South Carolina debate wrap

posted at 10:30 am on November 13, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

As it turns out, Ed didn’t get to watch the debate last night, being busy amusing the #OccupyDenver rioters guests, so we missed out on his normal, pithy analysis. I did get the pleasure of watching it, however, and with a few notable sour notes, I’m certainly glad that I did. The short lede here is that even with the aforementioned glitches, this was quite possibly the best debate of the series thus far, with almost all of the candidates exceeding expectations and the moderators (mostly) providing excellent topics for discussion.

Before getting to the contenders, though, it should be noted that the big loser of the night still had to be CBS. It was a good series of topics and Major Garrett did a very competent job in pitching questions, but as Mark Thiessen pointed out, Scott Pelley was out of his league and did a terrible job, and truly embarrassed himself when he tried to challenge Newt Gingrich on matters of the law. But even Pelley’s failures paled in comparison to the Tiffany Network’s baffling decision to schedule a ninety minute debate and then only broadcast the first sixty minutes of it so they could cut away to a re-run of NCIS in many markets. (People out west apparently got to see the entire thing, but the east coast lost the feed and had to go to one of two online feeds to watch, both of which were immediately swamped and delivered a technically unusable webcast.)

Really smart, guys.

As far as the candidates themselves go, as I mentioned earlier, it was largely a terrific performance. I joined in with the usual list of suspects tweeting up a storm, and for once I found myself saying almost entirely positive things and showering compliments on the contenders rather than smashing my head into my keyboard and contracting alcohol poisoning from the Flubbed Answer Drinking Game. (As was the case in too many of the earlier ones.) Here’s a hopefully brief breakdown of how I rated them, in no particular order.

Mitt Romney: I almost get tired of saying this, but Mitt was once again just being Mitt. He’s very good in a standard debate format and he once again avoided any seriously embarrassing gaffes. He went a bit further at one point, giving what I felt was an excellent answer on dealing with China in terms of both trade and military considerations. Another solid, if not terribly exciting showing by Romney, where he might not have managed to suddenly win over the hearts and minds of the conservative base, but he certainly didn’t hurt his cause.

Rick Perry: This was the surprise showing of the night for me. Every time I’m ready to write the Perry campaign off as road kill on the political highway, he turns around and upsets the apple cart. He not only handled his “oops moment” flub from Wednesday with style, but incorporated it into this debate in a way which made him seem funny, grounded and in touch with the voters. He scored huge points early on when discussing foreign aid, proposing a “start with zero” theory, where America would judge each case individually before agreeing to pay the first penny to other countries. A few people took that as a questionable answer, focusing more on the budget, but the moderators brought the subject up in terms of foreign relations, so it was definitely applicable and expertly explained. He had plenty of other zingers, memorable quotes and solid answers. No doubt about it, this was Rick Perry’s best debate of the entire series and he may be on the road to recovery from earlier stumbles.

Herman Cain: To be kind, as we were discussing the debate after it finished, one friend asked me if Cain hadn’t performed better than I had expected. I had to admit that he did, with the caveat that the alternative would have been pretty much impossible. Cain came off better on some answers than I would have expected, but still had a number of questions where he seemed to get that deer in the headlights look and fall back on generalities. He also went to the, “I’ll ask my best advisers, generals, etc.” far too often, causing me to ask, “How many questions can Herman Cain answer by saying he’ll ask somebody else? Why not just ask Newt now, Herman?” All in all, Cain managed to surprise everyone by not entirely shooting himself in the foot, but it was far from a sparkling performance on foreign policy.

Newt Gingrich: For the most part, Newt put on a textbook display of how to dominate a crowded debate setting. Some may feel that he went a bit overboard in attacking the moderators, but that’s his style and the audience ate it up. As usual, Newt was pitch perfect on knowing policy and his answers showed that. Another exceptionally strong showing for Gingrich, and if his star is truly rising as the next “Anti-Romney” he certainly continued to help his cause last night.

