Skip to comments."Commander-in-Chief" Debate Recap, Winners and Losers
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 Cains 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 Yemens corrupt president our friend, and still believes we can somehow undermine Irans 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 congressmans 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 Irans 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, Im not so sure. This was Rick Perrys best debate. He was relaxed and provided lots of substance. He scored with the audience by joking about Wednesdays 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 doesnt 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 Irans 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 Wednesdays 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. Its the same kind of network that tried to alter the 2004 presidential race with phony documents.
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.
In a word:
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...
It’s not an anti-Cain statement to be critical of a guy who has no foreign policy knowledge. He doesn’t fall for the gotcha stuff, he is getting better at this, but I didn’t think he did great. I think he is weak on foreign policy, which is the area where a president really is in the driver’s seat.
It’s just a difference of opinion. All I wrote was “Cain seems to be fading.” To me, he does. That shouldn’t be considered hateful.
We have got to change that idea to “You ran once, you lost, you’re done.”
We wouldn’t have had Reagan. The world would be a poorer place without him.
I’m beginning to think Huntsman must have serious personal interests in the PRC.
The guy is a “free trade” zombie.
Ugh. Stuck on stupid.
I’m talking in terms of the party support. Reagan wasn’t the annointed one of the party until he won—he earned the nomination (and he chose Bush because he needed more support from the establishment).
Also, Reagan is such an outlier. We can’t keep basing everything on the idea that “Reagan did it like that.” It was another time. We’ve been trying everything to find another, and we haven’t. So we need more new blood.
Liz always drags out her drivel about moot Perry points. Perry basher indeed.
No hate alleged from me.
Guess I misunderestimated, excuse me. :D
Fact is though, all our candidates seem to struggle about foreign policy questions.
Not sure any of them, are really credible beyond vague statements of position.
Perry’s the one with actual military experience. And who really believes him, when he claims he’ll secure the border?
I sure don’t.
Gingrich gets it. Santorum seems the most resolute. Romney seems to have realized Americans are fed up with globalism, but I’m not sure he really believes what he says, himself.
Huntsman is a goof.
Bachmann did ok.
I really think Cain was strongest.
I’m biased, but that’s my 100% honest opinion.
Cain looks better all the time.
What I don’t get is why any serious candidate isn’t up to snuff on foreign affairs. It isn’t like they’ve got a day job and don’t have time to study.
You want to know what is really stupid? Getting stuck on one candidate and trying to destroy the rest.
Drat. One more debate I missed. Thanks for the update :-)
I really did intend to watch it, but something more important was on at the same time on TCM:
W.C. Fields in 'The Bank Dick'Prolly the funniest 93 minutes in the history of Hollywood. Even though it was in Fields' 'down years', 1940. In any case I never miss a W.C. Fields movie, not ever.
The Marx Brothers are way up there too. But I can't take the 'musical interlude' any longer where Harpo plays a Harp.
It's so 'irritating' I want to Ice Picks in my ears. So now I take a break during those couple minutes.
We are all biased towards one candidate or another. I disagree that “all of our candidates seem to struggle about foreign policy questions” though. Seriously. You can disagree with him, you can call him a “goof” but Jon Huntsman is fluent in foreign policy. He has experience in that field.
It’s a REAL stretch to claim that Cain was the strongest. But, hey, we all have that prerogative towards our favorite candidates.
I thought Romney’s answer on Iran was asinine. Issuing a blanket promise that Iran would never had nuclear weapons and offering, as his solution to preventing that, “crippling economic sanctions” is ridiculous. Especially since the U.S. could not impose such economic sanctions on its own, and he didn’t explain how he would get the rest of the world to agree to cripple their own economies in order to punish Iran.
Go vote for obambi. Oh, wait. You probably did.
But he could mess them up as badly. That's not what we need right now.
Agree with you.... Perry has one debate where he doesn’t look like a complete fool... and everyone is saying “Perry’s Back”..... yeah.. pass the word Perry is Back...
Huntsman has lots of foreign policy experience.
Unfortunately, he seems to have drawn every possible wrong conclusion from all that experience around the globe.
He’s stuck, firmly believing that “free trade” is good for America.
“Free trade” is the problem. It’s why we have 10% unemployment, no more factories, and incredibly now owe communist China billions of what were formerly American dollars.
It’s why Apple computers are made in China.
It’s why we fact shrinking military budgets. Canceled the F-22, arguably the best jet in human history.
While China deploys a new aircraft carrier, alongside their rapidly growing space program.
Huntsman would be a ray of hope, if he were not brainwashed in a discredited belief system.
I started out very hopeful about Huntsman. Unfortunately I really don’t see him as having even one single clue.
It’s a darn shame. He could have been a strong warrior for America.
He’s not. He’s for the globalists.
