Pages

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Obama Downplays U.S.-Israel Tensions After Meeting With Netanyahu



President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu downplayed disagreements between their two countries as they met today amid a backdrop of chilly relations that many observers believe were exacerbated by Obama's Mideast policy speech Thursday.
Speaking to reporters after their more than an hour and a half long meeting, Obama sought to diffuse the tensions, saying that differences will "happen between friends."
/AP Photo
Israeli Prime Minister 
Benjamin Netanyahu...  

Charles Dharapak/AP Photo
President Obama meets with Prime Minister... View Full Size
President Obama Speaks to the Middle East Watch Video
President Obama Remarks on Israel Watch Video
Obama Reopens Door to Israel, Palestine Peace Deal Watch Video
The president's call Thursday for Israel's borders and a future Palestinian homeland to be based on pre-1967 lines caused outrage among supporters of Israel.
"There are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that's going to happen between friends," the president said. "But what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats and that Israel's secuirity will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal."
More telling, however, was Netanyahu's response. Talking directly to Obama, Netanyahu asserted that any border based on lines that existed before the 1967 Six Day War would be "indefensible" and a threat to Israel's security.
"They don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground; demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. Remember that before 1967, Israel was all of 9 miles wide -- half the width of the Washington Beltway," Netanyahu said. "Israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into place in any deal that we make."
Netanyahu also refused to work with any Palestinian government that would include Hamas in the negotiations, calling the group the "Palestinian version of al Qaeda."
Obama's remarks, part of his broad-ranging speech on the Middle East and the so-called Arab Spring, caused a stir across the Arab world.
Two of Israel's main newspapers carried the headline "confrontation," as editorial writers blasted the Obama administration for the "ambush."
Officials say Netanyahu's issue with Obama's invoking the pre-1967 lines as a starting point for negotiations is less the notion itself than a belief that it would essentially reward Palestinians at the bargaining table without their having to concede anything in return.
Although there's unilateral consensus among experts that the relationship between the United States and Israel is at its nadir, the tension between the two leaders has been building for years amid disagreements on the issue of settlements and the peace process.
Thursday was the first time a U.S. president has laid out his vision on the borders so starkly in a high-profile speech. Administration officials said they hoped the message would appease Palestinians and stop them from pursuing unilateral recognition at the United Nations, something the president warned against Thursday. In a nod to the Israelis, the president also avoided the issue of settlements and division of Jerusalem, another two main points of contention.
But critics say Obama made lofty pronouncements that have cornered not just Israelis but Palestinians as well. In the absence of a peace dialogue, some observers say, Obama has declared policy positions that are unlikely to have much of an effect.
"The relationship was already frayed between the two men and between the U.S. and Israel, and this will deepen the already existing tension," said Michael Singh, managing director of The Washington Institute and a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council. "It's telling that he [Obama] didn't actually call for any particular action -- a quartet meeting or a summit. To do this the day before he meets with the Israeli prime minister, it's bad diplomacy and bad timing."
On the other hand, Obama's speech hasn't tempered Palestinian sentiments either. A spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas said they appreciated Obama's efforts to revive the peace process, but expressed some disappointment with the lack of pointed language on the settlements.
The speech will do little to remove the distrust between Obama and the Palestinians, an issue that was highlighted in Abbas' recent interview with Newsweek.
"It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze," Abbas said in the April interview. "I said OK, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, 'Jump.' Three times he did it."
Without solid peace talks in progress and a lack of trust on all fronts, the president's words will do little to advance negotiations, experts say.
"What's really needed is that the U.S. have trust with both parties," Singh said. "Without that trust, the U.S. simply becomes kind of a cheerleader; no different than other countries who make pronouncements."

Egypt Receptive to U.S. Debt Relief

More widely in the Arab world, the reaction to the speech was also less positive than some in the administration might have hoped.
In North Africa and the Middle East, the general reaction has been "more of the same, no substance." Despite Israeli outrage, the 1967 proposal is being taken in the region as continued support for Israel because there was no mention of refugees, Jerusalem and settlements.
Some critics say they believe Obama is dangerously meddling into affairs that are not within his reach. "Tell Obama to leave us alone," a young Egyptian told ABC News.
On the other hand, Obama's economic outreach has been well received, especially in Egypt. The United States will provide a debt relief of $1 billion to Egypt -- one of the United States' oldest and closest partners in the Arab world -- and guarantee another $1 billion in loans to finance infrastructure and job creation.
In Egypt, Thursday's headlines bore not a word about Obama, but today's newspapers highlighted the $2 billion for Egypt above the fold. While there are some who say "we don't need your money," by and large it has been well-received and is appreciated.
But the gesture has fallen short of reversing public opinion.
ABC News' Jake Tapper contributed to this report.