Jon Huntsman: Given my own views on foreign policy, it’s obvious that I’d have a bit of a soft spot for Huntsman on this subject, but even given that predisposition, Huntsman raised the bar last night. He unfortunately will never be a sparkling speaker or one who gets the crowd up on their feet, but he was the most educated one on the stage, popping off the names of every player on the international stage like it was second nature to him. Obviously, some of his proposed policies won’t sit well with the conservative base, and I don’t expect everyone to suddenly flock to him after that performance, but he excels on foreign policy and it showed last night.

Michele Bachmann: She got almost no questions, (and we’ll have more later today on precisely why she had a valid complaint on that score) but the ones she did get she handled well. I don’t agree with her on some of these positions, but she was focused and very crisp in her answers. Her experience from her spot on the intelligence committee served her well. She didn’t deliver anything that’s going to launch her out of single digits as far as I could tell, but she handled herself very well last night.

Ron Paul: I have nothing to add to my previous reviews. Paul was Paul, steady, unchanging, on message, and not likely to break into frontrunner status any time soon.

Rick Santorum: Continued whining about not getting enough face time. Took some more extreme positions on foreign policy than the others and was the first to invoke Israel to get a round of applause. Seemed a bit out of his depth on answers about how to deal with the duplicity of Pakistan as they affect our relations with Afghanistan. Other than that, he was mostly a non-entity in this debate.

Conclusions: As I said, one of the best debates yet, even with all the technical problems and the efforts by CBS to shoot themselves in the foot. Lots of good performances and after a night to sleep on it, I still can’t say there is one clear winner. I will award this one as a tie between Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for the win. Romney stays pretty much where he was. I have no idea what, if anything this does to Cain, (since he’s apparently made of Teflon) but I don’t see how this helped him with anyone who wasn’t already firmly in his camp. The rest of the field didn’t do enough to break out of their current positions.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Well, people here really have short memory. If Newt becomes the nominee- he will be eaten by the msm alive. Obowma will just have to recall the big government stints of Newt as House Speaker in the past. There are many. Newt cannot challenge Obowma. HE HAD ALSO DONE WHAT OBAMA IS CURRENTLY DOING, although in medium scale only.

BY THE WAY, HOW MUCH DID NEWT EARN FROM GLOBAL WARMING WHEN IT WAS A HOT COMMODITY?

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I challenge you to a butterfly-ballot duel.

The one with the most votes for Pat Buchanan loses. Except I get to accuse Perry of setting up roadblocks because Cain is not a liberal.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Oops!
Thought myself into pretzel logic!
Gas jets will have to go without.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

What makes you think that Obama will win? Why are you so confident when you KNOW what is coming? Do tell.

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 PM

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Catch your breath bro, Newt will destroy obambi everytime they debate. His message will resound with the people of this country and his message will be understood. Not like obambi’s flowery talk or class warfare.

VegasRick on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 PM

We are electing an executive. Cain has the most private-sector experience of anyone on that stage. Given that we have pressing economic issues on which 0bama is flailing, then Cain’s private-sector experience must be fairly weighed against Perry and Romney’s experience, and Cain cannot be dismissed.

I guess I missed it, but I have not heard anything about Perry’s private-sector executive experience.

Did he ever run a company? Or did he pretty much go straight into government?

Honest question.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM

We are electing an executive. Cain has the most private-sector experience of anyone on that stage. Given that we have pressing economic issues on which 0bama is flailing, then Cain’s private-sector experience must be fairly weighed against Perry and Romney’s experience, and Cain cannot be dismissed.

I guess I missed it, but I have not heard anything about Perry’s private-sector executive experience.

Did he ever run a company? Or did he pretty much go straight into government?

Honest question.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Perry pretty much Gov’t after the military…

I would stack Romney’s private sector experience against Cain’s any day though, caneloader. :o)

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I would stack Romney’s private sector experience against Cain’s any day though, caneloader. :o)

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I like the breadth of Cain’s private-sector experience. From reforming Pillsbury and Godfather’s from the ground up, including cleaning toilets, to being on the board of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, to running an umbrella association such as the NRA, he’s seen business from a lot of different angles of complexity.

