Posted on 11/13/2011 2:25:54 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
For the second time in four days, the GOP presidential candidates took the stage for a debate. This one focused exclusively on foreign policy and national security. The first hour aired live on the CBS network. The final half hour was only available online and the CBS feed was lousy for the first 15 minutes of that. So, most viewers only paid attention to the first hour. This recap covers the entire debate.
Here is a look at how each candidate fared, along with winners and losers:
Michele Bachmann: Once again, the Minnesota congresswoman was in command on the issues and offered plenty of substance. She also failed to stand out, again. Bachmann had a good line about Obama “allowing the ACLU to run the CIA”. Often ignored, she practically begged the moderators for time on two different occasions, but was shot down. Bachmann held her own, but did little to sway voters.
Herman Cain: Without the ability to use “9-9-9” as a crutch, Cain struggled. He provided his answers with a slow, methodical delivery, probably trying to avoid a gaffe. Much like Cain’s stances on social issues, some of his foreign policy answers were indecipherable.
Cain proclaimed, “I do not agree with torture. Period. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture.” Huh?
Six months after officially declaring his candidacy, Cain is still giving the same non-answer on the war in Afghanistan. Cain called Yemen’s corrupt president “our friend”, and still believes we can somehow undermine Iran’s nuclear program by drilling for oil here. Cain received few applause breaks from a lively South Carolina crowd. It was not his best night.
Newt Gingrich: Once again, the former House Speaker commanded the stage better than anyone else. He provided strong, substantive issues. Gingrich projects an aura that he knows the issues better than anyone else. Probably because he does know better. It was another very good performance.
Jon Huntsman: Although I still believe Huntsman is running in the wrong party, this was a very good performance. Unfortunately for the former Utah governor, most GOP primary voters disagree with his stances. However, he provided strong arguments for his views, which include immediately pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and opposing waterboarding. If this were a general election campaign and Huntsman was in his rightful spot as the Democrat, he would have fared very well.
Ron Paul: The Texas congressman’s foreign policy stances are what prevent a lot of Republicans from seriously considering him. As expected, he disagreed with most of the candidates on stage. Paul gave a much better answer regarding Iran’s nuclear program than he did at the Ames debate in August. Although he still opposes going to war to prevent it, Paul said, “If you do, you get a declaration of war and you fight it and you win it.” I thought Paul did a good job presenting his arguments. It seemed like he had very few chances to speak, however.
Rick Perry: After the “Perry Plunge” on Wednesday, I thought his campaign was over. Now, I’m not so sure. This was Rick Perry’s best debate. He was relaxed and provided lots of substance. He scored with the audience by joking about Wednesday’s brain freeze.
Perry gave a terrific answer in regards to foreign aid. “The foreign aid budget in my administration is going to start at $0.” He later added that Pakistan doesn’t deserve any aid and stuck to his answer later in the debate when asked if his $0 policy would include Israel. Perry even got a compliment from Gingrich in regards to his answer. This might signal a rebirth in the Perry campaign.
Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor was his usual polished self. Romney is well versed on every issue and has become an excellent debater. As the presumed frontrunner, Romney handled this debate very well.
Rick Santorum: The former Pennsylvania senator again showed he has a command of the issues. He even disagreed with Newt Gingrich in regards to how to handle Iran’s pending nuclear weapons, but the moderators did not allow the two to argue it out. Calling Pakistan “a friend” probably raised some eyebrows among GOP voters. Santorum was not given a lot of time to shine, which he desperately needs at this point in the campaign.
Overall Winner: Rick Perry. In the aftermath of Wednesday’s gaffe, we have seen a much more human side for Perry. He actually did well in that debate, except for the 53 second brain freeze. Saturday, Perry shined. While he might not have delivered the most style and substance, I believe he helped his campaign more than anyone else. That makes Perry the winner.
Overall Losers: CBS and Herman Cain. Cain avoided any major gaffes, but was clearly the least knowledgeable candidate on the stage. As for CBS, what kind of network only airs an hour of an hour and a half debate? Then encourages people to watch the rest on their website, but provides a feed that pauses every four seconds? Wait. I know the answer. It’s the same kind of network that tried to alter the 2004 presidential race with phony documents.