More from ABC News

Limbaugh mocks Obama for bin Laden hit

 
May 02, 2011
Posted by Keach Hagey 04:02 PM
Anyone under the illusion that America might actually be capable of a moment of national unity around the death of Osama bin Laden had that illusion squashed by Rush Limbaugh today.
The president’s chief detractor dangled the possibility of such a moment at the beginning of his show, kicking off with what seemed like an unequivocal compliment: “Ladies and gentlemen, we need to open the program today by congratulating President Obama. President Obama has done something extremely effective, and when he does, this needs to be pointed out.”
Many news outlets, including this one, initially took that compliment at face value. MSNBC led the news with it coming out of the White House briefing. Mediaite suggested it was a sign that we’d finally reached “9/12.” Eric Boehlert at Media Matters warned the sarcasm was missed. “He was clearly mocking POTUS,” he tweeted.
But then Limbaugh zeroed in the line in the president’s speech from last night in which he said he had assembled the team, using it to spin a sarcastic riff on how the president made this all about him.
“In fact, it may be that President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off. You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb like they always do. They wanted to go in there and drop missiles and launch bombs, a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces.
No one else thought of that. Not a single intelligence advisor, not a single national security advisor, not a single military advisor came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any of the Special Forces.”
As the show wore on, Limbaugh’s compliment evolved into an accusation of hypocrisy. He argued that Osama bin Laden was captured because President Obama continued the Bush Administration policies of keeping the military in the Middle East, and, despite his efforts to the contrary, keeping Guantanamo open, where intelligence about the courier that led to bin Laden’s killing was gathered.
“This is why I say that I want to sincerely congratulate Obama,” Limbaugh said. “Despite his words, despite every indication he gave verbally of disassembling this because he wanted America to be respected again. Despite his promises and words to tear apart this team, he continued it. Obama does deserve to be congratulated for continuing the operations of this team and keeping the military presence in the Middle East.”
Media Matters – not known for seeking national unity themselves -- shone a spotlight on one clip in particular, in which Limbaugh suggested the hit on bin Laden had been a political act.
“If he was a shoo-in for re-election, Osama bin laden would still be alive today,” Limbaugh said. “There would have been no need to undertake the mission. And Donald Trump would have had no jokes told about him at the White House Correspondents Dinner, if Obama were such a shoo-in. But he’s not.”

Obama’s Israel Blowup by The Daily Beast

The president’s bold stance on Mideast peace—restoring the 1967 borders—got an icy response from Netanyahu, praise from Jewish rights groups, and grief from Palestinians. Read the world’s reactions.
The Speech
On Thursday President Obama delivered what was billed as a “major speech” on the Middle East. Touted as an articulation of the administration’s foreign policy in the region, the speech outlined few specific initiatives, but the biggest news was Obama’s statement on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. While stopping short of laying out a process for peace, he said, “The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.” To achieve that, there must be two states "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” he said—while shying away from sticky questions of Jerusalem and the refugees’ fate.
HP Main - Obama Netanyahu Alex Wong / Getty Images
Bibi Fires Back
That plan was not well-received by Israel’s government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday publicly rebuked the 1967 border plan, calling those lines “indefensible.” In a tense White House sit-down, Bibi told Obama that “peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality.” The pair met for two hours, and Netanyahu will speak before a joint session of Congress Tuesday—which many see as another opportunity to rail against Obama. Obama, meanwhile, was calm despite Netanyahu’s anger. “Obviously, there are some differences between us in the precise formulas and language, and that’s going to happen between friends,” Obama said. But, he added, “I think that it is possible for us to resolve what has obviously been a wrenching issue for decades now.”
Israeli Op-ed: Obama’s Plan ‘Unworkable’
Israel’s centrist English-language daily, JPost, chalked up the difference between Netanyahu and Obama to “a significantly different way of viewing reality.” Obama takes the “land-for-peace” formula, while Netanyahu is using past experiences. Part of the reason for Netanyahu’s reaction, the paper suggested, is due to uncertainty following the Arab Spring—and losing some crucial allies such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. But it’s risky for both of them—they are both facing being blamed for ruining the U.S.-Israel relationship.
JPost editor David Horovitz wrote an editorial saying Obama underestimates Palestinian intolerance of Israel. “It is the president’s evident incapacity to appreciate the uncompromising Palestinian refusal to countenance Israel’s legitimacy that is the most damaging to the vital American-Israeli relationship and most dooming to his approach to peacekeeping.” Horovitz goes on to call Obama’s plan “unworkable” and “counterproductive,” and he criticizes Obama for not stating “clearly and firmly” that Palestine will have to solve the refugee crisis himself.
Palestinians Discouraged
Immediately following Obama’s Thursday speech, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called an emergency meeting at his West Bank headquarters. While he instructed his associates not to release any public comments, an official at the meeting reported the group decided that Obama’s words “contained little hope for the Palestinians”—except for the part about restoring the 1967 borders.
As Netanyahu struck down that idea with Obama, Palestinians despaired further. Nabil Shaath, the official who met with Abbas, saw Netanyahu’s critique of the 1967 borders as “indefensible” as absurd when applied to “a tiny country like Palestine.”
Jewish Groups ‘Delighted’
Back in the U.S., some Jewish rights groups saw the public dispute as a good thing. “I was delighted,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The reason? Because it made clear that Obama can’t expect Netanyahu to simply agree with him.
Europe, Arab League Back Obama
The president did draw a wealth of support from the international community outside of the Middle East. The United Kingdom’s foreign secretary, William Hague, agreed with Obama that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” Similar praise came from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who called it a “good, viable path” forward. The head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, concurred.

