printJon Huntsman. In the CBS/National Journal GOP Debate, the former Utah governor articulated the best foreign-policy vision. “I say this nation’s future is not Afghanistan. This nation’s future is not Iraq. This nation’s future is how prepared we are to meet the 21st century competitive challenges, that’s economic and that’s education and that’s going to play out over the Asia Pacific region, and we’re either prepared for that reality or we’re not. I don’t want to be nation building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built,” Huntsman added.
Huntsman is nothing if not consistent on the foreign-policy front. As I pointed out following the FoxNews/Google debate, Huntsman has “managed to distill a foreign-policy vision better than the rest.” Earlier in September, commenting on the foreign-policy pose Huntsman struck in Florida, I gave the governor points for the libertarian momentum he was gathering by “brilliantly commandeer Ron Paul’s argument for divesting from Afghanistan.”
Huntsman stood out from the crowd in his stark common sense on China too, both because Ron Paul’s positions were not solicited, and because, had they been solicited, Paul would have rambled. Naturally, Huntsman, a former ambassador to China, is not Sinophobic, as all the other candidates are, and grasps that a trade war with China will hurt consumers in the US. No one mentioned the delicate issue of continuously dissing our largest creditor.
National Journal’s correspondents—they provided coverage like the real pros they are—write: Huntsman’s foreign policy experience has largely been overshadowed during the campaign, but he has made his mark for urging the country’s complete withdrawal from the Middle East. It’s a position that’s to the left even of President Obama.
More to follow.
UPDATE: Regarding the Facebook thread. Spare me. Did I say JH was the answer? Ridiculous. I said he articulates very well the American exhaustion with war and intervention abroad. You can’t just expect that, b/c you and I know Paul is better on the issues, everyone else knows the same. Ron Paul has to be able to explain why he is better. Has he done so?
I am not sure why individuals take commentary on a political performance as undying support for a candidate. Sigh. It isn’t; it’s a commentary about a performance.
I haven’t watched any of the debates this year because I have come to the conclusion that the Republican nominating process only depressingly confirms the chapter in Hayek’s book “Why the Worst Get to the Top”. I did see that the top three are now Romney, Cain, and Gingrich – warmongers all, so it is apparently playing exactly as expected.
I am waiting for any candidate to simply and directly say that any program, any regulatory body, any subsidy, any expenditure, etc, – not specifically permitted under the Constitution – will be phased-out in any new President’s term.
I do not wish to see this country and its citizens collapse like the Soviet Union did back in the 1980s…some of the businessmen who left the U.S.S.R were my clients…it was an ugly time.
We do not need to send troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else for Nation Building, Social Justice, or Preventive Harm entanglements. There is enough to address in the POTUS’s hometown:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-video-shows-man-being-punched-at-red-line-stop-amid-laughs-and-taunts-20111111,0,5079572.story
You’re right about Paul. I’m getting exasperated with him. Compare his 1988 smackdown on the Drug War on TV (its on youtube) to the rambling digressions these days. Paul needs to emphasize the part of his agenda that’s amenable to different parts of the country – pro-life beliefs in the South, anti-war in the West and New England, and he needs to do this in an articulate fashion. The rambling uncle persona is why he is not breaking out, in my opinion.
I wonder if Rand would ramble to the same extent, were he the “Paul” onstage. It saddens me to witness RP give a 90 second ramble, when 30 seconds of tight liberty thought would be so much more effective. That’s the way the game is played. As much as I support RP, he’s his own worst enemy.
Missed that debate, unfortunately and would like to read the text.
Michelle: “The ACLU is running the CIA” – what idiot crap. Can Cain find China on the map? And while I don’t blame Israel every time my toilet backs up, pleasing Netanyahu is NOT the # 1 priority of America!
I don’t like Iran getting nukes but look at the record: Saddam – nu nukes – and the US helps kill him; Khadaffi – gives up his nuke program – and the US helps kill him; Kim Jong Il – gets nukes – and the US hands out foreign aid; Pakistan – gets nukes – and foreign aid and military sales. What lesson does one expect Ahmadinejad or even the Crown Prince of Liechtenstein to draw??
Huntsman is the best of the mainsteam by far. My man Ron has sounder philosophy but the no-compromising grumpy Prophet Jeremiah schtick sometimes doesn’t cut it in the 30 second soundbite debate.
China Warmonger Romney years ago remarked how Chinese workers were so busy that they didn’t even look over at him when he toured a factory – what a dope! I walked by myself into stores, subways. and restaurants and saw a far different China than he did on an “official tour”.
When I heard Huntsman talk about his foreign policy vision during the debate, I thought to myself how I wished Ron Paul was 20 years younger and could have delivered a line like that.
Presidency will not be Paul’s crowning achievement, but rather reminding a great many people about the nature of true liberty.