E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGOFFSTOWN N.H.-- It might go down in history as the friendliest debate of the 2012 season. Monday's Lincoln-Douglas style debate between Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingirch was supposed to be an in-depth back-and-forth discussion focused on foreign policy issues and national security, but the candidates skipped the sparring and instead spent more than 90 minutes reiterating and flattering each other's positions on topics ranging from China to Iran. They even put a few people to sleep.
Among the subjects Huntsman and Gingrich agreed upon was the format of televised debates this campaign cycle.
Gingrich said he is bothered by "the absence of a serious discussion about the nature of the world" in the campaign and debates so far.
"We’re a country in enormous trouble. And we need leaders who are willing to talk to people at a sophisticated level. This is what we should have a lot more of because this is substantive. This is not a Hollywood game. This is not a reality show. This is reality," Gingrich said.
Huntsman quipped, "I can't wait to compare and contrast this format with the Donald Trump debate." The former Utah governor was excluded from the most recent Iowa GOP debate, after he failed to meet the minimum polling requirements and declined an invitation to the NewsMax/Trump debate which Gingrich has said he will attend.
With no buzzers in sight, the candidates steered clear of soundbites and meandered through policy topics in reasonable detail, often speaking for more than 5 minutes straight at a time. Expanding on their stump speeches, Gingrich and Huntsman avoided pointing out potential policy differences despite the fact that they hold different positions.
Midway through the debate, Gingrich predicted that a nuclear-capable Iran could "mean for all practical puposes virtually the end of Judaism on the planet." Gingrich said, "We're going to replace their regime. We're ideally going to do it non-militarily."
Huntsman nodded. "I agree with a lot of what the speaker has put forward on Iran," he said but did not advocate regime change.
"All options need to be on the table" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Huntsman said, echoing his stump speech.
Huntsman and Gingrich have also differed on their view of Libya, which Huntsman softly pointed out to the audience, "I know Newt and I might disagree a little bit on that."
But again, no contrast was drawn. When Huntsman called American intervention in Libya a mistake, Gingrich did not engage him.
In the past, Gingrich has opposed intervention in Libya but more recently recommended the U.S. remove Moammar Gadhafi from power. When Huntsman concluded his position, Gingrich complimented Huntsman for making "a very important point" but then pivoted to criticize President Obama for dumping Egypt's long-time leader Hosni Mubarak "in an unceremonious way."
The former Speaker of the House and former Utah governor's long-winded volley of softballs meant that only 5 of the 10 planned topics were covered. In fact, their uneventful exchange put more than a few audience members and reporters to sleep.
When Huntsman was asked by timekeeper Pat Griffin if he wanted to expand on an answer given by Gingrich on the Middle East, Huntsman pointed into the audience at his young daughter Gracie Mei and said, "Well, I can see my daughter nodding off over there, which means I've already gone on too long, anyway."
As the audience laughed, Gingrich jumped in. "I just want to say -- in her defense -- she was nodding while I spoke."
For Huntsman, the debate with front-runner Gingrich seemed like a missed opportunity to distinguish himself in a national nomination race in which he remains in the low single digits.
When asked by NBC News if he believed he won the debate vis-a-vis Gingrich, Huntsman adhered to the debate's polite tone.
"I'd have to say the winners would really have to be the American people," he told reporters. Huntsman went on to challenge Mitt Romney to a similar format ahead of the January 10 New Hampshire primary.
Leave a Comment:
Unfortunately for Huntsman, the fundamentalist right wing Republicans, who are the majority of the primary voters, won't give him a chance. He is the only hope for the Republicans. And they are rejecting him. What a shame. We could have had a good debate between Huntsman and Obama on issues and be a better country for it come November 2012 but the GOP is hell bent on self destruction choosing between disingenuous Romney and unethical, immoral Gingrich. What a choice! Obama 2012.
This was not a "debate". It was a circus show by 2 clowns. I'm wondering where were the other four clowns? Oh, yeah that's right, they were too busy putting on their makeup to make it to the podium in time.
They were both so bored the only excitement came during breaks when Gingrich pointed out to Huntsman::
I tapped that blonde, hit that red head, think I was onced married to the brunette...
the dream team for 2012
Somebody's "hunting" for a veep spot!
nice thought - but the evangelicals won't turn their back on Romney then nominate a Mormon for VP..
more likely if Gingrich gets the nod he will pick Cain and they can call their campaign bus tour..
