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.
More like safety scissors.
That pledge and song were in one class, a *Spanish* class. The students were learning a language.
In high school, my husband was in French class. They learned “La Marseillaise.”
What do we know about your post? That it contains no sources, no substance, no relevance.
GOOD POINTS!
Great comments! Cain did a good job! I prayed for Him and God answered!
Watch Mr. Cain and Governor Romney. They also listen to and pay attention to the candidate who is speaking. This is good debate technique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAtH8FLBPso&feature=player_embedded#!
They would help their cause if they found articles from legitimate sources to support their side of things. They could post it, ping their list and discuss away. They don’t do that though. They take over any thread about Perry and spam it with the same cut and paste crap every day. That is spam. The OP or any other reader has a right to call it what it is. They are disrespectful to the readers, the OP and the site.
Since you brought up the “wasting bandwidth” issue, the big issue is that spammers do more damage to the site than someone who is posting news articles on a specific subject. Just something to think about. Times have changed, people do have other options today unlike the earlier election cycles if you are really concerned about the state of the site.
The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that if an adult signs a contract, he or she is bound by that contract.
Do you believe that a party to a divorce should get out of the contract when he or she doesn’t like the outcome? Do you believe that - like the plaintiff who wanted to throw away her contract - that “all” doesn’t mean “all?”
Scott Pelley: Governor Huntsman-- as we sit here, there is a crisis in Europe over debt, particularly in Italy and in Greece. And there is the threat of contagion onto Wall Street and U.S. banks. How do you prevent the Euro crisis from becoming a problem in the United States?
Scott Pelley: --is time. Thank you very much. We just have time for a quick follow-up on-- on that same question. Let me come to Governor Perry. How do you prevent the European crisis from become a problem on Wall Street?
Rick Perry: Well, the French and the Germans have the economic wherewithal to deal with this. They have the economy.
Seriously? As recent as Feb. 2011 France had an unemployment level of 9.6%. How is their economy going to prevent a problem on Wall Street?
Thanks for that post by the way. People would mention it in passing so its nice to see the whole thing.
What did your last post have to do with my point that calling anyone out for spam when that specific person is the calling card for the long pre-perpared posts with graphics and several links of one sided opinions to justify her point of view that are posted over and over again is not just a bit hypocritical? Some time ago posted that Edward Bernays would be proud of the same reptition. As to your point of legitimate, who defines legitimate?
Don’t get me wrong, CW has the right to do so, and does with regularity, but to impugn someone as a spammer for doing precisely what she has a long history of for her candidate is just not right. I admit her passion is remarkable but sometimes passion can also lead to a refusal to be open minded as well. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and like it or not, that is my opinion. That is all, just an opinion.
BTW, when did I bring up the bandwidth issue? This site is doesn’t even show up in that regard as far the the WWW is concerned.
After one of the debates he said that Newt was growing on him.
The military does not determine what is torture. Lawmakers for the various nations and courts do.
1. Cain loves this country; Obama hates it.
2. Cain believes in America's greatness above all other nations; Obama believes America is but one of several average countries.
3. Cain is a Leader; Obama is a Reader.
4. Cain is humble enough to know he doesn't know everything, and he is willing to learn - he has met with Kissinger, Bush 41, etc.; Obama’s ego is so huge he doesn't need to learn anything new or take anyone’s advice.
5. Cain is a Christian; Obama is either a Muslim or a Marxist or a Black Panther, or who knows what (has he chosen a church in D.C. yet????).
6. Cain doesn't have foreign policy experience before becoming President, but he WOULD have it after he becomes President; Obama didn't have foreign policy experience before becoming President, and he STILL doesn't have foreign policy experience.
So yes, Cain is weak on foreign policy. But I would rather have a Leader who shares my values in the White House, than a Community Organizer who hates me and my country, occupying the White House. (No wonder it's called Occupy Wall Street... since we have someone Occupying the White House.)
Exactly. My spouse pointed out the same thing.
Cain said a few weeks back that we need to stop giving foreign aid to our enemies.
That post was a conglomeration of over the top untruths. I answered the “Sharia Law” in # 149.
Exactly. Cain can be against torture and allow our military do what it needs to do. The waterboarding is a good example. Some call it torture and Cain explained that he considers it a enhanced interrogation technique. There is no reason why our troops should be held to a different standard than their enemies. How can they fight to win with their hands tied behind their backs.
Was there a reason the students couldn’t have learned the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America in SPANISH?
A song is different than a pledge of allegiance, but I would hope that you knew that.
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.