Bibi’s White House Tantrum

Netanyahu's rejection of Obama's Mideast speech underestimated the president's strength—and could hasten the Israeli leader's political demise. Plus, reactions from Israel, Palestinians, and the Arab League.
Bibi Netanyahu could have reacted any number of ways to Barack Obama’s mention of the “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” Let’s say, actually, four ways—embrace, circumspection, suspicion, tantrum. That he chose the last—saying immediately after the Obama speech that he “expects” to hear Obama in essence renounce what he’d just said before the entire world!—tells us a lot about the man’s shortcomings and (lack of) political instinct. All political is local, and Netanyahu undoubtedly scored points with his Likud base back home. But he has a base here in America too, and I think he misjudged that base badly.
One senses here a big public-relations, and possibly public-opinion, shift from two years ago. Right after he took office in 2009, Obama pushed Israel too hard on settlements, thinking that he had more political capital on the issue than he had. He got slapped down, by Netanyahu and AIPAC and members of Congress from both parties. At the same time, Syria was rebuffing administration overtures, and the new president was learning the hard way that the Middle East wasn’t the staff of the Harvard Law Review, and it wouldn’t quite so pliably prostrate itself to his will and aura.
But now, is it Obama who’s going to suffer the PR blow? Something tells me that this time, the pressure will mount more on Bibi than Barack. His behavior these last 48 hours has verged on, if not been, petulant. A foreign leader (no less one of a state whose existence depends on the United States) isn’t supposed to talk like that to a president. Add to the bargain: Obama’s a stronger president now on foreign affairs than he was in 2009, partly because of the bin Laden coup and partly because the speech was generally well received across the American political spectrum. The criticisms of Obama on the borders statement have been entirely partisan, led byRepublican presidential candidates. That has had the effect of cheapening the criticism of Obama and making it more dismissible: Do Americans, and Israelis and Palestinians, really care what Tim Pawlenty thinks about the situation? The Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, never shy about criticizing the administration on these matters, came out Friday to The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent and judged the speech a defense of Israel: “The speech indicated to me that this administration has come a long way in better understanding and appreciating the difficulties facing both parties, but especially Israel in trying to make peace with the Palestinians.” This may be a sign that the usual cordon won’t hold around Bibi this time. Oh, he’ll receive a thunderous welcome from Congress Tuesday, mostly from Republicans who want to embarrass Obama by backing the prime minister. But the applause will only mask temporarily what everyone knows—that he is in total denial about the future.
HP Main - Obama NetanyahuAlex Wong / Getty Images
Israel, of course, has legitimate security concerns, especially in light of the recent Fatah-Hamas entente. And there’s nothing, really, to prevent Netanyahu from running out the clock if that’s what he wants to do. But things have changed. Two years ago, politically speaking, time was on his side. Now it’s against him. Having thrown this tantrum, it seems unlikely that he can come back in two weeks, or two months, or a year, and say gee, the ’67 borders with swaps is actually a good idea after all. It seems like the peace process will have to wait for a new prime minister. And he may have hastened that day, too.
Note: This story has been updated.

Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way



JEFFREY GOLDBERG
For whatever reason, I tend to react strongly when a foreign leader disrespects the United States, and its President. I didn't like it when Hugo Chavez of Venezuela insulted President Bush; I don't like listening to Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan lecture the U.S. on its sins, and I'm not happy when certain Pakistani leaders gin-up righteous indignation about American behavior when it was their country that served as a refuge for the greatest mass murderer in American history.

And so I was similarly taken aback when I read a statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he "expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress."

So Netanyahu "expects" to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn't walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many  international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

I don't like this word, "expect." Even if there weren't an imbalance between these two countries -- Israel depends on the U.S. for its survival, while America, I imagine, would continue to exist even if Israel ceased to exist -- I would find myself feeling resentful about the way Netanyahu speaks about our President. Netanyahu had an alternative, of course: He could have said, as he got on the plane to Washington, where today -- awkward! -- he will be meeting with President Obama: "The President today delivered a very fine speech. His condemnation of Hamas and Iran, his question about whether the Palestinians actually seek peace; his strong language against Syria; his recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; his re-assertion of the unshakeable bond between our two nations -- all of this and more brought joy to my heart. There are a couple of points in the speech, having to do with borders and refugees, that I would like to clarify with the President when I see him, and I'm looking forward to a constructive dialogue on these few issues."

