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.
My point was about spam, not whether they were true or not. The fact is they are spam and in their content only tell a part of the truth. You are a died in the wool Perry supporter, we get that and it has come to the point that your posts are more scanned than read because we all know the routine. So spare us on the spam accusation.
"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."
We have got to change that idea to "You ran once, you lost, you're done." We need to get rid of these fossils like Romney who just run forever so people are tired of them.
Didn't work for Dole, didn't work for McCain.
My wife and I watched the first hour; she tried to catch the rest on our computer, but gave up.
As for winners and losers. The moderators attempted to marginalize Jon Huntsman, Micelle Bachman, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum by ignoring them. They gave way too much time to Romney, but then what do you expect.
The “winners?” Really, no one.
The big losers: CBS, and unfortunately, the American voters.
If the GOP nominee is elected President, he’ll name the next RNC Chairman.
I saw that!
Welcome to the Perry campaign!
I knew he’d win you over.
lol
Stick around.
Gov. Perry will be the nominee.
Disagree that Cain looked bad. Will agree that he is not the most knowledgable re foreign policy. Not convinced he would be weaker than perry, who obviously was taught to memorize certain responses S stick to them,with great oomph, no matter what was asked.
Cain is a quick study and he is already growing in foreign policy. It’s his weakest area but everyone has a weaker area. He will be fine. He is not fading.
And it won’t work for Romney. But count on the Stupid Old Party to play it safe.
Thanks a lot, CNN, now look what you've done! :P
CW will tell you I'm undecided, but have said many more positive things about Cain than about Perry.
Now I say ONE good thing about Perry and I'm marked with the scarlet P!
Ya can't win around here...
Whatever.
Grow up!
One might start by taking her own advice.
You may have missed it but the Country Clubbers (and the Young Republicans) do all that sort of thing.
Mitt, and other candidates like him are what they are ~ professional candidates, and frequently they're part of the "ownership class"~ which he is.
Both George Bush', though now both certainly part of the ownership class actually did party organizing work in their youth ~ and Ronald Reagan actually did work in the trenches in one of the constituent factions of the Democrat party (although he never ran for office as a Democrat).
Currently the RNC and the Senate and House NC are in the thick fat paws of the "ownership class". We will have to overcome that problem to run an effective campaign next year. Why we would want to hand over the Presidential candidate's position to that same "ownership class" is a good question. They didn't do well this year, and we didn't need them at all last year for an historic win.
Don’t worry. No one will hold it against you.
=^D
In a word:
*cunning
*self-serving
*mean
*stupid
*anti-American
Yup, that about does it. ROTFL.
Well then, oops. :)
But really, what was with the anti-Cain statement.
Cain was one of the only candidates I watched at the debate we (apparently both) watched who wasn’t staying on talking points. I saw the moderators attempt to throw a hard-ball gotcha at Cain first thing.
He stepped up, without hesitating and knocked it out of the park. Cain did great.
What was your basis for criticizing Cain? And who do you favor?
Truth in advertising and all...
The State Committee Chairmen control the list ~ and if the President doesn't go along with them he's got some real problems in 2 years.
For a while, Bain owned Dominoes. Did they make a profit on the deal? I don't think they did. Mitt did not come out a winner in the pizza wars.
It shows ~ no pizza jokes in that man's repertoire.
My instinct is to say that Gingrich does not play well with others yet he was the model of a subordinate fidelity when he acted as whip for Bob Michaels while Michaels was minority leader of the Republican Party in the House. There was nothing in his behavior then that I can recall which would alert us to the fact that Gingrich might not be a team player.
Yet I feel somehow that a presidential candidate would be reluctant to put Gingrich on the ticket. The office is a constitutional office and Gingrich is coming to the end of his career, he cannot expect to run in eight years when he will be about 75 or so. In other words, Gingrich might not want the position and if he takes it, he has nothing to lose by asserting his independence. The vice president cannot be fired by the president, it is a constitutional office. He can be shunned but that is difficult to do to a man like Gingrich without setting off a bunch of landmines.
If Gingrich accepts and becomes vice president, one would hope that he could be as fine an addition to the administration as Dick Cheney was. I think it is unquestionably true that our safety today is thanks to one man. Dick Cheney is a patriot who accepted uncomplainingly a lot of cheap demagoguery in order to kept us safe.
I suppose somebody with Gingrich's candlepower and drive could be given specific areas of responsibility much like Cheney assumed for homeland security. Then the question becomes whether Gingrich becomes a loose cannon or subordinates his pyrotechnics to be quietly effective in the model of Dick Cheney?
My inclination is to say that he will not be offered the vice presidency and if he is, he might not take it. He would certainly only take if he could negotiate a guarantee of real and substantial power.
Despite the arguments about natural born citizenship status, the ideal vice presidential pick remains Marco Rubio who will bring Florida and a bite of this Hispanic vote with him. He has very little baggage, is effective on the stump and in debates. It is not a surprise that he is everybody's first pick. I believe he will accept, despite his recent disclaimers.
He knows his place!
Yes, my take indeed is that perry is by far the least sharp knife in the drawer.
If libertarian positions are Democratic ones, is Ron Paul going to change parties along with Jon ? Or maybe he already is, which must explain why that is where most contributions from US troops have gone, lol Seriously. Do either have ANYTHING in common with Obama ? That is just so much bunk...
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.