CBS News/NJ GOP debate: Winners and losers
AFP/Getty Images
The CBS News/National Journal debate Saturday night was the first to focus on foreign policy, and it generated fewer fireworks - but more substance - than many of its predecessors. For that reason we aren't going to simply list winners and losers this time around and instead discuss the candidates' performances - though we're still putting those we thought did best at the top.
Special Report: The CBS News/National Journal Debate
Mitt Romney: Romney has been better than his rivals in presidential debates so often that it's gotten to the point where a strong performance - as he had in this debate - feels almost ho-hum. Romney managed to be hawkish on issues like Iran while also leaving himself a little breathing room, playing to a Republican base that still views him skeptically.
And despite being widely seen as the frontrunner for the nomination, Romney didn't take any serious blows from his rivals. (Gingrich notably declined to elaborate on his not-so-veiled criticism of Romney as little more than a competent manager who wouldn't change Washington.) Romney's only cause for concern: If he's supposed to be the man to beat, why aren't his rivals more eager to take him down?
Romney, Gingrich at GOP debate: We'd go to war to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons
Watch the full debate at left.Newt Gingrich: For one of the most substantive debates of the campaign, Gingrich's depth and command of the issues allowed the former speaker to shine. Gingrich has been accused of scowling in prior debates, but his demeanor Saturday was markedly friendlier. And he scored points with conservatives in responding to a question from debate co-host CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, who pointed out that al Qaeda recruiter and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by U.S. forces without trial, was not convicted in court. You don't get such privileges if you are at war with the United States, Gingrich said. He also offered more red meat to conservative base, who are looking for a consensus non-Romney candidate, when he said he would be willing to attack Iran to prevent the oil rich nation from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Gingrich, Romney back Obama killing American accused of turning on U.S.
Ron Paul: Paul is able to provide the biggest contrast with his rivals when he discusses his opposition to U.S. military intervention abroad and what he sees as civil liberties violations against U.S. citizens, and this debate gave him a chance to hit those notes repeatedly. Paul was passionate about issues like his opposition to waterboarding: "It's illegal under international law and under our law," he said. He also called it "immoral," as well as the U.S. government killing U.S. citizens who are suspected of terrorism, saying, "I don't think we should give up so easily on our rule of law."
The polls suggest Paul's brand of hardcore libertarianism has a limited appeal with GOP primary voters, and he remains a serious longshot for the Republican presidential nomination. But his goal is also to get his ideas into the public sphere, and on that front this debate was an unqualified success for him.
Perry: My foreign aid budget starts at zero
Rick Perry: By all measures, Perry exceeded expectations. He touted his military service and spoke passionately on counter-terrorism in way that would appeal to foreign policy hawks. And perhaps even more importantly, his performance was free of the gaffes that he's become known for in debates.
He may have walked into a trap, however, when he answered a follow-up question regarding his proposal to "start at zero" when it comes to foreign aid. When asked via question about whether that policy would apply to Israel, Perry said "yes," although he quickly confirmed his belief that Israel is a critical ally. The response could still prove risky for a Republican candidate when the GOP base so intensely supports Israel. Furthermore, commentators pointed out the U.S. has a 10-year agreement to provide Israel with about $30 billion for security assistance.
Michele Bachmann: Bachmann came to the debate prepared. She sounded well-versed on the ongoing war in Afghanistan and gave specific responses with respect to how she'd handle the war. She was quick to respond to Perry's "start at zero" foreign policy, pointing out that applying that policy to a state like Pakistan -- an unstable country with nuclear capability -- could be risky.
One instance in which Bachmann's performance faltered was during a debate over assassinating an American citizen living abroad who's engaged in terrorism. The congresswoman seemed to miss the point of the question and said she approved of the order to kill Osama bin Laden - who was not, of course, an American citizen.
Transcript of the debate
Fact checking the debate
Rick Santorum: Santorum didn't get as many questions as the more popular candidates in the polls, but when he did get a chance to talk, his remarks sounded thoughtful and measured. Presented with a hypothetical scenario of nuclear weapons from Pakistan going missing, the former senator insisted the U.S. would have to cooperate with the country. And while Santorum took an aggressive stance on the issue of Iran attempting to acquire nuclear capabilities, he was able to cite his history of working on the issue in Congress -- an advantage over the other candidates.
Jon Huntsman: The former ambassador to China didn't get to say much, but when he did he was able to articulate his vision clearly. Unfortunately for Huntsman, that may not matter for a candidate who is consistently at the bottom in polls of the GOP contenders. For the candidates less favored by GOP primary voters, breaking through to get airtime is always a challenge, and it was no different for Huntsman.
Herman Cain: Cain came into this debate having shown almost no knowledge on foreign policy issues, and the fact that he got through all 90 minutes without any serious gaffes has to be considered something of an accomplishment. But Cain also failed to put to rest concerns that he doesn't have the knowledge to lead on the international stage, often offering vague and unspecific responses when pressed on details. The good news for the former Godfather's Pizza CEO is that the election is almost certainly going to be decided on the economy, an area where he has shown himself to be far more convincing.
