Grant Cornett for TIME Jon Huntsman 
 
 Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman has just proved he can keep 1,100 graduating college kids awake for 17 minutes  and even led them in a popular local cheer about kicking ass. But Obama's lean, understated former ambassador to China is really here to prove he can mount a credible campaign against the man he was working for a week prior. In a brightly lit cinder-block room inside the sports arena where the University of South Carolina has held its commencement, the former Utah governor jokes that the stark setting of our interview  his first since returning to the U.S.  suggests he might be in for some "enhanced interrogation." 
 
 But if that's what I'm up to, then torture really doesn't work, because in several sittings and a couple of hours together over a week's time, I don't even come close to getting him to spill such puny secrets as whether he thinks we should be in Afghanistan or Libya ("There will be more to say about that"), in what ways he disagrees with Obama ("I don't want to get into specifics") or, for that matter, where he parts company with his fellow Republicans, including his distant cousin, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ("It wouldn't be fair to offer an opinion without doing due diligence"). And as for whether or not Huntsman still belongs to the Church of Latter-day Saints, I know less than I did before I asked him. ("I'm a very spiritual person," as opposed to a religious one, he says, "and proud of my Mormon roots." Roots? That makes it sound as if you're not a member anymore. Are you? "That's tough to define," he says. "There are varying degrees. I come from a long line of saloon keepers and proselytizers, and I draw from both sides.") (See "Twelve for '12: A Dozen Republicans Who Could Be the Next President.") 
 
 So careful that he's disinclined to weigh in on any matter on which he hasn't been fully briefed or made up his mind, Huntsman is nonetheless plenty open about wanting to compete for Obama's job. Already he's in primary-season mode, moderating his previously moderate views by praising the Tea Party as "a very legitimate manifestation of people's anger and frustration in where we are today" and junking his support for the regional cap-and-trade carbon-emissions pact he and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once championed. "It hasn't worked," he says now, "and our economy's in a different place than five years ago." Until it recovers, he adds, "this isn't the moment" to keep trying. 
 
 While some Republican hopefuls have failed or are still trying to coax their loved ones onto the campaign bus, Huntsman's wife and their seven children are more than ready for a yearlong road trip that could begin as soon as June. "I would be extremely excited" if he ran, his daughter Liddy, 23, says. "He'd be the ultimate fresh face." ("Thanks, chief," he tells her in his usual soothing sotto voce style.) 
 
 Certainly, his party is in the market for one of those; competition was so modest at the first GOP presidential debate of the season that the sole top-tier contender who showed, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, was begging for a rival who could help him keep his skills up. As Huntsman's would-be campaign manager John Weaver tells me, "This is the weakest Republican field since Wendell Willkie won the nomination on the sixth ballot in 1940." (Watch TIME's video "The GOP: Optimism and Obstacles.") 
 
 But is the understated 51-year-old Jon Meade Huntsman Jr. really the answer to the Republican Party's personnel problem? He is, after all, a pro-civil-union Mormon who has just finished nearly two years of service for Obama in the land many Americans consider the new evil empire. He is pro-environment  a little too green for many in his party  and hardly anyone knows who he is. Though Huntsman's path to the nomination is a certified long shot, you have to wonder why so many on both the right and left seem to be freaking out at the prospect of his jumping into the race. 
 
 Democrats who fear that Huntsman would do well against Obama in next year's general election are busy pelting him with rose petals  take that, you wonderful man!  that they openly hope will disqualify him in the eyes of Republican Party regulars. But it's Huntsman's fellow conservatives who are in a swivet over all the attention he's gotten since arriving home from China on April 30. As governor, the antiabortion, pro-gun Huntsman did all the things Tea Party conservatives say they want, slashing taxes and adding jobs. He did that in part by using his sway with Mormon elders to pave the way for a reform of state liquor laws that made it easier to get a drink. (See TIME's graphic "Mark Halperin Weighs In on the Republican Party.") 
 
 Yet on the right, he still somehow stands accused both of writing the President the kind of "love letters" most of us refer to as thank-you notes and of showing disloyalty to his country by "plotting" to run against that same President while in a position to undermine him on the world stage. Both what he says and what he doesn't say in our interviews make clear, though, that he really has not been steeping himself in presidential politics. "I'm not even sure I could name all of them," he says of his GOP rivals. 
 