"Boys Night Out"! - using as their musical theme "It's Ladies Night"
I'm thinking Bob McDonnell. Pretty strong rising star, from a battleground state, with no baggage I know of. Can't think of anyone else who fits those requirements quite as well. There's bigger battleground states, but having to find someone with no baggage is the trick.
Huntsman might still have a chance with Americans Elect.
Not.
"We’re a country in enormous trouble. And we need leaders who are willing to talk to people at a sophisticated level. This is what we should have a lot more of because this is substantive. This is not a Hollywood game. This is not a reality show. This is reality," Gingrich said.
Is that why he accepted the invitation to the ION debate moderated by Donald Trump?
By "sophisticated level," was he referring to his idea for a satellite mirror to save money on lighting roads at night, or to the kid janitors?
Huntsman lost me when he said he supported weasel Ryan's budget plan to gut the safety net! Too bad, he sounds reasonable otherwise.
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
It's not the best of the litter; it's the breed.
He lost me too with that nurse.
It's the breed and the litter.
Huntsman is well defined, and above attacking. He will make an excellent President.
coulda shoulda woulda...
We do need a President who is above attacking, who is well defined, and who can discuss the issues and share ideas. That would certainly be a change I would hope for.
I am sure that you are pleased, Candice, that President Obama is in office since he is all of the things you mention.
newday: I agree with you. Jon Huntsman and President Obama certainly do not share political views. However, they are both gentlemen who can rationally discuss ideas without hateful rhetoric.
Nail on the head, Candice - the Repubs haven't been able to do that for decades.
I don't support Romney because of his fascist, pro-business beliefs. I don't care how he prays or to whom. I'd take a Buddhist president if they were a competent leader. His religion is irrelevant. It is supposed to be that way in America. Romney's "corporations are people my friend" comment is what is what did it for me.
The more Mormon people I get to know the better I like them. If the people I know are any example, then I say, give me more Mormons. I'd much rather associate with them than 75% of the Roman Catholics I know,........and I'm Roman Catholic.
Republican religious bigots will get rid of Romney for us though. They'll never nominate him. Democrats need not even lift a finger.
We shant !!!
What did it for me was his need to attack President Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq.
The wingers want to keep troops there in order to maintain the false impression that we should have even been there to begin with. Another failure at face-saving.
Romney is a liberal as is Huntsman- we in the Tea Party will never support either one.
Hell Larry...unless you have Reagan cryogenically frozen somewhere,you guys are outta luck.
Gingrich, Perry, and even Bachmann would all be an improvement over Obama. And Gingrich can definitely beat Obama
"Gingrich can definitely beat Obama"
Good luck with that, little man.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html
Sorry Cowboy, but Reagan would never live up to TP standards. I was never a fan of him, but compared to the choices the TP has out there he was great.
Larry, really? Perhaps you should read up on Huntsmans economic and foriegn policies, he is practically a tea party poster boy, or should be.
Larry: How is Jon Huntsman liberal? If you actually read about his views, he is extremely conservative. It seems to me that he is exactly what the conservatives are looking for. He is the only GOP candidate who truly can beat President Obama and the right is ignoring him.
The answer is simple then - bring back Reagan for another term. Surely he could still out-communicate the rest of these GOP stiffs!
Meanwhile a much more heated debate was underway. Mitt Vs. himself.
"Mitt Vs. himself."
Masturbate-Oratory? It sounds like a severe personal problem, but it explains a lot. Mitt should seek treatment as soon as possible!
I didn't watch this debate, but it sounds like it was low key, few soundbites, and a discussion of the issues. That's what the country needs across these races and across the entire political spectrum.
Unfortunately, it seems the media finds a civil, and thoughtful exchange of ideas too boring. Yet that's what our politicians should be doing every day! Only a heated debate with zingers, smirks and misspeaks is deemed interesting. No longer are we concerned for the good of the country. Instead we're concerned about good t.v.
Gingrich predicted that a nuclear-capable Iran could "mean for all practical puposes virtually the end of Judaism on the planet." Gingrich said, "We're going to replace their regime. We're ideally going to do it non-militarily."
Hey... America, are you ready for another war because Newt thinks a nuclear Iran may threaten Judaism on the entire planet?... The entire Planet?... Judaism? That's one crazy, dangerous, paranoid SOB. We'd better get serious and put an adult in the White House.
I have to give credit to the current administration --- I think.
Mysterious explosions, missing parts shipments, disappearing scientists in Iran. Is it possible our amazing covert operatives are causing some quiet havoc over there. That's the way to take out Iran.