Analysis: Cain held his own, but answers didn't show depth
GOP candidates on Pakistan: Friend or foe?
Perry: All countries start at zero foreign aid
Bachmann on increasing military spending
Cain on dealing with the Arab Spring
Post-debate analysis with CBS News political director John Dickerson
The commander-in-chief debate
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 204 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
I also don't think he realizes that if he were elected president, he would not be a monarch; he would have the legislative and judicial branches to contend with: he can't just wave a scepter and get 10,000 loyal subjects to drop their pants and strain to the utmost, because in this country, the"king's" word isn't law.
Here's a question for you. If libertarians had been in charge of the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the 1930's, how do you think America would have fared in WW2?
You can justify any policy, but by breaking the constitution and the bill of rights - you pave the way for future violations at the whim of public opinion or fear mongering. Government has a long history of being tyrannical when unchecked, it serves no purpose other than to maintain order - but government always attempts to grow itself...The bigger the government, the less rights you receive. The more regulations for your protection; the less safe you become.
Ron Paul, of course would not be a monarch, - nor would he use the dangerous power of passing laws via executive legislation - a gross violation of the constitution. He could however:
Bring the troops home
End Federal Agencies
Veto Bills that either are unconstitutional (like the patriot act) or bills that spend to much money or bailout banks/corporations and commit the abundant crony capitalism which goes on in this country.
He could also, strongly push to audit the federal reserve and educate the public on the dangers of fiat currency (currency that is not backed by gold) - which - has led to inflation, unemployment and the destruction of the middle class. The richest 1% in this country have never been wealthier.
To answer your question on the 1930's. Roosevelt's new deal failed to fix the economy at all. In fact, inflation and unemployment never changed regardless of all the programs and Roosevelt's attempt to pact the courts. In 1933, he also forced American citizens to turn in all their gold for reserve notes.
Only after WW2, did our economy recover. For the most part because we won the war, brought the troops home, needed to rebuild europe through production, and lowered taxes. Go look up the stats for yourself if you are unsure.
One thing though is, in ww1 and ww2, we were quite isolationist and/or defensive in our military policy. Ultimately, the fact that we were not spread to thin, that we did not rush into wars or attempt to be the worlds police - allowed us to be the Mariano Rivera of countries and close the game. How much more effective would we be as a country right now, how much money would be saved, how much safer would we be, how many lives would be out of harms way - if we went back to that strategy or strong defense but end our militarism abroad....Ron Paul is the only candidate who sees that our military policies over the past 60 years have failed and that is why he receives the most military campaign contributions then Obama and the rest of the other repub candidates combined.
You can disagree with his policies, but your opinion cannot change the fact that big government is leading us to bankruptcy, both moral and economical. Without real, tangible change - things will not improve. How do you create change: You follow the law of the land - the constitution and the bill of rights. It's pretty simple, but we live in a time of faith and fear - not reason.
"Limited appeal to GOP voters" you say ??
Rediculous!
CPAC, Phoenix Tea Party, Sacramento RLC, New Orleans RLC, Clay County Iowa, NH Young Republicans, Cincinnati Tea Party, California, Values Voter, RPLAC, Charleston County, Columbus, Des Moines Tally 1, Des Moines Tally 2, and Illinois, San Diego.
You claim he is a long shot, well the voting in the straw polls says otherwise... I can't wait to see you eat crow when Ron Paul places in the top three, or even may WIN IOWA!
An unqualified success? How the hell is Ron Paul supposed to "get his ideas into the public sphere" when he (and several other candidates) only get 89 seconds to speak in the debate!???
For Christsakes CBS I thought you knew how to run a dignified debate.
You disgust me.
CBS...LOSER, LOSER LOSER!
But the biggest loser in the debate was CBS, National Journal& the debate format. CBS & NJ, what are you thinking hosting a debate on a Saturday Night and allowing your affiliates to break away to College Football.
And the format...8 people are too many. If you want all 8, break it up into 2 one hoour debates, each with 4 candidates. Regardless of whether you like them or not, neither Bachman or Paul really got a chance to speak. And for the past few debates, Santorum & Huntsman have barely had a chance to speak. I know, they are focusing on the "front-runners", but shouldn't they give all candidates equal time and let the primary voters decide who the front runner should be?
And finally, candidates...start challenging each other. Geez.
Really CBS? Your poll showed Mr. Paul winning, that is until you shut it down. Furthermore, intentionally rigging the program to limit certain candidates speaking time is irresponsible, immoral and could border on illegal. So much for neutralality in the media and "reporting" the news rather than "fixing" it to accomodate your desired outcome. Absolutely disgusted with CBS and the corporate media.