Of course, he didn't say this. Instead he threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise: If I'm waking up this morning feeling that the Israeli prime minister is disrespecting the President of my country, imagine how other Americans might be feeling. And, then, of course, there's this: Prime Minister Netanyahu needs the support of President Obama in order to confront the greatest danger Israel has ever faced: the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran. And yet he seems to go out of his way to alienate the President. Why does he do this? It's a mystery to me.
 

Carville on 'Stunning' Schwarzenegger Revelations and Trump 'Foolishness'

May 17, 2011 8:04 AM


It was a "Shakespearean" broadcast this morning on "GMA," according to James Carville, going from the "tragedy" of the Schwarzenegger split to the "comedy" of a Donald Trump drop out.
Carville was amazed the former governor ran for public office in the first place knowing he had fathered a child with another woman.
“It is pretty stunning...He put himself out there knowing that all the scrutiny of his personal life, that was a really risky thing he did in even getting into politics,” Carville, a “GMA” political contributor, said.
On Trump the Democratic strategist said the business tycoon got out of the race when he realized he was “making a fool of himself.”
“You have to remember, as our friend Mark Halperin pointed out, when Trump is talking about the non-birther foolishness and started focusing on his economic message he actually had some resonance out there,” he told me. “And with him gone and Huckabee gone we’ve got to remember there is nobody on the sort of popular side of the Republican equation now.”
So who will fill that void? Perhaps Rep. Michele Bachmann or former senator Rick Santorum, Carville told me. But his wild card pick is Jeb Bush.
“If Jeb Bush’s name was Jeb Smith it wouldn’t be a race. I mean he is a successful governor twice of a large state, he appeals to social conservatives…he can raise a ton of money, he’s a skilled politician, he’s got kind of an affable guy which people kind of like. He’s got stellar conservative credentials…on paper I’ve never seen a stronger candidate but, you know he’s obviously got the legacy issue,” he said.
Bush has insisted again and again that he will not run in 2012. That may not stop the pining for him.
--George Stephanopoulos

