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.
I predict the day after Huntsman ends his campaign, he calls a press conference to announce he is becoming a Democrat. He will instantly become the press darling McCain wanted to be, and you won’t be able to turn off the TV up till election day without seeing him bashing the Republican party for ‘cowtowing to the Tea Party.’
Perry seems to have stabilized. It may end up being Pery and Gingrich fighting for the Not Romney slot.
Cain seems to be fading.
The others need to go.
Santorum was the biggest loser when he said he would surround himself with people who thought exactly like him. Diversity in ideas allows a leader to make the strongest decisions, not yes-men.
Perry did answer smoothly, but he didn’t answer the questions. And why did he continually address his answers to Romney?
But his daughters will have been launched just like McCain's daughter. It was good to hear Huntsman's sons are serving in the U.S. Navy.
I think he's trying to copy what Romney is doing--ACT like you're the frontrunner, and that convinces people you are. So Perry is acting like it's just between him and Romney, the rest of them are just distractions.
Just a theory.
Oh, no, they’ll team up with McCain’s for something they’ll call “A Republican version of The View,” and then have the exact same opinions as the original, while telling everyone they’re ‘mavericks’ for being ‘independent.’
They’re fun to look at, though.
Because Mitt is the anti-conservative target. Gov. Perry answered questions and he added points he knew he probably wouldn't have the opportunity to address -- as it was the Mitt Romney Show.
Thanks for the posting ...When Iowa Republican’s Kevin Hall leads off with Michelle Bachmann winning the debate and Herman Cain “Without the ability to use 9-9-9 as a crutch” this review would be valueless.
Actually any of these debates monitored or hosted by “the enemy” are valueless.
I believe Santorum was drawing a distinction between his take-charge "I know this stuff" style and Cain's fallback on his ability to gather knowledgeable advisers. I believe both were ineffectual in scoring points, due to Santorum's rigid, angry delivery when he's called to comment, and by Cain's selection of a campaign guru who keeps shooting from the lip yet keeps him onboard (it leaves me with the impression that Cain doesn't want a "let-go" Mark Block talking to the media -- but doubly, how does that give one confidence in Cain's management/leadership ability?).
Perry hardly inspires voter confidence-——he careens back and forth, creating disaster after disaster. In Texas, his record is one of sheer horror:
<><> this “conservative” signed the gay-friendly hate crimes bill that GWB had vetoed (nearly costing him the presidency).
<><> blithely using govt power to take 500,000 acres of private land from trusting Texans for his Tran-Texas Corridor insider deal,
<><> his Gardasil EO fiasco which generated bigtime campaign donations from Merck,
<><> raining tax dollars on illegals, including the infamous in-state tuition,
<><> sucking up to Mexico, allowing the Mexican pledge of allegiance and singing the Mexican ntl anthm in Texas schools,
<><> sucking up to Islam; Sharia law is part of the Texas justice system and at least one triumphal mosque has been built there.
Perry is relentlessly STUPID and is trying to force his stupidity on the US. Perry’s contempt for voters and for US ntl interests is appalling-—he recently announced his INSANE plan to LEGALIZE all Illegals on US soil-—which will trigger another wave of govt-dependents to our shores.
Perry did great. He’s back. I disagree with the writer, Cain did well as the front-runner. Rick Santorum needs to stop whining.
You are the anti-Perry spammer extraordinaire Liz. Your drive by hit lists and comments are so off the wall and wrong that you have become a joke poster. Who is your candidate Liz? (I really think Liz is more likely a Larry).
The reality is that there are only three candidates in the running: Romney, Herman Cain and Gingrich. Because the author and a couple of posters include Gov. Perry, I will throw him in.
Of these candidates only one is on an upwards trajectory, the other three are on a down slope. Rick Perry is unquestionably crashing, his performance simply was not good enough to redeem him from his disintegration. Cain has fallen dramatically and, as the author points out, his performance only aggravates that trend. Mitt Romney seems to be holding his own but that is only because his former rivals have failed so dramatically and his standing looks improved on a relative basis.
Only Gingrich is on the upswing and his improvement is absolute not just relative. He augmented his positive trend in this debate as he has in every debate.
If Newt can withstand the onslaught which will come not just from the left but from here on FreeRepublic as well, he will be well on his way to the nomination. Now that he is the front runner from a momentum point of view, he will of course become the target du jour. I cannot conceive of a candidate better able to cope with what is to come and it is well that he is because he will have much to respond to. It will take a full-time scorekeeper just to sort out the baggage which is real and that which is urban legend.
If Gingrich has the stuff, and I think he does, he will inoculate himself now for the campaign.
We shall see.
Once it switched to stream, I could not hear what Perry (or anybody) was trying to say but when it switched back to Romney, I heard every word crystal clear. That was RIGGED.
The MSM and his opposition's full court press to paint Gov. Perry as mean, stupid and anti-American has been defeated.
Note that every hem and haw is written down. (Would they do that with Obama? I think not.)
You are accusing others of “spamming” this forum? Geez! That is not calling the kettle just black, but jet black!
That's not just a theory.......
CASE IN POINT Perry did not officially enter the Iowa caucus---he cunningly manipulated the vote from Texas. That was supposed to take him over the top as he announced his candidacy the day of the vote........stomping allover the winners who spent time and money there.
Perry's sub rosa plan was supposed to take him over the top---instead he got a pathetic 700 write-ins---the winners got 4000 votes.
But there he was posing for pics, giving the victory sign under Iowa banners. He actually became the front-runner for awhile until voters saw the craggy-faced Marlboro Man's debate flops.
Perry has at least three PACs (that we know of) teeming with millions of dollars (he did not spend a penny in Iowa).
Once in the 2012 race, Perry announced he had "raised" $17 million---another of Perry's self-serving ploys to advance his ambitions.
The guy has "phony" written all over him.
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.
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.