Sadly, President Obama missed the opportunity to support the 2009-2010 election protesters in Iran. Young people make up a majority of the populous there. With a little help and support, the young people could turn that very scary country around.
We have no reason to be meddling with Iran period. They are a sovereign nation regardless of what our government would have you believe. We have been trying to control foreign countries for so long it's become like some sort of board game for the American public to discuss and intellectualize about. This is not a game. People die, lives are destroyed and we pay for all of it in so many ways.
If you listen to the politicians and the alarmist mainstream media, there are terrorists under your bed right now and all of them have suitcase nukes. It has become a shrill and never ending litany of fear and propaganda. I hope we all wake up soon to the reality that our government has completely lost their collective minds.
Maybe we can just find another Grenada to flex our mighty muscle upon!
Eric, in discussing most regions, I'm with you. The blowback from our meddling has hurt us more, I'd guess, than anything we've gained from the meddling. In fact, you can make a credible argument that all of our Iranian problems today are on-going blowback from earlier meddling.
I was against the Iraq invasion from the start. In fact, I was saying we ought to end the no-fly zone patrols over Iraq years before, and just leave them with a warning - "Ever project power over your borders again, and you're done. We're not the world's cop (but we're still the biggest kid on the playground, and most of your neighbors are our friends)."
But in the case of Iran, I'm not quite a hawk but certainly more open to the rationale that they can't develop nukes. They've openly said they would use them against Israel. My suspicion is that is more idle threat than anything else, stated for political advantage within Iran. But we can't ignore that it is a declaration of intent, whether an honest declaration or not.
Anyone close to developing nuclear weapons who is openly saying they would use nuclear weapons against a specific target whether provoked or not... that's a whole lot tougher to ignore.
We'd better get serious and put an adult in the White House. Eric. We have one now.
Thomas, I voted for Obama because I believed he was going to end the wars, repeal the Patriot Act, cut spending and at least curb to some degree the federal government's over reaching into our lives. I'm sure you remember all of that. I thought he would slow down the wave of dictatorial governance that Bush initiated after 9/11. I was wrong.
To be fair, I realize that Obama hit a wall with the Republicans and he probably had his eyes opened to a lot of tough realities after he took office...but... in my opinion, a man of strong conviction would have held his ground.
Obama's stance on Iran is no different than the republican stance. The college bubble is about to burst and as far as I can tell the Obama administration is not taking any action to lessen the blow, in fact they are fueling the fire as are the republicans.
He's threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 that declares America a battle ground. I suppose we'll have to wait and see on that one. The fact that an atmosphere exists in Washington that led two senators to believe they could write such fascist garbage was frightening. The 93 - 7 vote in favor of the bill was devastating and removes all doubt that the two parties have joined forces to push us even closer to becoming a police state.
Obama, as it turns out, is no better than Bush.
My vote is for Ron Paul. If you don't know anything about Ron Paul or what he stands for then please just let it go... or better yet... find out.
Eric Echevarria
Trust me, they have heard this many many many times...... More than once by me personally.
I only hope that most on here really do love America and realize that the principals of our Founding Fathers are still very valid today and still worth supporting.....
To flip-flop from Obama to Ron Paul the Whiny TeaElf illuminates a full and complete lack of political identity or comprehension on your part, bubba! Back to the Lincoln Logs for you...
I wouldn't say it that harshly, dudogger. There is some overlap in Obama and Paul. Of course there's some overlap in any two candidates. It seems that point of overlap in this case is exactly the spot of Eric's focus as a voter.
But I would quibble with the general idea that Obama was going to end wars and be a general, global peacemaker. He did say he would end one war, and he did. Actually that ended a while ago, even though the troops are pulling out now.
But he also pretty clearly said he would ramp up another war. And he did, in Afghanistan. In fact, he was derided as naive and reckless for having the gall to say if he knew where bin Laden was in neighboring Pakistan, and the Pakistanis wouldn't go get him, the Obama Administration would. Now, after the fact, it seems obvious that of course an American president would make that decision. Back in early 2008, it didn't seem so obvious.
So, yes, there's some foreign policy overlap with Ron Paul, but maybe less than Eric thought going into that last election?
I'm not surprised reporters were bored. Frankly, the Republican primary campaign has become quite boring across the board. The candidates still standing look tired and actually have nothing further to add to their usual stump speeches aimed at certain target groups. I yawned about mid-way through & shut the TV off to read a good book.