Transcript: Exclusive Interview With Jon Huntsman


May 20, 2011 6:28 AM
I sat down for an exclusive interview with Jon Huntsman yesterday. Here is the full transcript and CLICK HERE for the full story.
George Stephanopoulos: Governor, thanks for doing this.
Jon Huntsman: It's an honor.
George Stephanopoulos: The threshold question for any Presidential candidate. Why you, why now?
Jon Huntsman: We're getting close to making a decision. Why now. I'll start by telling you that I love my country. Second, I will tell you that we are at a very serious inflection point in terms of where this country goes. It's a discussion about whether or not we are 21st century competitive, which plays into our quality of life, our ability to project a confident and effective foreign policy. Everything gets right to our core strength as a nation. And our core is weak. And this is not a discussion that you can put off for years. It's a discussion that is taking place now.
George Stephanopoulos:But you went to China a couple years ago, saying you didn't know if you'd be doing this. And I know you know that with a lot of Republican primary voters, the number one question is -back there somebody just came up to me at the event, saying 'does he have a chance? He worked for Obama?' What's the answer?
Jon Huntsman: I worked for the President of the United States. The President asked me, the President of all the people. And during a time of war, during a time of economic difficulty for our country, if I'm asked by my President to serve, I'll stand up and do it.
George Stephanopoulos: So you'd do it again?
Jon Huntsman: I'd do it again. Of course. I've always been … trained, and I hope to train my own family that when your country needs you, particularly in a critical and sensitive bipartisan position, which is the U.S. ambassador to China, that you -- if there is the prospect that you can get in there and bring about change in a way that helps your country through public service, I'm there.
George Stephanopoulos: The President is also a person, a particular person, President Barack Obama, who, you wrote to him, saying, calling him a remarkable leader. Do you stand by that?
Jon Huntsman:He chose me. A Republican, and I wrote that to him by way of a thank you note. And thank you notes are a proud tradition for a lot of people. And it's a good thing that people don't go through George Bush Senior's thank you notes, because he wrote a lot of them. And I do a lot of them too. And it was my way of expressing what I thought about his election.
George Stephanopoulos: But I'm asking what you think about him now. Do you believe he's a remarkable leader, and are you in sync with his foreign policy?
Jon Huntsman: History will show how effective he is. In terms of foreign policy, we have a generational opportunity, George, to reset our position in the world. And it must be done based upon our deployments in all corners of the world, wherever we find ourselves, how affordable those deployments are, whether it's a good use of our young men and women. Whether it's in our core national security and interest. We're fighting an enemy that is far different than any we have got before. It's a nontraditional kind of war, and I think we need to step back, recalibrate how we go about protecting our borders and protecting our people, and resetting our position in the world.
George Stephanopoulos: But what does that mean? Is the President fighting that war effectively today?
Jon Huntsman: It means that we have too much in the way of boots on the ground in corners of the world where we probably don't need it. It means that we must prepare for an asymmetrical kind of response. It means that we probably don't need to be in certain parts of the Middle East where there are domestic revolutions playing out. Where we probably just ought to let them play out.
George Stephanopoulos: Is that Libya?
Jon Huntsman: Libya would be among them.
George Stephanopoulos: You'd stop enforcing the no-fly zone?
Jon Huntsman: Well, I would have chosen from the beginning not to intervene in Libya. I would say that is not core to our national security interest.
George Stephanopoulos: You also said, in the event, that a draw-down in Afghanistan is inevitable. So would you begin it today?
Jon Huntsman: I would tell you that we have to evaluate very carefully our presence in Afghanistan. And my inclination would be to say that it is a heavy and very expensive presence we have on the ground. That at a point in time where we need to be looking at our asymmetrical threats, what we have in Afghanistan today is not consistent with how we ought to be responding.
George Stephanopoulos:Let's talk some domestic issues. A lot of Republicans -- again, Republican primary voters --  are going to wonder about your decision as governor of Utah to take the stimulus funds, President Obama's stimulus funds. And when you were asked about it, you suggested that one of the problems with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough. Is that what you still believe?
Jon Huntsman: If you read on in that interview, you will find that I was specifically referring to corporate tax cuts, payroll tax deductions, and focusing the stimulus in infrastructure projects that would improve our economic future.
George Stephanopoulos:But you also aligned yourself with Mark Zandi, who said the stimulus ... had to be about a trillion dollars. 
Jon Huntsman: That was his take. And my take was, let's stimulate business. Let's look at tax cuts, let's look at payroll tax deductions. If you read on in the interview, that's exactly what I said. But more than that, George, a specific focus as opposed to just giving dollars to states. And let's face it, every governor took it.
Mark Sanford in South Carolina was the only one who stood up and said, ‘I'm not going to take it,’ and in the end, he ended up taking it too. We as governors, our states, we all make contributions to Washington. And when stimulus dollars are coming back, you ultimately found that every governor took those dollars.
George Stephanopoulos: So no apologies for taking the stimulus funds if I'm hearing correctly, and you might have wanted more stimulus, but it would have been more tax cuts.
Jon Huntsman: A regret that it was not properly focused around that, which would really stimulate the economy, tax cuts, and it was not focused around enhancing our infrastructure, and preparing ourselves for the future.
George Stephanopoulos: Let's talk about health care. It's going to be one of the core issues for this Republican primary --
Jon Huntsman: I do believe.
George Stephanopoulos:-- as well. Would you repeal President Obama's health care?
Jon Huntsman: If I had a chance to repeal it, I would. But then you have to say what goes in its place, and I think the answer to that is look at what all the states are doing. All the states that are incubators of democracy, are experimenting on their own. They're coming up with novel solutions. In our own state, we came up with, I think, what was a very novel approach to closing the gap on the uninsured. To harmonize medical records -- which was a major step in getting costs out of the system. So once the incubators of democracy do what they are best equipped to do, I think Washington then learns what works and what doesn't work.
George Stephanopoulos: How about Congressman Paul Ryan and (the) budget? Former Speaker Gingrich had some trouble talking about that this week. If you were in Congress, would you have voted for it?
Jon Huntsman: I would've voted for it.
George Stephanopoulos: Including the Medicare provisions?
Jon Huntsman: Including the Medicare provisions. Because the only thing that scares me more than that is the trajectory that our debt is taking. And the trajectory that our debt is taking now beyond $14 trillion is going to have an impact on our currency. It goes south, and our currency's going to have an impact on our standard of living and affect every family in this country, and over time, our international competitiveness. So what is really scary I think to me and I think most Americans is our debt. And we've got to be bold, and we've got to have, I think, proposals on the table that perhaps in years past would've been laughed out of the room. And we've got to look seriously at them. We don't have a choice. We've hit the wall.
George Stephanopoulos: Would you vote to increase the debt limit?
Jon Huntsman: I would vote to increase the debt limit if there was a corresponding level of cuts. And if there was some serious talk about a balanced budget amendment, which we as governors always had to deal with. I know it sounds unlikely. It's been discussed before. But I'm guessing if you went out to most of the American people, you'd probably hear that that's something that they would see as totally rational.
George Stephanopoulos: And that would be your condition?
Jon Huntsman: My condition would be a corresponding number of cuts that would be commensurate with whatever--
George Stephanopoulos: What Speaker Boehner has called for?
Jon Huntsman: What he's called for. We've raised the debt ceiling in ten years, and look where we are.
George Stephanopoulos: You invited the voters at that first event to look at your record. And by (UNINTEL) record, we see someone who supported civil unions for gay couples, supported having the children of illegal immigrants be able to pay in-state tuition in your state, supported cap and trade in the past as an energy policy. Every single one of those could be a big problem in the Republican primary. How do you deal with it?
Jon Huntsman: Well, first of all, I don't change on my positions. The circumstances change, like on cap and trade, for example. You know, today our focus -- although we all care about the environment, today our number one priority's the economy -- and we should not be doing anything that stands in the way of economic growth. And that which is going to move us forward in terms of expanding our economic base and creating jobs, period. That's not to say that all the while, you won't have people who are creating and innovating new approaches to dealing with emissions. That's going to continue.
George Stephanopoulos: But back in 2008, November of 2008, the beginning of the emissions, you said that dealing with those emissions was either going to take cap and trade or a carbon tax. Is that still true?
Jon Huntsman:And that was exactly what CEOs were saying, and that's exactly what all the experts were saying, and that's exactly what a whole lot of governors are saying at that point. The economy collapsed. We can no longer focus on that debate as aggressively as we did in years past. But that debate will continue because people care about the environment. But I suspect that the end point it's going to look a lot different than that original proposal. And we also have to remember, George, that this is an international challenge.
If we come up with our own approach, and if the Chinese who are now the largest emitters in the world don't go up with their own, if the Indians don't come up with their own, we're all downstream. And if we unilaterally disarmed, we're disadvantaged economically. That point comes home loud and clear when you're living in Beijing, the most polluted city in the world. And you step outside and say this is a huge challenge. And all of this gunk, all of these emissions, they're going somewhere. And everyone's downstream these days. It's got to be an international fix.
George Stephanopoulos: On civil unions and on immigration, no walking away from your past positions?
Jon Huntsman: No. No. I think, in the case of civil unions, I think it's a fairness issue. I believe in traditional marriage. But subordinate to that, I think we probably can do a better job when it comes to fairness and equality. And I don't believe in penalizing the younger generation coming across our borders who have no say whatsoever over their journey and destiny.
They want to integrate into the American system. If they're willing what needs to do be done and work hard, then I think if we're giving them an in-house tuition break, that integrates them into the system, and makes them part of ultimately contributing to our country.
George Stephanopoulos: We're just about out of time. I just have two more questions. One comes from one our viewers. And it's from Joelyn Singley of Salt Lake City, Utah. And she says: "The recent comments from Mr. Huntsman confused me as to his religious affiliations. Is he a practicing Mormon or not?"
Jon Huntsman: I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon. Today, there are 13 million Mormons. It's a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people. And you're going to find a lot of different attitudes and a lot of different opinions in that 13 million.
George Stephanopoulos: Is it going to be an issue in this campaign?
Jon Huntsman: And I probably add to that diversity somewhat. I don't think so. I think people want to know that you, if you get in the race, are going to be a problem solver. A pragmatic problem solver who's going to look laser-like on jobs and keeping this economy moving forward in ways that will maintain our preeminence in the world. I think everything else that people like to talk about, in many cases, are less relevant. In fact, some-- some are sideshows.
George Stephanopoulos:Final questions. I know you're going through due diligence now. Is there anything that could stop you from running?
Jon Huntsman: My wife. (LAUGHS)
George Stephanopoulos: What do you think (off camera)? She's smiling, no comment. But you're just going to consult with your family and that will be the final?
Jon Huntsman: That's the final decision. You either feel it inside, or you don't. You don't need people who whisper things in your ear. You either have a conviction about our place and time in history, and the importance of broadening and expanding the debate about some of these key issues, about jobs and the 21st century competitiveness, it is that core we spoke about earlier. Our core is weak. And when our core is weak, so is every aspect of what America projects.
George Stephanopoulos: Are you feeling good after your first event?
Jon Huntsman: Yeah, listen … it was a sheer delight interacting with people and getting questions from all conceivable political corners. I enjoyed it. New Hampshire's a unique state, and I hope we see more of it.
George Stephanopoulos: We'll be back up here with you. Thank you very much, Governor.
Jon Huntsman: Thanks, George.
The interview took place in Hanover, N.H. on May 19, 2011. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Exclusive - Jon Huntsman on Being Obama's Ambassador to China: I'd Serve Again

