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 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.