Romney’s experience is more singular – that of a CEO of a company.

I might argue that Cain’s private-sector experience, in its breadth, is greater than Romney’s.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Given the degree of the financial mess we have, I would say that Perry has the least private-sector experience of the trio of Perry, Romney, Cain, and that that puts him behind Romney and Cain in that category.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Honest question.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Running a ranch in west Texas hardpan is no walk in the park.

The decisions being made by those folks today is every bit as difficult as those being made in board rooms in big cities. You just don’t get to go to fancy lunches and dinner parties though.

Been in both situations.

cozmo on November 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Newt and Bachmann dominated the debate last night. Romney too if you can believe somebody who wants to be President so bad he’ll say anything. Santorum did very well too.

Perry improved somewhat over previous performances while Cain had his worst debate by far but didn’t exactly stumble that I recall. Foreign policy is not their thing.

Being on a Saturday night and only partially televised I’d guess the viewership was way down so I’m not sure how much it matters.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Trying to be fair, so please don’t flame me, Perry supporters, here is Perry’s career arc:

Bad grades in college except for “World Militaries.”

Goes into the military.

Goes into government.

Learns the political ins and outs of running one specific state.

I’m not going to go South Park here, because I’m not trying to engage in hyperbole, but can Perry supporters give me more specifics on why Perry’s career arc then goes to the presidency?

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Rick Perry’s Dangerous Israel Gaffe

“Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal to start each year with zero dollars in foreign aid allocated for Israel and all other countries would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security. Perry’s idea is bad news for Israel and shows how little he understands its needs.”

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I’ve said this before, but I’d like to hear more about Perry’s come-to-Jesus moment where he decided that anything but learning about military history matters.

It had to have happened during/after his military stint.

What got Perry into politics?

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:42 PM

By the way, I don’t mind Perry’s “start at zero” idea. I don’t like the fact that other countries plan their budgets on assured U.S. aid. If they do, and that includes Israel, then that’s their own fault. Perry’s OK on this, as far as I’m concerned, and I won’t slam him.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM

I won’t vote if Romney is the nominee. A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama and a vote for the continuous corruption that has infested our Nation. Perry or Cain. If the MSM forces Romney on us then let BHO get his second term.

We’re prepared for that.

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM

It’s idiotic thinking like that that got us BHO 1.0. Oh, all the REAL conservatives couldn’t stand McCain, so they stayed home, that’ll teach the Republican Party a lesson! And it did. It taught us about (1) Obamacare, (2) Solyndra, (3) Walpingate, (4) Siga, (5) The Great Apology Tour, (6) the Islamic Brotherhood running Egypt, (7) the loss of Iraq, (8) high-speed rail to nowhere, (9) a US-free Gulf Oil non-industry, (10) Fast & Furious, (11) 6 TRILLION dollars in new debt in three years,… shall I go on?

Not to forget those grand jurists, Sotomayor and Kagan. A stupid Presidential choice lasts a term. A stupid SCOTUS placement lasts a generation. A stupid SCOTUS decision can last a century, and can kill (at last count) 53 Million people.

President Romney may or may not succeed in preventing Iran from getting atomic weapons. President Obama CERTAINLY won’t even try.

Not to mention four more years with Eric Holder as Attorney General. The BHO administration does not believe in the rule of law. And remember, as Stalin said, it isn’t who votes, it’s who counts the votes. Do you trust Eric Holder to ensure fair elections in America?

Don’t be fatuous. You are NOT prepared for a second Obama term. And the rest of us don’t DESERVE to have you inflict a second Obama term on us.

Zumkopf on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Get ready to have your a$$ handed to you by Schadenfreude for parroting liberal talking points.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Not to mention four more years with Eric Holder as Attorney General. The BHO administration does not believe in the rule of law.

Zumkopf on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Holder should not be allowed to continue. The GOP has all they need to demand that he be removed. If they don’t then they have let the country down.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Romney’s experience is more singular – that of a CEO of a company.