May 20, 2011 6:29 AM

The Republican who President Obama appointed as his Ambassador to China – and who could be the 2012 challenger Democrats fear most – has no regrets about accepting a post in a Democratic administration. In fact, he said he wouldn’t hesitate to do it again.
“I'd do it again. Of course. I've always been trained and I hope to train my own family that when your country needs you…if there is the prospect that you can get in there and bring about change in a way that helps your country through public service, I'm there,” Jon Huntsman told me in an exclusive interview.
I spoke to the former Utah governor as he kicked off his inaugural trip to New Hampshire. Huntsman told me he is “close” to making a decision about a presidential bid. So I asked him how – after serving in the Obama administration for two years - does he stand a chance at winning the Republican nomination?
“The president asked me, the president of all the people. And during a time of war, during a time of economic difficulty for our country, if I'm asked by my president to serve, I'll stand up and do it,” he said.
Huntsman dismissed calling Obama a “remarkable leader,” saying he was referring to Obama’s historic election in a thank you note.  Does he still believe it?
“History will show how effective he is,” he said.
On foreign policy, Huntsman broke with Obama on Libya: “I would have chosen from the beginning not to intervene in Libya. I would say that is not core to our national security interest.”
And he suggested that a drawdown from Afghanistan was inevitable: “We have too much in the way of boots on the ground in corners of the world where we probably don't need it.”
It was the former ambassador’s most comprehensive interview since his return from China on April 30 and he laid out his positions on everything from the stimulus to “Obamacare.”