Huntsman - polite, soft-spoken, gentlemanly, diplomatic, willing to actually agree with another person and work cooperatively...... now why on earth would we want someone like that leading our country? This is america.. we believe in being rude and abrasive!
Actually, we don't - just look who's in the White House now. So where's the scandal and corruption and incompetence and cronyism that the hapless Repubs put in there last decade? Gone.
Surely you jest... No scandal, corruption , incompetence, cronyism in the Obummer White House??? Just which planet have you been visiting for the past 2+ years???? Never heard of Solyndra, Fast and Furious, or Bait and Switch (i.e., the scam perpetrated on the Amerivan voter by this slick talking, jive walking, pompous "leader " of the Free World)???? Obama and his merry band of Chicago thugs make Bush look like a Choirboy.
I looked up the following words in the Dictionary:
garbage, filth, slime, gunk, scum, sewage, hypocrisy, excrement, dishonesty, dirt, muck, smut, trash, vomit, puke, barf, immorality, debris, manure, pretense, corruption, debauchery and depravity
Each one of them had picture of Newt Gingrich included in the definition.
Obviously many were looking for CSI entertainment. Brian Williams provides all the "news" fit for NBC. Some good old fashion name calling is what counts in American politics. Critical thinking is not for most here.
"We’re a country in enormous trouble. And we need leaders who are willing to talk to people at a sophisticated level. This is what we should have a lot more of because this is substantive. This is not a Hollywood game. This is not a reality show. This is reality," Gingrich said.
Newt would love the debates being turned into beauty contests, that way his bull@!$%#e would never get challenged.....
I don't think Cain or Newt will ever beat Kennedy in the p**sy department.
I didn't see this particular debate, but from the others ones I can conclude that both Gingrich and Huntsman are viable candidates. Huntsman got in a little too late for the primaries though, but I would love to see a Gingrich-Huntsman ticket. Romney would also be a good choice. In fact, if the GOP ran Romney in 2008, we wouldn't have some of the problems we have now with Obama, because Obama would be a historical footnote.
All of the others have their merits too, but don't have enough support to stay much longer.
And yet, not one of them is viable...
With you being an obvious Obrainless supporter, what could you possibly know about "viable"??. You likely voted for the least viable Prez Candidate this country has ever seen, and you want to speak of the viability of ANY candidate?? Wow......priceless.
The nice thing about your unviable candidates, BK, is that Obama will beat the best of its sad lot in next November's election. Read 'em and weep.
The Bewt has signed a non adultery pledge"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/newt-gingrich-endorses-iowa-group-family-leader-marriage-pledge-article-1.990431
A lie or did he run out of viagra?
He ran out of vagina.
This was Huntsman's opportunity to draw a sharp contrast between Newt and himself. The fact that he did not indicates he's likely angling for a VP slot or 2016.
Zero teatard talking points.............
GOP, long on smiles........short on answers..........(typical.....)
And even the smiles make one wanna gouge his own eyes out.
Dodogger You are obviously very short on intelligent comments. Typical ignorant Liberal quick shots.....No substance of facts ...just hit and run.
Huntsman is not the centrist everyone says he is. He and his father are very close to Glenn Beck and have been big supporters of him. Every year they have Beck as the central attraction to 4th of July festival. See here: http://www.celebrateamericaevent.com/
Oh, my - Glenn Beck?! Every year??!! Jon's entire Huntsman clan are Glenn Beck's biggest fans and yet Jon still doesn't even register in primary polls??!! Has Beck lost his touch?? I thought Jon Huntsman was a smart guy who was pandering for the extreme uber-conservative voting block by supporting Paul Ryan's economic plan. Okay... that does it - Huntsman is a skater who's looking at 2016. Sorry for all my previous posts supporting him. Back to Romney.
Jo Ling and Moe seem miffed that the candidates are at least attempting to raise the level of discourse. Without the candidates blaming and accusing and name-calling these so-called journalists have to take up the verbal cudgel themselves. I mean, they've got to have something to feed the beast of yellow journalism that pays their expense accounts, right?
So Gingrich wants to start ANOTHER mid-east war.
Good thinking there.
Gingrich wants to invade another Middle East country - neighboring the last one invaded - while simultaneously criticizing how Pres. Obama handled Egypt & Libya. Does the media ever point out his wildly opposite views, as if he's debating himself???
Sounds like the Gingrich-Huntsman conversation was more of a job interview for Huntsman than a debate. And here Huntsman actually had a chance to make some points and maybe garner some votes. Sounds like he's given up and we can write him off now.