Liz has been around since 1997 - she’s one of the most recognizable voices here at FR. Since you only joined in 2008, maybe you don’t know that. You Perry people have got to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you “a liar.” It’s childish.
Just because some of us don’t find the slow-brained Perry attractive does not make us “men” or whatever you types keep accusing us of being.
A 10!
What? Took over both houses in VA and for the first time in history, MS.
We lost the vote on SB5 in Ohio, but since the union spent $30 million it was to be expected and obamacare was voted down 2-1 in Ohio by the same voters.
In PA the pubbies swept most local elections and in case you weren't paying attention this was an off year election so how can you have "sweeping victories" when sheriff, dogcatcher, row office holder, county comish, city and boro mayors, local judges etc. are the highest office in dispute.
Yeah, I know the gov of KY won and he is a demonRAT, but he won by a large margin and is well liked by almost everyone in KY.
I have no real unease with Priebus, but since I no longer donate to the pubbie party, I don't care who the head is.
If the pubbies want to signal me that the party is becoming more conservative, they will put Sarah in that post, then I will donate.
YOu never know what might happen.
Newt has considerable baggage which will come out if he gets the nod.
I just can’t imagine anyone voting for Obama for four more years. I think at this point anyone can beat him.
Newt, and Romney for that matter, have clearly thought the job through. Newt brings to the table almost and endless ammount of historical reference. I think he instinctively has the answer.
George Bush something to the effect that the thing that suprised him most about the presidency is that when it comes right down to it, you don’t have many options in any given situation, but I think he was talking about cirmcumstances that arise day to day.
Then you have a guy like Obama who is clueless. He’s campaigning, not leading. I’ve never seen anything like his presidency in my lifetime.
We must thank him though. I had no clue about the depth of deception that the democrats have played us over the past several years using the disguise of being for the little guy.
They are pure and simple for the federal and state unions that line their pockets. We the taxpayer have been paying these people to keep these scoundrels in office.
I truly sense that the next president will come in and be a reformer the likes we’ve never seen. I think Newt can do it. He can line up the votes and get things thru congress. He will make clear SCOTUS choices, will Romney?
A betting man will bet on Romney, but you never know. I think if Newt gets a few quick wins in his pocket, it may thin out the field, and then the real debates begin.
I would love to have Romney and Newt go one on one, train whistle stopping thru out the country. Talking issues, having the lively debate to the point that Obama is a second thought.
Last night’s debate was good in that the people on stage went after Obama not each other.
Lastly, I have to say I am surprise and quite disappointed in Ann Coulter.
TIR is part of the Washington Post’s political blog network.
It's a blog.
Please post content from this source into bloggers and save the mods the trouble of having to move it.
Preibus just didn't get it ~ we want more. His bosses in the ownership class may think he did well, but he didn't.
He was saying that if the military leaders determine an action that imposes pain and discomfort on someone is "not torture" it's not torture.
He was being Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
One of Cain's big problem for me is that he doesn't think through what he says, and what he says comes out it ways he probably doesn't mean.
The forum exists when legitimate news articles are posted like this one. Spamming the thread with cut and paste unrelated talking points adds nothing to the discussion. If you can’t see the difference then it’s your problem not the OP’s. You may not like the topic but it is hardly spam.
Contract With America: The Betrayal Begins
Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave
Newt Gingrich Rides the Third Wave
"In 1994, Newt Gingrich described himself as a... fan of the ideas espoused in the book, The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, in which homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, and abortion are all viewed as perfectly normal and even desirable. He said that in order to understand him, you should read the book, The Third Wave by Toffler. This book is written from the perspective of someone who is writing a letter to America’s Founding Fathers, in which he describes the Constitution and the principles of limited government that guided our Founding Fathers as becoming increasing irrelevant, and obsolete, and hence in need of being radically redesigned and replaced!....When Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House in 1994, he recommended The Third Wave as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues!"
Reminder: Newt Gingrich Teamed Up With Hillary Clinton, Wanted Government MANDATED Health Care
Flashback: Newt Took $300,000 From Freddie Mac to Stop Congress From Making Much Needed Reform
Newt's record is as bad if not worse than Romney.