I might argue that Cain’s private-sector experience, in its breadth, is greater than Romney’s.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM

That is impressive of Cain and admirable. Again though the media has done a good job of painting Romney as some executive in a suit that never was in the ditches. This is false. Whether it was Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Sports Authority, etc he was stocking the shelves when Staples was a little start up company and out on the streets generating business to get people to come to a store to buy their office supplies…He did the same with each of these other businesses where he put in A LOT of sweat equity.

“if you asked a small-business manager how much he spent on office supplies, he would give you a low estimate and tell you it wasn’t worth it to send someone in a car to buy them. But if you asked the bookkeepers, you got a far higher number, about five times as much—high enough, Romney and Stemberg thought, to get them to come to the store. The idea became Staples. Romney’s Bain Capital colleagues were soon helping to select a cheaper, more efficient computer system for the first store; they were helping stock the shelves themselves. As Staples succeeded, and began to expand, they looked at analytics for everything—the small-business population around a proposed store site, traffic flow—and gamed out exactly how big a customer would need to be before it demanded delivery. Romney sat on the Staples board for years, and his company made nearly seven times what it invested in the start-up.”

Also:
“Romney and his team did this sort of thing again and again, sometimes in venture¬-capital deals but more often through buyouts—Brookstone, Domino’s, Sealy, Duane Reade. In their more complex deals, they couldn’t rely on their own team to seek out every inefficiency. They needed a more powerful lever, and they turned to the solution Jensen and Meckling had begun to explore a decade earlier: offering CEOs large equity stakes in the company in the form of stock or stock options. This was a relatively new idea, mostly untried in American business.”

“In 1986, Bain Capital bought a struggling division of Firestone that made truck wheels and rims and renamed it ¬Accuride. Bain took a group of managers whose previous average income had been below $100,000 and gave them performance incentives. This type and degree of management compensation was also unusual, but here it led to startling results: ¬According to an account written by a Bain & Company fellow, the managers quickly helped to reorganize two plants, consolidating operations—which meant, inevitably, the shedding of unproductive labor—and when the company grew in efficiency, these managers made $18 million in shared earnings.”

Some on here make him out to be a silver spoon rich kid and had everything given to him. He did grow up for a time in a wealthy family BUT that did not give him his education and smarts that he has today and graduating in the top 5% at Harvard in Business and Law AT THE SAME TIME!

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Clinton’s use of Janet Reno to cover up his crimes wash reprehensible. The refusal of the GOP to demand her removal was equally so. 0bama is using Holder in the same way. The GOP must, and I mean MUST, break this recent precedent. The executive branch may not use the top law-enforcement officer in the land to cover up its own crimes.

This is tyranny, plain and simple.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Get ready to have your a$$ handed to you by Schadenfreude for parroting liberal talking points.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Eh, since it was the Perry campaign that went into damage control mode on this I’m not sure how anyone could blame anyone other than Perry for his Israel gaffe.

Besides, the article make some points that are all but impossible to deny in their reality.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I’m not knocking Romney’s experience. I am saying that Cain’s can stand right up to it.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Romney too if you can believe somebody who wants to be President so bad he’ll say anything.
FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Why cannot it be that he is just well versed in what needs to be done and a good debater?

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM

I won’t vote if Romney is the nominee. A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama and a vote for the continuous corruption that has infested our Nation. Perry or Cain. If the MSM forces Romney on us then let BHO get his second term.

We’re prepared for that.

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Dang, I accidentally hit submit again instead of quote…. Response forthcoming.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I’m not knocking Romney’s experience. I am saying that Cain’s can stand right up to it.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 12:53 PM

That’s fair, caneloader! I agree.

One thing as you notice with Romney from my earlier post on his past experience, it shows you what he did with those other businesses and what he’ll do with the economy and budget and rip it open and see what works and what doesn’t and get America back to work again and a smooth running machine. In this area there is no equal on the stage with him. He has done it with those businesses I listed and he did the same thing to the 2002 Olympics (the only one to be profitable) and with the MA economy…starting with a 3BN deficit and leaving a 2BN gain on the way out.

