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.
That's a pretty rough country when it comes to politics. Folks wandering the streets with RPGs strapped to their backs. Assassination is an ever present danger for every rich guy or politician.
Yemen is NOT a model democracy and never will be.
CAin has no depth. He is clearly winging it, and probably suprised more than anyone that he’s come this far.
Many of here on FR like the man, but please let’s get real. He’s be good in any admin, maybe the VP. But he is not the best out there.
Romney did quite well again. He has considerable energy, whereas Newt comes across at times as a good laxative. I mean he more the statesman than an energetic leader.
Right now a great ticket would be Romney/Gingrich IMHO
I will for sure be getting the onslaught from the Romney haters in T minus ten minutes....
Mine is that Perry has been all along Romney's stalking horse ~ and he still is.
His job is to help make Mitt look Presidential, and smart. Of course Rick has succeeded in making all the others look really smart but that's just Rick eh!
Yep! I saw that wink, too!
Cain doesn’t have foreign policy experience. Neither did Barack Obama.
He can hardly mess things up worse.
As for Romney, your pimping him won’t win you any friends on this forum.
Seeing the self-serving Perry depicted as a “Good Ole Boy” is getting tiresome.
Perry has taken the truism “self-serving pol” to a new level of crassness. Perry has been labeled “the human price tag” for using Texas govt to enrich humself-—one of his campaign donors even got his own regulatory agency——for a price.
If the Perry-pimponistas can’t stand the heat-—they should get out of the kitchen.
You and I have been on this forum a long time. I think without checking, this would be our forth election together.
I agree with what you say. My only thought is what I posted a few moments ago. Romney has energy. He’s a young man. What he says is spot on regarding dismantling the huge bureaucracy of cushy gov’t jobs.
I think he will be a good president, maybe a great one.
Newt in my mind, can hold his own with anyone.
Right now, my ticket is Romney/Gingrich
That dog won't hunt. Never did.
There’s not much to look at in this field. None of them are heavyweights.
Slick Willard may not wow the conservatives but he can wait until the open primaries to win. McInsane followed the same strategy in 2008 and wrapped up the nomination.
I do believe Perry and all the other candidates have their own websites that they own and where they control the content. People can go there to see what any particular candidate says he believes in.
Not from me—excellent analysis, even though I do not like Romney at all (I live in Boston).
If Romney had his own flair but Gingrich’s intellect and Cain’s conservatism, we’d have something. But we don’t have that.
I believe Romney will be the nominee, and I will vote for him. Whatever the flamers say, he isn’t stupid. It’s just that he has a spine of Jell-O. Here in Massachusetts, he was proudly for gun control...and then he wasn’t. He was proudly pro-abortion...and then he wasn’t. Gay marriage?
I don’t think he’s dumb, I don’t think he’s evil, but I don’t think he is anything but yet another country clubber who believes in ‘managing’ the country. I do think he might be better on the economy, which we need, but that’s a faint hope, and on other things that are important to me, he isn’t the dynamic, powerful force we need to turn things back after Obama.
I usually don’t even care about things like that last point, but there are times when a country doesn’t need just a president, but someone with a strong, different vision and the ability to articulate it and carry it out. Romney’s not that by a mile. But then, none of these people running, and none of those who might have run, is that person.
We don’t need messiahs or celebrities in the White House, but we don’t need the vacuum with a haircut that is Romney. And this is who I’ll end up having to vote for.
What's the matter Larry, can't hold your own after you throw out insults? Always needing to pull in your FR anti-Perry hit-squad to pile on the bs? You all have become predictable. Yawn.
So the OP is simply propaganda?
Not sure I understand your post. If you look back, you’ll see I’m no Perry supporter. Just ask the #1 Perry supporter on the site, she’ll tell you.
Most people on here will do their darnedest to keep him from being nominated and if he wins it anyway, they will sit out the election. They detest him that much not to do anything to help him defeat Obama. 75% of Republicans don’t want the man. But Slick Willard insists on imposing himself on the party because its “his turn” now.
Hey look, I’m now considered a Perry pimp!
I guess all your postings have worked.
Though I wish someone told ME, then I wouldn’t have posted all of my reservations about him... ;)
Well it seemed like a gratuitous slam against Cain.
Unless we were watching different debates.
Cain did well.
Too many Republicans have no idea what that means ~ in fact, the problem is currently at serious disease stage in the leadership ranks.
We won an historic election last year that turned back decades of Democrat corruption at the state level, and we retook the House!
Irrespective of whether you think he did a good job at it or not, he was there when we won but the top dogs decided they no longer liked Mike Steele and they instead wanted Preibus.
As I predicted Preibus would be the captive of the old money classes and would be ineffective. You'll notice that this latest election this year was not the sweeping victory we had last year. Not that we ran out of targets, but somebody at the top ran out of gas. They just stood there and let the Democrats dominate the discussion.
That's not how a winner does things ~
Cain is used to winning. Gingrich certainly relished the idea and took back the House after half a century of Democrat abuse of power.
But the others? Are they winners, or cavers?
Can we get a new RNC Chairman who cares about winning?
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.