Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman met up at Saint Anselm College on Monday in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. It really was more of a conversation as the candidates were very complimentary of each other and didn't challenge or oppose each other on any topic. The ten topics to be covered were: Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran, The Arab Spring, Debt-Deficit Spending, China and the Pacific Rim, Trade, Eurozone, Banking, Mexican Drug War, and Russia. Only the first five topics were covered.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Huntsman stated that "it's time to come home." He listed the accomplishments America has made in the region: removing the Taliban from power, enabling free elections in the region since 2004, removing Al-Qaeda from power, and killing Osama Bin Laden. These are also the same tasks Obama listed as his accomplishments during his Sunday interview.
He went on to say that "counter terrorism" is the biggest threat in the region and that it is in America's best interest to befriend India. Huntsman referred to America's relationship with Pakistan as that of a "transactional relationship." He stated that America provides aid to Pakistan because they have nuclear weapons.
Gingrich responded in his typical fashion of history, citing 1947 and Communism. He also talked about Iran briefly. Then, suddenly, he spit out an organized list.
Gingrich stated that America needs an energy policy, to rebuild manufacturing, to liberate intelligence forces, and a national strategy to fight radical Islam.
At one point during the conversation, Gingrich stated that he began "using clear language so people can understand." Gee, thanks, Newt.
Iran
Newt cited a book "Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War With Militant Islam" as the starting point of a "war" with Iran beginning in 1979. He is referring to the opening line of the book, "On November 4, 1979, a group of radical Islamist students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran."
Huntsman stated that economic sanctions will not work against Iran. Both candidates seemed to be in lock-step about the real threat of Iran gaining nuclear capability and the fact that America is the only one to stop this from happening.
Neither candidate mentioned the drone that Iran recently captured.
The Arab Spring
This is where Huntsman came close to challenging Gingrich by stating that American needs to take "leadership advice from Israel" and stating that a relationship "cannot be forced." Huntsman was referring to the Israel-Palestine relationship.
Gingrich dismissed the challenge by stating that his comments about Palestine were different than the Arab Spring. He went on to discuss Mubarak.
Debt-Deficit Spending
Gingrich reiterated, from prior GOP debates, his wish to implement Six Sigma at the government level. Six Sigma does not work well in service type industries. However, in manufacturing, it's a home run.
Huntsman called America's debt a "National security problem."
China and the Pacific Rim
Huntsman discussed the change of leadership that is coming up in China and the opportunity this presents for America.
Gingrich admitted Huntsman is the authority on this topic. He stated that a failure to invest in math, science and technology is the biggest threat to America. Obama shares this view on education. Gingrich concluded the evening by challenging Obama to seven three-hour debates in this same format, if he wins the GOP nomination.
The debate began and ended with complimentary comments from each candidate. They thanked each other and the University.
The format was better than the one-minute jabs during the larger debates. This was a more candid, authentic conversation.
Would you prefer to see more of these conversation-style debates? What candidates would you like to hear from?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
Regarding the "going on to Mubarak.." in the Arab Spring" question was because he was pointing out the problems with the way President Obama has turned on our allies, one after another. He said leaders around the world who have had long standing strategic relationships with us are watching and major damage was done as they saw us chuck the leaders who had, some at great risk to themselves, stood beside us in difficult times, one of them Mubarak. He went back to this theme in the discussion on Iran. He compared the handling of Libya, who agreed not to pursue nuclear arms, in deference to the promise never to use them on him, but when he faced an uprising in Libya, he did not have the deterrent to keep us out of his business, as for instance N. Korea did. This further hurts the ability of countries, such as Iran, to feel it is in their interest to comply with requests to stop their nuclear progress. On Iran he further stated they (Iran) have "hardened" their efforts with continuing to build and expand underground facilities that are in some cases under mosques and in highly populated areas, making a military strike solution very troublesome, in that it would present a huge risk of vast collateral damage. For this reason, he discussed the method employed against the USSR, and went on to discuss the almost void ability to "KNOW" what anyone in the middle east is doing through our own information. He noted that most of what we have depended on is bilateral relationships between countries governmental groups, for example cooperating military generals in Pakistan and the US! He said they are telling us what we want to hear, the veracity of which we have no ability to check. He pointed out that we saw the truth of that with the location of Osama Bin Laden, when he was finally located. Hence the call to "liberate our intelligence services.
It was a very informative debate! I enjoyed the window these two men gave us into all the details that must be considered in our foreign policy.
I didn't say that him discussing Mubarak was bad or wrong. For once, he remained on topic.
I tried not to glorify Huntsman too much, mostly because he didn't really do anything to deserve it during this debate! However, I've made no secret that Huntsman is the guy I prefer if I am so inclined to vote Republican.
I like how smart he is. I like his demeanor. I like his experience. I like that he is not as "Washington" nor as jaded as Gingrich. And I think he appeals to "center" politics instead of the far left or far right...which is where most people are in America.
I was also excited to see him take on the front-runner but disappointed that he didn't set himself apart from Newt on anything.
This is how I feel for the exact same reasons that you stated.
Calling this a "debate" is a bit of a stretch though, you are correct.
I would love to see the 7Newt wants, this style with Obama!
There is a link on the right side of the page that says "Video Playlist" -- under that is "Gingrich-Huntsman Debate." I couldn't link directly to the video for some reason -- only to the page containing the link to the video.
These two keep talking about waste in the Pentagon, that is there because of the gang of corrupt theives that drives both of these characters. We are not going to see lean-six-sigma or anything else reforming the Pentagon, what these two have in mind is taking more money from cutting social programs ... and it is not cutting anymore, it is gutting and getting rid of, and at the same time transforming Americans into virtual slaves with no power or autonomy.
It's great to criticise and hand-wave but these two have no answers, and what they say they are not going to do, nor will they be able to. Leaner management system means their boys in charge. These two make me puke.
Also, the Chinese are just sitting there waiting for the US to do all the work and make all the enemies while they wait and bide their time. Chinese culture is closed and hegemonic, they are in the US working like we "think" the Muslims are, but the Chinese are effective and have 1000+ years to develop their racism. The US is not even looking for this and Chinese money is going to bribe Americans to betray their country.
These Republicans are not doing any more than the Democrats did.