Advantage: Romney

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Good nite all from Afghanistan!

Time to go watch the Cowboys!

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I won’t be voting for Romney either but I think Newt and Bachmann are far better candidates than Perry or Cain.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Why cannot it be that he is just well versed in what needs to be done and a good debater?

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Oh, he is, but he’s also a fraud who will say anything to get elected, and what is popular this week won’t necessarily be popular next and so even if you and others feel kinship with Romney now, you will most likely be disappointed in the future because Romney is just a power hungry politician.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Go Saints!

Off to watch the game

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM

a power hungry politician.
FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Redundant term.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Eh, since it was the Perry campaign that went into damage control mode on this I’m not sure how anyone could blame anyone other than Perry for his Israel gaffe.

Besides, the article make some points that are all but impossible to deny in their reality.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:53 PM

No kidding. That’s a fair article you posted and there is nothing to refute in it. I have no idea where that outburst came from last night, but we’re “lost” and incapable of thinking for ourselves or something like that.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM

How can Newt accuse OBOWMA of anything without giving the dirtiest president an opening to accuse him back of his own misproprieties, being the only speaker with more than 80 ethics charges and the only speaker found guilty of one ethics charge (other charges were dropped because the republican majority at that time were sympathetic of him although they urged him later to resign … too late they were voted out in the next midterm election)?

Thus, it was because of Newt why the GOP lost the house in 1998. The weak GOP at that time was also the reason why they couldn’t impeach Clinton, thanks to Newt.

By the way, I’m not yet talking of Newt’s personal issues. With Newt, GOP will hugely lose the already dwindling women’s votes. But what is new with that?

Plus, Newt has many other skeletons in his closet.

BWAHAHA!

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Israel should NOT need to present Perry with any evidence about their need for foreign aid. That was a disastrous answer.

Israel has needed our help since 1948. That isn’t going to change.

knob on November 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Conservatives didn’t stay home in large numbers when McCain was the nominee. They complained a lot and voted for him.

The same won’t be true in 2012 if Romney is the nominee. Conservatives and conservative/libertarian voters, like me, will stay home.

If Mitt is the GOP nominee, Obama will win.

Bugler on November 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

No kidding. That’s a fair article you posted and there is nothing to refute in it. I have no idea where that outburst came from last night, but we’re “lost” and incapable of thinking for ourselves or something like that.
Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Yup, it outlines the impracticability of Perry’s boneheaded “apples are oranges” Israel flub well.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Perry – He scored huge points early on when discussing foreign aid, proposing a “start with zero” theory,

Perry didn’t answer the question, then jumped in with this preplanned line. It was hokey. Sorry. I was not impressed.

faraway on November 13, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Cain was totally lost all night. He had no idea what was going on.

faraway on November 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM

The only people giving thoughtful, serious answers in the debate last night were Bachmann, Romney, and Newt.

Plus, every time I listen to Ron Paul I seriously have to rethink my position on an issue. He’s still a nut though.

faraway on November 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Jazz, I wrote here that Cain had one major gaffe that people are overlooking. Taking the military option off the table with regards to Iran on national TV isn’t too bright.

LFRGary on November 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Since we didn’t get a thread on this…….here’s what Pants Crease Brooks said…..

The topsy-turvy nature of the 2012 race for the Republican nomination suggests that a lack of cash isn’t the kind pf impediment for a candidate that once was. And New York Times columnist David Brooks says that could have left the door open for anyone — including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had he decided to run. On Friday’s “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” on PBS, Brooks said the younger Bush would be be up in the polls, despite his family link with former President George W. Bush.

I still basically think there’s one real candidate, and that’s Mitt Romney,” Brooks said. “But suppose there were two. Suppose Jeb Bush had decided to get in the race? Everybody said, ‘Oh, you can’t do it. You’re Jeb Bush. Your last name is Bush.’

But if Jeb Bush were in the race right now, I think he would be the front-runner, even regardless of the name.”

