Spencer Ackerman wonders:
That's his only game plan, right? To be the Republican Party's foreign policy beard? The guy centrists and liberals can cheer for against the crazies, oblivious to the fact that Huntsman is being manipulated by those crazies, and substantively marginalized within the administration? Not that I don't like Huntsman. I do. In fact, liberals who care about foreign policy — both of us! — probably should come to terms with the uncomfortable fact that his internationalist rhetoric is probably closer to our sweet spots than Obama's record is. But the game stays the game.
Larison found Huntsman's foreign policy address reasonable in general, but is taken aback by his apparent openness to a preventative war against Iran:
[I]t undermines the main argument for why Huntsman should be taken seriously as a candidate: his reputation for greater foreign policy experience and understanding. In a mostly hawkish field that ranges from the ridiculously alarmist (Santorum) to the irresponsibly alarmist (Romney), Huntsman is supposed to possess the sobriety and sanity that other “mainstream” candidates lack. His “I can’t live with a nuclear-armed Iran” line may be nothing more than lip service, but the fact that he is willing to indulge one of the most dangerous ideas in current foreign policy debate badly weakens the one thing that distinguishes him from the other candidates.
Naturally, Jennifer Rubin describes Huntsman's foreign policy as "Obamaism in a prom dress." (Yes, female columnists can use misogyny when it suits them.) It's also sanity compared with Romney's warmed-over Project For A New American Century, and Rubin's relentless pursuit of war.
The Dish 