 Fortunately for him, much of the country can't either. ||||| Mr. Gingrich also attacked Mr. Romney’s tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, accusing him of pillaging companies and cutting jobs to enrich himself and his colleagues. He compared him unfavorably with two other presidential candidates from Massachusetts : former Gov. Michael Dukakis and Senator John Kerry , both Democrats who were defeated. 
 
 Rick Santorum , a former senator from Pennsylvania , accused Mr. Romney of lacking core convictions. “We want someone when the time gets tough — and it will in this election — who will stand up for conservative principles,” he said. 
 
 Even Jon M. Huntsman Jr. , a former Utah governor who has struggled to stand out in the race, scored points with the debate audience when he said Mr. Romney was out of line in attacking him for having served as President Obama ’s ambassador to China . “This nation is divided,” Mr. Huntsman said, “because of attitudes like that.” He criticized Mr. Romney for his slogan “Believe in America,” saying: “How can you believe in America when you’re not willing to serve America? That’s just phony.” 
 
 Mr. Romney had been seeking to remain above it all and rely on his muscular campaign organization and get-out-the-vote operation to propel him to victory in Tuesday’s primary and beyond. But time and time again, he was forced to defend himself. 
 
 “I’m very proud of the conservative record I have,” Mr. Romney said, ticking through a list of leading Republicans supporting his candidacy who, as he put it, “don’t have any ax to grind.” 
 
 The Romney team conveyed the nervousness of a leading marathon runner, acutely aware of the potentially volatile nature of this contest, the reluctance of Republicans to unite behind a single candidate and the possibility that an anti-Romney candidate could emerge supreme to split the delegate field with Ron Paul , who is viewed as having a distinct but sizable following. 
 
 During a day of hard campaigning, Mr. Romney sought to deflect criticism of his time at Bain and to defend against derision from Mr. Gingrich and the others about his claim to be a nonpolitician. But it did not always go so smoothly. Speaking to voters at a rally in Rochester , N.H., Mr. Romney described himself as a “a high school kid like everybody else with skinny legs” who ultimately “backed into a chance” to run for president. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 The son of a wealthy American Motors chief executive turned Michigan governor, Mr. Romney also said, “I know what it’s like to worry whether you’re going to get fired,” and declared, “There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.” 
 
 Afterward, his campaign could not provide specific examples, though a spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in a statement that “as a young person just out of college, he worked his way up the career ladder knowing that his continued employment was by no means guaranteed.” 
 
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 For months, Democrats have been trying to use Mr. Romney’s pedigree against him, seeking to tap into the boiling anger over wealth disparities resonating with voters. As the presidential primary campaign intensifies, his Republican rivals are highlighting the same theme, suggesting that Mr. Romney is out of touch with Americans. 
 
 At an afternoon campaign stop, Mr. Gingrich seized on one of Mr. Romney’s lines from the debate, taking issue with his suggestion that people should not enter politics until they no longer have to pay mortgages . Mr. Romney was trying to point out that he has not spent a lifetime in elective office, but the statement created a fresh opening. 
 
 “We want everyday, normal people to run for office,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Not just millionaires.” 
 
 That line of attack was being pressed by a “super PAC” supporting Mr. Gingrich that has acquired a nearly 30-minute movie attacking Mr. Romney’s time at Bain, parts of which are to feed into advertisements that the group plans to show in South Carolina. The group has received a new commitment of $5 million to push its cause after Tuesday’s vote here. 
 
 In an intriguing foray into the politics of super PACs — which have mushroomed in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling loosening restrictions on corporate and union money in campaigns — Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney emphasized at the debate on Sunday that they had no involvement with the groups supporting them, even as they detailed the substance of the groups’ attacks against the other. 
 
 When Mr. Gingrich asked Mr. Romney whether he would tell his supporters at the super PAC Restore Our Future to stop running untruthful ads against Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney said: “With regards to their ads, I haven’t seen them. And, as you know, under the law, I can’t direct their ads.” A moment later, Mr. Romney acknowledged that he had, in fact, seen the ads and he recited a few of their messages. 
 