A Jeb Bush candidacy according to Brooks would satisfy the “serious establishment types” and the “more conservative types” at the same time.

more conservative types“…

…he means you yokels out there between the coasts.

PappyD61 on November 13, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m a Cain supporter and I agree with what you’ve said. I really don’t want Romney. I love The Newt but honestly, with the MSM in full attack mode, would there even be a chance?
Cain? Get your act together.

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I’m a Perry supporter and I think we have to do some thinking over the next month.. If we really don’t want Romney we have to pick from the currently viable conservatives- Cain, Perry, and Gingrich.

I happen to think Cain is done and his support will fall off to put him near Perry. If that is the case then we might just have to hold our noses and support Gingrich. I don’t think we should throw our support away on Cain or Perry if they are stuck down in the polls because that only helps Romney.

Bill C on November 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM

It’s one thing to cite Obama’s failed policy toward Iran; it’s another to promise that Iran won’t get nukes! Think Mittens set himself up for a big fall! Israel taking out Iran’s nuclear program won’t count for a victory on that score by Mittens.

Bob in VA on November 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Since we didn’t get a thread on this…….here’s what Pants Crease Brooks said…..
PappyD61 on November 13, 2011 at 1:33 PM

It’s up in the headlines.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Non-Romney was the clear debate winner, which is starting to be a little disturbing. All of the sparkling moments came from non-Romney.

Gingrich was in his element, and excellent again, but he is really running to replace Kathleen Sibelius and not the Won. If you asked him privately whether his two decades of controversy can be overcome in time to be a great general election candidate, I’ll bet you he would laugh and say, “Of course not!”.

Perry was excellent but I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it would take a political miracle for him to get any traction in the time remaining to his campaign.

Bachman, whom I’ve always thought too shrill, was outstanding in the few moments she was given to speak– I agree with Jazz that her Intelligence Committee experience showed to great advantage.

Huntsman was again what he is, a bored rich boy with a superficial understanding of many topics and a desperate desire to be liked. Notwithstanding his very unattractive persona, even he was passably good.

Romney got a gentlemens B-. He knew his material, he was even able to weave a believable narrative on China from his studies, but his relatively lackluster energy level and general lack of charisma held him back. Again. This is disturbing because I am hoping that the field will start to narrow in the not-to-distant future, so that we may start to coalesce around a candidate, but Romney just cannot actually motivate anyone else to drop their candidacy and move on with their lives. Even Santorum, who is as unlikely a candidate as could be imagined with his dour persona and whiny rising to merely middling debate style, doesn’t feel any great push to leave the field.

Romney just plain cannot put away even a single Republican, much less the incumbent Pesident. It’s hard to say, but I wish he would either take the lead or get out. It’s torture watching him just meander along like this.

MTF on November 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Romney ties with Obowma as the 2nd biggest liar, next to the Devil if there is such.

But many brush it aside by using the word flip flop. sigh!

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM

“I still basically think there’s one real candidate, and that’s Mitt Romney,” Brooks said.

Hopeless.

I’m sure it causes no end of angst to David Brooks and other intellectuals to realize that they have as much say in the ballot box as every other yokel, er, right-winger, er American citizen out there.

rrpjr on November 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Romney has a habit of, after he finishes speaking, rocking his head like a 5 year old. Very creepy.

faraway on November 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM

The same won’t be true in 2012 if Romney is the nominee. Conservatives and conservative/libertarian voters, like me, will stay home.

If Mitt is the GOP nominee, Obama will win.

Bugler on November 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

This saddens me. To sit out the 2012 election is cutting off your nose to spite your face. More than likely the next POTUS will be appointing a new Supreme Court Justice and if Obama gets a 2nd term we are screwed. It’s the big picture-The forest for the trees.

redridinghood on November 13, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Overall, the debate gave Obowma some confidence especially at foreign policy. All the candidates were generally ignorant on what’s really happening out there.