Newt is for amnesty and in June 2011 Debate Newt Gingrich called Americans Heartless for wanting to deport 20 million illegals.
"GINGRICH: No, but let me say this, John. No serious citizen who's concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in which you're either for totally selling out protecting America or you're for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. There are -- there are humane, practical steps to solve this problem, if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly."June 2011 Debate Transcript
CW’s comments accusing others of spam is the issue, not her posting on this thread. Agreed, on a fine technical point her post on this thread was not spam, but give me a break when considering the forum as a whole.
Wonder why?
I know what he was saying. Military leadership determined waterboarding was not “torture,” and they were correct. He’ll not box himself in to ridiculous definitions b/c the press wants him to.
There will only be 2 contenders in the coming weeks:
Newt and Romney.
Cain is out: inexperienced + other (personal) problems
Perry is out: debates show his overall capabilities
Bachmann is out: just not strong enough.
And you can stick the fork in Santorum, Paul, Huntsman.
Newt will beat Romney for these reasons:
+ Strong commands of all issues
+ Vast amount of experience in Congress where a Pres
would need to work with.
+ Very bright person, and a Ph.D as a bonus
+ You cant mess around with him on national sec issues
+ Romney’s business and executive experience surely
are his assets, but he just doesnt cut it.
+ Romney is not strong enough.
+ People are not sure if Romney can beat Obama.
The democrats are very scared now, seriously.
It is quite possible that they would “push” Obama out,
and try to replace him with someone who could take on
Newt.
He may have earned 'most improved' - but that hardly makes him the overall winner. You win: you lose....place; you can improve; and you can hang in there.
Your analysis is wrong. It will end up being Perry and Romney.
I don't think he does.
Military leadership determined waterboarding was not “torture,” and they were correct.
I personally don't have an issue with waterboarding terrorists, but what is allowed is not up to the military but with the civilians who command it and with whom the buck stops. Cain's statement leads people to think he doesn't understand that.
He’ll not box himself in to ridiculous definitions
That's just what he did.
Cain is weak on foreign policy. That's a fact.
However, Cain, like every other citizen without Top Secret clearance, is not privy to the things that career politicians are privy to, because they are members of various committees with Top Secret clearance.
Do we all remember how one of Obama’s major campaign promises (yes, promise) was to close Gitmo? Then, lo and behold, after Obama was elected and he became privy to the Top Secret information that our Military and CIA have, he suddenly backed off on closing Gitmo.
Cain has stated many times that he doesn't know everything he needs to know because he is a citizen (Cain), not a Top Secret clearance-holder. He may have opinions, but he can't know as much as we would like him to know — any more than one of us can know everything regarding foreign policy.
Does everyone know about the War College? There are military solutions to most conceivable world problems, already drawn up, ready to be acted upon, right now. Any newly elected President doesn't have to start from scratch to come up with military solutions — they already exist. Cain knows this. If a problem comes up with North Korea, he goes to his Commanders and asks, “What are our options?” He is briefed, and he makes the call. No President sets the strategies. The President merely gives the order to go or not go.
My number one priority during this election cycle is saving the United States of America. We don't have a leg to stand on in the world right now because the US is so weak economically, and we have an extremely weak Leader. We need a strong Leader who will focus FIRST on THESE UNITED STATES, and second on Foreign Affairs.
Condoleeza Rice said very few newly elected Presidents come into the White House with foreign policy experience, but they get it very quickly. She did not fault Cain for lack of foreign policy experience.
Cain is weak on foreign policy. By the time the first primary comes around, he may or may not be so weak. We shall see if he can be a quick study or not.
(Full disclaimer: I like Gingrich and Cain) 1,084 posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 10:43:26 PM by BagCamAddict (If Perry had been asked about the Cain 999 plan, he would have said: 9, 9, .......what?)
I bashed you and Perry in recent months. I now agree with you.
I heard all the candidates just fine on the live stream. It takes a couple of minutes for the feed to get ahead of itself. If it was rigged it must have been rigged on your computer.
You can bet Cain who isn't bound by political correctness wouldn't be tolerant of forcing high school students to recite the pledge of allegiance to Mexico in Spanish, or say that it was ok to tell US students that they could not wear US flag t shirts on May 5th because it might offend certain students.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.