 For all of the focus on Mr. Romney on Sunday, it was the jockeying between those seeking to emerge as his chief rival that held the possibility of most significantly shifting the dynamic of the nominating contest. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Mr. Huntsman said he was sensing new momentum after what was arguably his best debate performance on Sunday morning, albeit one that came after a more tame appearance 10 hours earlier, in the ABC News/WMUR/Yahoo debate. 
 
 “I feel the energy on the street,” Mr. Huntsman told reporters after speaking at a packed coffee shop in Hempstead. “We’re moving in a direction that nobody would have predicted even a few short days ago.” 
 
 Mr. Huntsman’s strategists are by no means predicting victory, and he has Mr. Paul and Mr. Santorum in his path. But his strategists have said they believe he can move on to compete in South Carolina if he can do well enough to exceed expectations. 
 
 Underscoring South Carolina’s looming importance, Mr. Santorum headed for Greenville, S.C., after the debate, preparing for what he hopes will be a big showing and a closer step to consolidating conservative support. “This is a tough battle, but in South Carolina, how can I fail?” he said upon landing. 
 
 Gov. Rick Perry of Texas also arrived in South Carolina, where he is opening a 10-day bid to salvage his candidacy. 
 
 Mr. Paul said he had his eyes on South Carolina, as well. “South Carolina will be a nice test for us, because it’s a bigger state,” he told reporters in Meredith, N.H. “And if we do well there, that will encourage the fund-raising and alert other people to the message. They’ll say, ‘What is he talking about?’ ” ||||| The debate came at another time of change in the race for the Republican nomination. For the first time, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) assumed one of the center positions onstage, an acknowledgment of his sudden rise in the polls. He used his newfound status as the leader in two polls to effectively display his experience in dealing with national security issues. 
 
 But an answer on immigration, in which he said he does not think that the nation should deport many of the millions of immigrants who have been in the country illegally for years, could put him at odds with some conservatives in his party — the same issue that caused problems for Texas Gov. Rick Perry earlier this fall. After the debate, Gingrich defended himself against possible criticism, saying he was not advocating an amnesty program. 
 
 The tone of the debate, the 11th among the candidates this year, was largely civil, and the session ranged widely on both domestic and international issues, though there was no discussion of the European debt crisis and little attention paid to China. Despite the differences that emerged, the majority of the candidates offered a generally more hawkish view of the world than that enunciated by the Obama administration. 
 
 In contrast to some previous debates, Tuesday’s forum is likely to have only a limited impact on the overall race. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney once again delivered a solid performance. 
 
 Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) stood out by disagreeing most significantly with the other candidates. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. used the opportunity to take on his rivals, especially Romney. 
 
 The debate was held at DAR Constitution Hall in the District and was sponsored by CNN, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer served as the moderator, with questions from AEI and Heritage scholars. Eight candidates participated. The others were business executive Herman Cain, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.). 
 
 Romney, Huntsman spar 
 
 One of the sharpest exchanges came between Romney and Huntsman over Afghanistan. Romney argued that Obama was moving too rapidly to bring out U.S. troops and said he favors maintaining a substantial presence for several more years. 
 
 Asked his view, Huntsman said, “I totally disagree.” He said money that is being spent on the war in Afghanistan could be better used rebuilding the U.S. economy. ||||| Candidates before a Republican presidential debate in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 / Evan Vucci 
 
 CNN, in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, sponsored the second debate on foreign policy in ten days. Here's our take on the winners and losers from Tuesday night. 
 
 WINNERS: 
 
 Newt Gingrich 
 
 Success begets success. Newt has done well in past debates and it has helped him in the polls. With his polling success, moderators gave him more airtime, which allowed the one-time afterthought and current front-runner to show off his debating skills. He took a risk by going against conservative Republican orthodoxy on immigration, and that could backfire, but overall Gingrich showed that he has been thinking about these issues for decades. And since it was a debate focused on foreign policy, no one asked him about his relationship with mortgage giant Freddie Mac and the $1.6 million he earned, which also helped the former House speaker. 
 
 Jon Huntsman 
 
 As the former ambassador to both China and Singapore, Tuesday's national security debate was Jon Huntsman's moment to shine. And for the most part, he succeeded: Huntsman, who touted throughout the debate his experience living abroad, presented clear policy positions on Pakistan and Afghanistan - at one point getting into a heated debate with Mitt Romney over the Afghan troop drawdown ?- and even managed to bring the conversation back around to the American economy. Perhaps for the first time in the campaign, the former Utah governor was able to set himself apart from the rest of the GOP crowd. 
 