Huntsman made no apology for taking stimulus funds as governor.
“Let's face it, every governor took it,” he told me.
And he tried to explain away his past endorsement of an even larger trillion dollar stimulus proposed by Mark Zandi.
“That was his take,” Huntsman said. “And my take was, let's stimulate business. Let's look at tax cuts, let's look at payroll tax deductions.”
Huntsman stuck to current GOP orthodoxy on other areas:
  • Obamacare: “If I had the chance to repeal it, I would.”
  • The Ryan budget: “I would’ve voted for it.”
  • The debt limit: “I would vote to increase the debt limit if there was a corresponding level of cuts.”
But he stood by past takes on civil unions for gay couples: “In the case of civil unions, I think it's a fairness issue. I believe in traditional marriage. But subordinate to that, I think we probably can do a better job when it comes to fairness and equality.”
And he stuck to his stance of giving some benefits to illegal immigrants: “If they're willing what needs to do be done and work hard, then I think if we're giving them an in-house tuition break, that integrates them into the system, and makes them part of ultimately contributing to our country.”
Those two issues could complicate his relationship with the Republican base.
On “cap and trade,” his current position is less clear. Here’s the exchange:
George Stephanopoulos: You invited the voters at that first event to look at your record. And…we see someone who supported civil unions for gay couples, supported having the children of illegal immigrants be able to pay in-state tuition in your state, supported cap and trade in the past as an energy policy. Every single one of those could be a big problem in the Republican primary. How do you deal with it?
Jon Huntsman: Well, first of all, I don't change on my positions. The circumstances change, like on cap and trade, for example. You know, today our focus -- although we all care about the environment, today our number one priority's the economy -- and we should not be doing anything that stands in the way of economic growth. And that which is going to move us forward in terms of expanding our economic base and creating jobs, period. That's not to say that all the while, you won't have people who are creating and innovating new approaches to dealing with emissions. That's going to continue.
George Stephanopoulos: But back in 2008, November of 2008, the beginning of the emissions, you said that dealing with those emissions was either going to take cap and trade or a carbon tax. Is that still true?
Jon Huntsman: And that was exactly what CEOs were saying, and that's exactly what all the experts were saying, and that's exactly what a whole lot of governors are saying at that point. The economy collapsed. We can no longer focus on that debate as aggressively as we did in years past. But that debate will continue because people care about the environment. But I suspect that the end point it's going to look a lot different than that original proposal. And we also have to remember, George, that this is an international challenge. If we come up with our own approach, and if the Chinese who are now the largest emitters in the world don't go up with their own, if the Indians don't come up with their own, we're all downstream. And if we unilaterally disarmed, we're disadvantaged economically. That point comes home loud and clear when you're living in Beijing, the most polluted city in the world. And you step outside and say this is a huge challenge. And all of this gunk, all of these emissions, they're going somewhere. And everyone's downstream these days. It's got to be an international fix.
One of my last questions came from a viewer, Joelyn Singley of Salt Lake City. She said she is confused by Huntsman’s recent comments on religion and asked is “he a practicing Mormon or not?”
“I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon,” he told me. “Today, there are 13 million Mormons. It's a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people. And you're going to find a lot of different attitudes and a lot of different opinions in that 13 million.”
So will the former ambassador run for president? He said there is only one person who could stop him.
“My wife,” Huntsman said.
Mary Kaye smiled, but didn’t say anything.
“That's the final decision. You either feel it inside, or you don't. You don't need people who whisper things in your ear. You either have a conviction about our place and time in history, and the importance of broadening and expanding the debate about some of these key issues,” he said.

