecure (using fancy terminology to puff him/herself up).
Actually, although Obama is widely referred to as a former college law professor, he was an “adjunct instructor” (think substitute teacher) and I believe the class he taught was “Racism and the Law” or some such, not Constitutional Law as is commonly believed…
I’m not sure I agree with Newt’s point about needing more soft power in the Middle East. They’ve had plenty of it for decades, but they seem to have gone the opposite way than intended in spite of it.
There’s a natural human tendency to assume other cultures are basically like one’s own under the surface. Thus, from the Muslim viewpoint, the less they knew about us, the more likely they were to give us a pass. Now that — over the last few decades — they have learned ever more about us, they know exactly why we are (from their point of view) terrible infidels and should be destroyed. Pointing out the odds against this happening just triggers the “God is on our side” circuit in Muslim thinking, making them more determined. They will become more and more of a problem until their primitive faith is broken.
After watching the Huntsman Gingrich debate, really a discussion of several different topics, you have to give Huntsman a very serious look. Intelligent, well spoken with a realistic up to date common sense and knowledgeable approach to the problems of today.
I’m wondering how The One would have performed in a debate like this.
bravo! (clap,clap,clap) I gotta give the left credit. They play chess and the conservatives play checkers. I voted for Bush 2 and McCain only because I knew that the would not be as bad as Gore or Obama and it would slow the decline (and I was right). This team will assure Obama’s victory. Well played, dems, well played.
Too bad it will assure that the US becomes another 3rd world sh##t hole instead of the land of freedom and prosperity it once was. But I suppose that is a small price to pay for the temporary high of feeling more self-important than the Joe next door.
Wow!! I care sooo much about two candidates I’d never cast a vote for! Not.
I watched it. Both men impressed