Huntsman/Gingrich “Lincoln Douglas Debate” Today At 4pm

For anyone who has the time, this is something that could actually be interesting. Starting at 4pm Eastern today, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich will be taking part in a 90 minute “Lincoln-Douglas” Debate. It appears that this will be similar to the event that Gingrich held with Herman Cain back in November, although I’ve got to say that it strikes me that Huntsman is a far better debate opponent than Herman Cain could ever be, especially since the topic of the debate is National Security and Foreign Policy.

If you have the time, you can watch the livestream starting at 4pm Eastern (alternate livestream via The Washington Post) or, if you can’t do that, the entire debate will be replayed at 8pm Eastern on C-Span (and presumably be available in their archive at some point after that).


FILED UNDER: 2012 Election, US Politics, , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. Cal Ulmann says:

    I’m rooting for Lincoln.

  2. michael reynolds says:

    I’m 57. It’s no longer an endless vista of time stretching out before me. I just don’t think this event makes the cut.

  3. PD Shaw says:

    Discuss how they are neither Lincoln nor Douglas, nor how this could be construed as a debate.

  4. PD Shaw says:

    Lincoln Douglas debate: 1,260 minutes
    Gingrich debates: 90 minutes

    Calculate the price inflation of a politician’s time.

  5. PD

    You are right. Calling something a “Lincoln/Douglas” debate doesn’t mean it actually is one. However, I do think these forums with only two (or maybe three) candidates and an extended time to talk are more worthwhile than the multi-candidate stuff

  6. Franklin says:

    I’ve watched a bit here, seems like Gingrich is regurgitating some of the strategies Huntsman put forth in a paper a month or two back. Hence, lots of agreement between the two.

  7. PD Shaw says:

    @Doug Mataconis: True, I wish a different phrase was used. I watched a bit of the Gingrich debates with Schumer, and I found both of their personalities grating in larger doses.

    Since I think some of the candidates are not qualified to be POTUS ( Bachman, Cain and Paul) and Huntsman is not qualified to lead the Republican party, the debates could have been better if half were not invited.

  8. @PD Shaw:

    Yes the man who was elected Governor of the most conservative state in the country isn’t qualified to lead the GOP. Let me guess why…….because he doesn’t hate Barack Obama enough.

    The GOP is in sad, sad shape.

  9. G.A.Phillips says:

    The one with Cain and Newt was cool….

  10. Dazedandconfused says:

    Caught the part where they were agreeing that there really isn’t any point in going to war with Iran, unless we are in it for regime change, which they agreed that it’s really unavoidable unless Iran gives up their nukes, followed by them agreeing that was very unlikely.

    Then they agreed that since we are not contemplating any large scale wars, they agreed that our ground forces could be most agreeably scaled down…

    That was about it for me.

  11. PD Shaw says:

    @Doug Mataconis: He’s not qualified to be the Republican’s nominee because he was in the Obama administration earlier this year. It doesn’t happen.

  12. Franklin says:

    @PD Shaw: You’ve said something similar before, and we value your opinion, but I guess I haven’t seen a good argument why that might be so. Could you elaborate on “it doesn’t happen”? He was an ambassador to a country he is an expert on, not the Vice President or Secretary of State.

  13. PD Shaw says:

    @Franklin: My premise is that a party has never* nominated a person serving in the opposing administration to head their ticket. I’ve brought this up a few times, and haven’t been corrected. In any event, I belive this tells us something about our electoral system beyond hatred for Obama. Its similar to the observation made by Doug and others that nobody has become President in modern times with a background simply as a reprensentative. I suspect the reason is that a representative typically serves a limitted constituency, and the fact that they have not won a state-wide or national office suggests strongly that they are unprepared to develop a larger constituency.

    Why don’t parties nominate people like Huntsman? Because it remains a party system run primarily by party loyalists and the system prefers contrasts.

    *You could possibly argue that there was more fluidity at the start of the first and second party systems, but that’s clearly not where we are today.