Jason Miks laments the end of the “serious” Jon Huntsman campaign:

All this leaves Romney as the only sensible choice left in terms of foreign policy. Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns probably wasn’t far off the mark when he described Romney and Huntsman as the only candidates with the “global IQ, good judgment and right international experience” to help the United States confront “one of the most difficult international agendas we have ever encountered.”

Certainly, Team Romney has assembled a generally sensible, thoughtful team, and his foreign policy proposals so far shouldn’t frighten too many people. It seems like a low hurdle to clear, but with Huntsman gone he’s the only one that really does.

Miks is the editor of The Diplomat, which focuses on Asia and U.S. policies in Asia, so it makes sense that he would have found many things to like about Huntsman, but on issues relating to Asia Romney has been the candidate of military build-up and China-bashing. Indeed, one of the main points of contention between Huntsman and Romney in the last few months has been Romney’s eagerness to penalize China for currency manipulation. Both of them are willing to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran, they are equally keen on insisting that there should be no space between Israel and the U.S., and they both favor “resetting the reset” with Russia. Any one of these by itself suggests that neither of them has very good judgment. They disagree on Afghanistan withdrawal, but now that Huntsman is out of the race that will leave Romney’s boilerplate support for a prolonged U.S. presence there.

It’s hard to know what it is about their respective foreign policy positions that earn Romney and Huntsman praise as “serious” and “sensible” candidates, since Miks doesn’t explain in any detail. It is odd that the admirers of Huntsman’s foreign policy rarely mention any specific examples of what it is that they like about it. They are “serious” and “sensible,” and that’s all that anyone needs to know.