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Yup, it outlines the impracticability of Perry’s boneheaded “apples are oranges” Israel flub well.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

And oddly missing from the Jazz Shaw debate assessment.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Yeah. It’s almost like the guy in charge of Townhall was a Perry supporter.

kingsjester on November 13, 2011 at 2:00 PM

inspectorudy on November 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Good… another “let’s select the best debater as our nominee” comment. Records and ideology don’t matter.

Will you be okay with applying this same template in the general election. We will root for the best debater. So if Obama wipes the floor with either Romney or Gingrich, we choose Obama.

Are you okay with that? Because I sure am.

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Romney has a habit of, after he finishes speaking, rocking his head like a 5 year old. Very creepy.

faraway on November 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM

His body language and facial expressions are generally bizarre. Fidgety overcompensation. No sense of control or inner calm or coordination between face/body and message, though he seems to be straining to impress us that he has all these things. Turn the sound down when he is talking and watch his head movements and expressions compared to the others.

rrpjr on November 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM

“Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal to start each year with zero dollars in foreign aid allocated for Israel and all other countries would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security. Perry’s idea is bad news for Israel and shows how little he understands its needs.”

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

You are so far behind the curve on Perry re Israel that you shouldn’t even comment. Your interpretation of Perry’s comment is only to put him in the worst possible light because you’ve got nothing else.

You obviousley don’t have a candidate or you would contrast their views on Israel.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM

“Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal to start each year with zero dollars in foreign aid allocated for Israel and all other countries would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security. Perry’s idea is bad news for Israel and shows how little he understands its needs.”

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

You are so far behind the curve on Perry re Israel that you shouldn’t even comment.
Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Actually that is a quote from the article, not from a comment. You’re more than welcome to try to refute the argument against Perry’s “Israel To Zero Plan” . For example:

—–
“The reality is that military budgets are planned on multiyear cycles. Friends don’t rethink their friendships each fiscal year. The Pentagon and the IDF are tied together ’round the clock with hotlines and early-warning alert centers. I helped set up the hotline from the defense secretary’s Pentagon office to the defense minister’s Tel Aviv headquarters. It conveys the constancy and consistency of the alliance, a special relationship.
The zero-aid idea could also send the wrong message to Israel’s foes. Under the U.N. sanctions approved last year, all military aid to Iran has been halted—a total arms cutoff. That is a certainty Iran’s military has to plan on. Today they also have to plan on their enemy getting billions for years to come from America. Perry would send a different signal.”
—–

But if your experience in such endeavors says something different, I’m certainly up for hearing it.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I understand that Newt is a very flawed individual politically. To some extent, there is no doubt that he is saying what he needs to say to win the Nom. But he is the only one who inspires at this point, and whose general campaign would give America the choice of direction that she needs.

I believe Newt continues to rise, and goes on to obliterate zero in the debates.

paul1149 on November 13, 2011 at 11:13 AM

I concur. Have you read any of his books? NEWTer the commie bastiches!

Who is John Galt on November 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM

You want to be socialist? Vote Obama

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Cain is a real Black Man. He will be the one to stick it to this skinnny punk azzbiatch who succeeded in life by way of George Soros. His skoo records will be and ARE, discoverable now that he’s running for a second term.

Key West Reader on November 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM

..Jeeezus! You have been out in the sun too long..and, I’m guessing by your own admission, a socialist. (Staying home on 6 November 2012 == voting for Obama.)

The War Planner on November 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Romney has to have the lowest bar ever set going into these things.

Newsflash: He’s not the frontrunner anymore, and hasn’t been for at least a month, even as the man who is consistently beating him now has been blasted for a week with frivolous allegations. Shouldn’t that tell the commentariat something?

Treating Romney with kid gloves now is not going to help him if he somehow gets nominated. In fact it makes it worse.

As long as Romney doesn’t drool in these debates, NRO and large segments of other conservative outlets describe his milquetoast, robotic performances as “shining” when really, this is a man who – worse than not even inspiring a quarter of the electorate – causes a gag reflex in most conservatives. If Romney delivers one of these prepared remarks style debates against Obama, he will be crushed.

