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.
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?
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.
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...
One might start by taking her own advice.
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.