ISLAMIC SHARIA COURT in TEXAS
888 S. Greenville Ave, Suite 188,
SOURCE 2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/ ^
May 8, 2003 judicial opinion
322ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
FR Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011
EXCERPT On September 25, 2002, all five parties to the divorce signed an "Arbitration Agreement." This document recites, in full, that the parties: after consultation with their respective attorneys, agree to submit all claims and disputes among them to arbitration by the TEXAS ISLAMIC COURT (entire opinion at link)
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ANNOUNCEMENT Gov Perry addresses the Aga Khan: It is a great honor to be in the presence of the Imam of 16 million Muslims around the world, a global humanitarian leader, a man of peace with a pluralistic vision for people around the world, His Highness, the Aga Khan, the 49th Hereditary Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims. Your Highness, on behalf of 23 million Texans, and over 600,000 thousand Muslims living in Texas, I extend our heartfelt appreciation for your 50 years of great international leadership.
We are delighted to welcome you to the Lone Star State and participate in the celebration of your Golden Jubilee. I am also grateful to the many federal, state and local leaders in attendance tonight. By their presence, these special guests convey the profound respect that exists in the Western World for His Highness work and leadership.
In April 2004, the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) and Univ of Texas-Austin finalized a grant proposal that created the partnership that became known as the Muslim Histories and Cultures Program (MHC).
MHC recruited and directly trained 80 teachers affecting approximately 15,150 students of World History and World Geography in ten key Texas districts in 2005 and 2006.
The purpose is two-fold 1) to fulfill Governor Rick Perrys desire to better educate Texas teachers on Muslim topics and 2) to train teachers to use a cultural lens approach to understanding other cultures.
Governor Perry was instrumental in getting this program off the ground. ####
I have to say none of these people inspire me to vote for them but vote Republican I will, there is no alternative.
Huntsman - UGH! This guy is nothing more than an Ambassador who strikes me as a RINO.
Bachmann - Her eyes bother me and she seems to be too light in the intellectual department for me.
Cain - I like his ordinary man approach but he answers questions with vague and contradictory responses.
Mitt - UGH! maybe there is something to this Morman issue. The guy may be a great Administrator and pick good people but he is way to moderate for me.
Newt - obviously sharpest guy on stage, but has way too much baggage to fight Obama and the media in the race.
Perry - Flashes of “Maybe” but man he is inconsistent and I can not see him doing well against Obama and the Media.
Santorum - Yawn, go home.
Paul - Come on, why do we let this clown run and babble?
Is this really the best we can do?
I agree. He's good at running out the clock with a lot of words and little else -- while leaving the impression that he was cut-off in mid-brilliance.
Does he not have the right, as a Republican, to run for president just like all the others? How is he "imposing"? If he wants to be president and wants to run in the primary that's his right to do so. It's up to the voters to sort out the candidates and choose the best one to represent our party. Using your definition, I guess all the candidates are imposing themselves on us.
I am, of course, a sinner, and I have a few sins from my younger days that are similar in kind (not frequency) to those of Newt Gingrich.
Having passed through repentance, all I can say if and when those sins are thrown in my face is that the person you are talking about has died and been reborn.
Newt should be more popular on FR, and maybe he will become so.
We have not heard from JimRob on this topic, I don't think, so the jury is still out.
Here are some facts:
Amil Imani Governor Perry's Islam Connection
No matter how I tried, I couldn't reach the conclusion that this inclusion promotes Islam or is pro-Sharia. It seems that the mere fact that Islam is included in the curriculum represents supporting it. And with regard to the concern that the education curriculum Perry promoted is pro-Arab and against Israel, the evidence is exactly the opposite. The lesson on Israel reads:
Similar to every other issue or accusation.
Oh, Cain was so lost last night. It was sad.
Newt is a flake. He bounces from conservative to liberal to moderate. Yeah, he’s pretty smart, but I don’t want a sprayed fly for prez.
Bachmann and Gingrich have substance. A Gingrich/Bachman ticket could beat obama. Gingrich could crush obama in a debate. Michelle could crush biden in a debate.
Perry took a dive with his immigration answers. Cain uses 999 for everything and 999 will not pass and will not work. Romney is too liberal.
Ron Paul and the others cant get enough votes to win.
Very good analysis. Good because it is accurate, especially regarding Huntsman.
His strategy does seem to be to say nothing that might be misinterpreted as a stand, and wait for the other candidates to self-destruct.
With all due respect to the article claiming Perry’s not advancing Islam, the author is Iranian-American.
Not a fundamentalist, to be sure. Something of an opposition voice.
Yeah and the rest of us have the right to point out pure balogna...there’s not another candidate on that stage that has done the job and addressed WITH SUCCESS in his state the very issues that are facing the nation. And it just pees on your cheerios everytime somebody points that out. We get that.
I wish he had at least stuck to his original position of signing the China currency manipulation bill. It wouldn’t have had a measurable effect but might have given the US more leverage in negotiations.
Actually, that would be a great combo. Michele might help keep Newt on the conservative track.
I sorta think that santorum meant that if your name is hannity, do you surround yourself with colmes.
“Sharia law is part of the Texas justice system and at least one triumphal mosque has been built there.”
I’m sorry, I call bullshit on this statement. If you mean Texas has laws that are conservative and protect the family, that’s true. If you’re saying Texas has adopted ANY element of Islam in its legal system, you’re completely wrong.
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.