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.
Romney on the other hand, is not going to be so easy. Not only does he have a very large bank roll, he probably gave his best debate performance of his career last night. Perhaps it was because Newt was on his AAA game and Romney stepped up to match it.
I believe that the coming week will show both Newt and Romney to take a bigger lead and perhaps Perry will move into a strong third. Cain is definitely on the way out. He was clearly outclassed, outgunned and suffers from Political Vertigo. On top of all that, he still has Gloria All-Red waiting for him to actually face his accusers and not deny what is already on the record.
Simply put and very true; The others need to go.......(Keep repeating as often as necessary.)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. SO much better than the usual ‘RINO’ nonsense (enormously successful governor of a red state, worked for 3 Republican presidents, strongly and consistently pro-life, strongly and consistently pro-gun, you know the drill...). Yes, Huntsman (just like that first president he worked for, Ronald Reagan) is a strong believer in free trade.
I understand your concerns, but I believe that Huntsman knows how the global game is played. He is the right one to deal with China, and the rising markets in the emerging Asia/Pacific economies. Quite frankly, although it is a decent applause line, Romney’s naive drum-banging for a Sino-American trade war, unsettles me. I’d much prefer Huntsman in the Oval Office on this issue.
Gingrich has a lot of baggage.....sure he can sound good, slick even.....and substantive....
...the next day he can slide around to the other side...
..he's done it before.....I don't trust him to not do it again.
Cain is strong....neither you nor the MSM will dilute the strength of his character or abilities just because you want him out of the game.
Newt is very capable of combating the Press and the smear campaign they are sure to launch against him. It’s time we had a candidate like that, frankly.
I think this election is headed that way by the looks of it. Newt has very a clear vision of the status of International Affairs as well as how to handle immediate crisis. His stance on the border was also very logical and made sense.
If Gingrich wins, I would feel comfortable that he would do the right thing. He seems to have learned not to sleep with the enemy and forever has cast away, his moderate tendencies. Time will tell, but I remain cautiously optimistic.
Probably trying to figure out why so many "conservatives" spend so much time saying they don't want Ronmeny, but use all their energy to trash the rest of the field....
Perry seemed to have good answers but they weren’t to the questions asked. After the second time he did this it seemed like he was using the debate to get his sound bites in more than his position on foreign affairs.
“I do not go on other candidate threads (like “Liz” consistently comes to Perry threads) and make wild, false comments and then leave. Just so you know the difference.”
They aren’t wild and false comments. What she stated was true. You just can’t stand hearing it, because you are totally enamored of your chosen candidate, lol.
You are losing it CW - just like your candidate.
Your post to Liz is uncalled for on these threads. We all have respected your right to Post Perry Threads continually but won’t tolerate others opinion. I suggest you start your own Blog site if you can’t respect others.
Mouthing sound bites rather than answering questions-----is typical self-serving Perry----one of THE rankest political opportunists that has had the gall to surface.
Me-First Perry's taken his endless debate flops to new heights of self-importance----he was all over the web with his "oops" moment---(pumping himself up to skeptical audiences).
Watta cornball---the rube has no clue that voters (who have the last say) see through his shenanigans.
"Well, shucks---thas the way he got elected in Texas, pardner."
You work for Obama and you lie.
Why do you use a women’s screen name?
Is that what the Dem’s taught you?
Why do you only post on Perry threads and lie about him?
IMO Cain did just fine last nite and Gengrich made progress. Perry’s only good point was zero-based foreign aid - which I expect fits well with Cain’s business experience and will be adopted. Other than that, Perry’s a blustering autobot as opposed to Romney who’s an establishment autobot. The others are not in the running for any number of good reasons.
The sponsor, format, and topic were matched well - all second rate. The diplomatic nuances of foreign affairs is so inconsequencial to America’s current challenges, to me, elegant mastery of this arena is akin to winning a blue ribbon in mental masturbation.
My preference remains Cain/Gingrich ‘12.
I swear, sometimes I think you're a cartoon person.
Perry is soooo bad, we dumb hicks just keep voting for him, and voting for him.
I will trust Perry on getting rid of Obamacare, defunding the UN, protecting my 2nd amendment rights, and castrating the job killing EPA more than any candidate out there.
He still thinks it's the first debate and Romney is the guy to beat. Sad.
Actually, it’s kinda like those judges’ scores in Olympic ice skating. You know how they drop the highest and lowest scores?
That’s how I feel about the two of you. Cin sees Perry through rose-colored glasses, and Liz is blind to his (admittedly few) virtues.
So I just ignore you both. ;-)
How is this a "huh?" moment? What he said was perfectly clear, but I guess Kevin Hall failed most of his classes which is why he's a journalist.
Oh, Liz! Tell us how you really feel, lol!
I know, but it looks like he’s going to get the nomination. So what do we do, vote for Obama?
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Doesn't sound like something Herman would want on the bumper sticker.
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.
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 Posts 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 meanneither 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.
"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 Americas 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!"
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.
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
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.
Hell 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 Obamas 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.