The Media's Crazy LinkedIn Comparisons

Gary Rivlin     


After its stunning market debut Thursday, there’s no doubt thatLinkedIn is a bubble. But contrary to the crazy comparisons being made in the press, it doesn’t signal a repeat of the 1990s dot-com bubble, argues Gary Rivlin.
When Netscape made its stock market debut in August 1995, its share price spiked 109 percent, blowing the first large breath into the dot-com bubble. On Thursday, the social networking company LinkedIn had an eerily similar first day as a publicly-traded company as its shares rose rise by 108 percent.
Article - Rivlin Linkedin Crazy ComparisonsLinkedin CEO Jeff Weiner (front center) and founder Reid Garrett Hoffman (rear center, with glasses) react at the trading post of the New York Stock Exchange on May 19, 2011, during the initial public offering of the company. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)
Is it any wonder the world was ready to declare Silicon Valley in the midst of another Internet bubble? Especially when the stock market instantly gave LinkedIn, a solid but second-tier Valley success story, a value greater than Southwest Airlines, U.S. Steel, Hertz, Delta Airlines and Tyson Foods?
But those quick to declare a bubble strike me as akin to the shell-shocked war veteran who flinches each time he hears a loud noise. Sure, a share in LinkedIn is preposterously expensive. Associated Press technology writer Michael Liedtke, who drew the Netscape comparison, points out that the average tech company in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index has a price-to-earnings ratio of 15. By comparison, LinkedIn finished its first day on the stock market with a P/E ratio of 554.
LinkedIn is a single company. And as crazy as its stock market debut was this week, it still doesn’t come close to matching the laughing-gas nuttiness that marked the second half of the 1990s.
“There was an unmistakable echo of the dot-com boom Thursday on Wall Street,” Liedtke began his LinkedIn dispatch. That was the kind of line one read a lot over the past 24 hours, running under the byline of any number of tech and financial writers.
Except that, where the late 1990s saw hundreds of Internet startups going public, most of them half-baked concoctions brought to market before they had earned a dime, LinkedIn is an eight-year-old company with 1,300 employees that booked nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in revenue last year.
That’s not to discount the significance of LinkedIn’s stock market debut, which ranks as the biggest since Google in 2004. Whether we find ourselves in another tech bubble is a question that has been popping up on and off for years now. The first time I remembering hearing it was 2005, when a venture capital firm’s investment in Facebook gave this as-of-yet-ubiquitous social networking company a valuation of $100 million. The question came up again earlier this year when Goldman Sachs appraised Facebook as worth $50 billion for any Goldman client desiring private shares in a pre-IPO Facebook.
My attitude: who cares if a bunch of elites with deep reservoirs of money and the right connections prove willing to pay lofty prices to own a piece of the future? What made the dot-com bubble so profound and traumatic an event wasn’t that venture capitalists and favored clients at a big investment bank took a big financial hit. It was the collateral damage it caused to the wider economy and to people's 401(k)s.
“We always have lots of little bubbles in Silicon Valley,” says Valley wise man Paul Saffo. “The problem with the bubble in the late 1990s is that everyone’s grandmother got involved, and that was bad because it made the bubble too big, and it made the price of failure too high.”
Now that LinkedIn is selling shares to the general public, anyone with a little extra cash laying around can get involved. And already we see that the LinkedIn IPO was good news for the wealthy and the well-connected and bad news for pretty much everyone else wanting a piece of the action.
The insiders—favored clients of Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, or any of the other big banks putting together the LinkedIn deal—got to buy LinkedIn at $45 a share. The stock opened at $83, lavishing an instant 84 percent windfall on their money.
And those without connections and without the requisite net worth (typically above $10 million, if not $20 million) to gain access to the insider price? LinkedIn’s stock crossed $122 a share before closing at $94.25, meaning some have already seen a big loss in their over-eagerness to own a piece of a hot tech company. Gawker made a lot of sense—there’s a phrase I don’t find myself writing very often—when Ryan Tate summed up the LinkedIn public offering this way: “Now that the social networking bubble has reached the masses, it isn't just annoying, it's dangerous.”
But LinkedIn is a single company. And as crazy as its stock market debut was this week, it still doesn’t come close to matching the laughing-gas nuttiness that marked the second half of the 1990s. LinkedIn made all of $15 million in profits last year, but at least it was profitable. Compare that to TheGlobe.com, the company whose IPO near the end of 1998 stands as a signal event in the dot-com boom—the can of gasoline, as it were, that caused the conflagration that came to so ignoble an end at the start of 2000.
TheGlobe barely had any revenues when it went public. It booked a paltry $415,000 in the last full year before going public. (LinkedIn, by comparison, could claim $243 million in revenues in 2010.) It lost $3 million that year and was on pace to lose another $15 million in 1998. That made no difference to those wanting a piece of the company: The investment banks priced TheGlobe at $9 a share, but within minutes ofits debut, investors were already paying more than $90 a share.
But that didn’t stop Jim Cramer, the CNBC mad man, from making a comparisonbetween LinkedIn’s debut and TheGlobe, as if this were 1998 all over again. “This is going to be another one of these things where we destroy everybody,” Cramer said in his usual, cringey, over-the-top manner. “I see it happening again.”
The truth is very few companies these days are able to go public, and David Menlow, president of IPOfinancial.com, an independent research company, doesn’t see that changing because of LinkedIn. Hard lessons were learned during the dot-com bubble, and that means that only established companies with significant revenues.
“There’ll be a very tight mesh on the screen door,” Menlow predicts. “It’s not like you’re going to see any company that can claim it’s a social networking company go public.”
Journalist Gary Rivlin is the author of five books, including Broke, USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc.—How the Working Poor Became Big Business. He has worked as a staff reporter for The New York Times, where his beats included Silicon Valley and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He is a special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.