 Ron Paul 
 
 This was the Texas lawmaker's strongest debate, getting lots of airtime and challenging many of his rivals about U.S. foreign policy. His views are not in the mainstream of Republican orthodoxy, but he is consistent in his beliefs and not afraid to tell voters what he really thinks. His fundraising numbers could go up in the short-term, based on his debate performance Tuesday night, even if long-term it may be hard for him to broaden his support. 
 
 Michele Bachmann 
 
 Despite having largely been written off as a major player in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered a strong performance in Tuesday's debate, demonstrating her confidence discussing policy issues, and taking her competitors to task when they faltered. In a heated exchange with Rick Perry over providing aid to Pakistan, the Minnesota lawmaker blasted the Texas governor for what she described as his "highly na?ve" take on the issue; later, she sparred with Newt Gingrich for his stance on immigration. Whether or not Bachmann's performance was strong enough to get her back in the game remains to be seen - but she certainly earned more screen time than in recent debates. 
 
 Mitt Romney 
 
 Romney had one of his worst performances of the 11 debates so far, but he still managed to do fairly well. Romney is a front-runner for a reason: he has been running for president for five years and that practice has paid off for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney skillfully turned questions about foreign policy into answers about domestic issues where he was able to contrast his own positions with those of President Obama, cementing the idea that this race is going to come down to Romney and one other candidate. 
 
 Rick Santorum 
 
 Rick Santorum is still widely considered a long-shot candidate, but he earned his fair share of airtime in Tuesday's debate. And while the former Pennsylvania senator may not have said much to change how America feels about him - he endorsed racial profiling Muslims and mistakenly referred to Africa as a country - he made his best effort to make his way back onto the public's radar. 
 
 LOSERS 
 
 Herman Cain 
 
 Herman Cain did not have the standout moment he needed to prove to voters he has a command of foreign policy. After surging in the polls, Cain's campaign has lost momentum in recent days, most notably after stumbling over a question regarding Libya. The only memorable moment from Cain in this debate came when he flubbed debate moderator Wolf Blitzer's name, calling the CNN anchor "Blitz." 
 
 Rick Perry 
 
 The Texas governor took some bold positions during this debate, but his policy stances were vigorously challenged by his colleagues. Perry almost seemed to immediately backtrack on the tough stance he took against foreign aid to Pakistan after Michele Bachmann called his position "naive." Perry was also on the defense when other candidates -- Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul -- said they disagreed with Perry's assertion that the U.S. should consider a no-fly zone over Syria. ||||| Jon Huntsman will quit the Republican presidential race today and endorse Mitt Romney. One of his aides told Fox News, “Governor Huntsman was encouraged [by his third place in] New Hampshire, but does not want to stand in the way of the best candidate to beat Barack Obama.” It’s a turnaround in human relationships that could only happen in the fickle world of politics. A little over a week ago, Huntsman was accusing Romney of putting party before country and dividing America. Now he’s giving him his unequivocal support. 
 
 Jon Huntsman’s campaign faced three problems. First, it started too late. Huntsman thought he could sit out the deeply religious Iowa caucus and concentrate his resources on New Hampshire instead. Big mistake. It cost him a lot of media attention and made him miss a couple of debates. The Iowa results dominated the news cycle, meaning that even candidates who had crashed and burned got more coverage than Huntsman. “We had strong numbers in New Hampshire,” one campaign insider told me, “But after Iowa we were always playing catch up.” The media only started talking about the candidate a couple of days before the Granite State voted. Hypotheticals are no use to anyone, but it’s fair to speculate that with more time and attention Huntsman could have pulled away moderates from Romney concerned about the Massachusetts moderate’s fair weather ways. Yes, Mitt places well against Obama in polls at the moment, but all the dirt thrown at him this primary season is bound to slow his progress. A part of me suspects that Americans will never vote for a man who straps his dog to the roof of his car. 
 
 Second, Huntsman never quite shook off the weirdo factor. He can be a tad Vulcan – all deadpan phrasing and alien eyebrow twitches. His first ad was nonsensical: Jon on a motorbike speeding through the desert. Then he regaled us with his knowledge of Mandarin, breaking into it every five seconds. If voters find Romney’s French off putting, how were they going to react to Huntsman’s channelling of those commie devils? It didn’t help that he sometimes sounded like he was running purely to promote business with the Middle Kingdom (see his rousing defence of Chinese trade policy), or that his foreign policy sounded sub-Ron Paul. Then there were the jokes – the execrable, painful jokes. Jon Huntsman made Gordon Brown sound like Oscar Wilde. 
 
 Huntsman’s third problem was the most significant for US politics watchers: he had no constituency. He ran as a moderate. On the one hand he was fiscally conservative, on the other he had some nice things to say about evolution and homosexuality. I heard (but have no confirmation) that on the stump he sometimes took an “I’m against it but it’s your call” approach to abortion. Huntsman wanted the votes of aspirant suburbanites – people with college degrees who worry about the state of the economy but not about the sex lives of their transgendered friends. If the demographic sounds familiar, then it’s because it’s very similar to the coalition David Cameron strung together in the UK. 
 
 Huntsman’s staff included several British Tory aides who desperately wanted to see the compassionate conservative revolution replicated in the USA. They not unreasonably thought that Cameron’s brand of liberal conservatism would have a trans-Atlantic appeal, that Right-wing Republicans desperate to beat Obama would put aside their religious chauvinism and elect a trendy moderate. It had worked in Utah, where Huntsman extended gay rights while also cutting taxes. It would seem that there is some part of a foreign field that is forever Notting Hill. 
 
 But it didn’t work nationally. The reality is that the GOP and the British Tories are very different. In America, principle trumps electoral calculation for the most part – and American conservative principles are imbued with a gutsy, aggressive cultural conservatism that Huntsman was unable to tap. There were simply not enough liberal Republicans to give the candidate anymore than 16.8 percent of the vote. Those folks who share his socially moderate instincts have either drifted to the Democrats or sit out the party as registered independents. Perhaps Huntsman could have attracted more of these people to participate in New Hampshire if he had gained more media attention early on. But even then, it’s hard to imagine his patrician style getting more support than Ron Paul – a man who understands that it takes populist energy to generate heat. 
 
 There is a Jon Huntsman in almost every Republican presidential primary. In 1980, it was John B Anderson. In 1996 it was Lamar Alexander. In 2000 it was John McCain. Every cycle, this moderate vote shrinks and their tally gets a little smaller. Despite all the cultural changes that have taken place around it, the Republican Party is arguably even more socially conservative than it was twenty years ago. America will never give us another David Cameron. Some on the Right might say that one is more than enough.
– The GOP candidates were busily piling on Mitt Romney during the Meet the Press debate, and Jon Huntsman took it a step further on State of the Union today, bashing Romney as having "morphed himself" too much for voters to know who he really is. "You run for the Senate as a liberal," Huntsman complained. "You run for governor as a moderate. You run for president as a conservative. Where are you at the end of the day?" Elsewhere on the Sunday talk show dial, as per Politico: Huntsman on voting for Ron Paul over President Obama: "(Paul's) isolationism during a time when Iran is on the ascent, when the world is more in need of America's values of liberty and democracy and human rights and free markets, I would have a very very tough time with." Nancy Pelosi on Obama's attacks on Congress: "It's not me. It's the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. We have missed an opportunity—much of it because they want to obstruct the initiatives of the president. For the good of the country, I think it's really important for the president to make the [case] that he is running against a do-nothing Congress. I completely subscribe to his approach." Pelosi on Newt Gingrich's 'dumbest thing' he's done (a climate change ad with her): "He who has been fined $300,000 by the ethics committee—you think he'd consider that a big mistake." However, "Since you brought up my name in association with him as the dumbest thing he ever did, I think there is plenty of stiff competition for that honor as far as his activities are concerned." John McCain on endorsing Romney: "After the 2008 [primary] campaign was over, no one worked harder on behalf of my campaign than Mitt Romney did." As for his onetime rival, "You can run clips of Reagan and Bush back in 1980—you would get the same thing. These are spirited discussions. You put these things aside just the way Reagan and Bush did. I think by far, he is the best qualified."