Romney is not even electable. You can’t get elected if you’ve never made any effort to mobilize or connect with your own base and are banking on staying in the background relying on the GOP Establishment to nominate you because, as the saying goes, “it’s his turn.”

Romney gives a lukewarm presentation. He doesn’t damage himself, but I’ve yet to remember a single thing Mitt Romney has ever said. He is a forgettable presence, and we will all suffer if the commentariat doesn’t get its act together and realize that just giving Romney a pass on being both substantive and inspiring isn’t good enough.

Romney can’t get elected based on how many “moderates” he’s supposedly going to draw in. None of those things matter if 75% of his base would rather hold their nose and vote for him than actually get out there and do ground work and door knocking for him.

BKennedy on November 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM

This is just as relevant now as it was in the last debate.

BKennedy on November 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Perry is not trying to attract policy wonks who don’t like him to begin with, he is trying to attract a typical voter. Many voters believe that we spend too much money overseas and and agree with a comment like “everyone starts from zero.” They know Israel will get all the support they need and probably 99% would approve of that.

The idea is if even Israel starts at zero then maybe we will actually be serious about cutting our support for other, les deserving nations.

The only reason someone would write an negative article on this is because they are overimpressed with themselves and/or don’t like Perry.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM

an negative

a negative

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:32 PM

The only reason someone would write an negative article on this is because they are overimpressed with themselves and/or don’t like Perry.
Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Again – what is incorrect? Refute the outcome of Perry’s plan – if you can – instead of just shooting the messenger. Here ya go:

—–
“The reality is that military budgets are planned on multiyear cycles. Friends don’t rethink their friendships each fiscal year. The Pentagon and the IDF are tied together ’round the clock with hotlines and early-warning alert centers. I helped set up the hotline from the defense secretary’s Pentagon office to the defense minister’s Tel Aviv headquarters. It conveys the constancy and consistency of the alliance, a special relationship.
The zero-aid idea could also send the wrong message to Israel’s foes. Under the U.N. sanctions approved last year, all military aid to Iran has been halted—a total arms cutoff. That is a certainty Iran’s military has to plan on. Today they also have to plan on their enemy getting billions for years to come from America. Perry would send a different signal.”
—–

The Republican Jewish Coalition also noted the gaffe with their wish that Perry’s handlers “will brief their man on 10-year Memorandum of Understanding that governs US- #Israel funding levels.”.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM

I would vote for Perry if he is the nomineee. But after 2 idiocies in debates, how can he attract the moderates?

Zero foreign aid? My Governor doesn’t know that such aid is his only foreign policy tool towards getting or maintaining allies, besides trade esp. in these troubled times. sigh!

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Again – what is incorrect? Refute the outcome of Perry’s plan – if you can – instead of just shooting the messenger. Here ya go:
whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Hello! Anything up there? Did you read what I typed? Perry’s plan? What is Perry’s plan? Is it a soundbite in a debate? Reread what I typed please.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:52 PM

…and another thing. Compare Perry’s soundbite to “OMG. Perry is going to cut of all aid to Israel.”

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Again – what is incorrect? Refute the outcome of Perry’s plan – if you can – instead of just shooting the messenger. Here ya go:
whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Perry’s plan? What is Perry’s plan? Is it a soundbite in a debate?
Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Huh? Perry’s “down to zero” announcement at the debate is even noted up top in this blog entry, in addition to being extensively covered by the news and trumpeted by his campaign. I’m not sure how anyone could have missed it.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Vince, you heard my Governor. Foreign aid to start at zero. You will be hearing more gaffes and scandals during the general election if he wins the nomination.

Goodluck! he he

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM

It’s not a gaffe per say. It’s just a flawed plan that punishes the good and the bad at the same time. It’s better to figure out who doesn’t deserve it first and cut them first, so as the rest have an incentive to straighten up without having to punish the people who have been consistently good to the US.

CrankyTRex on November 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM

It’s not a gaffe per say. It’s just a flawed plan that punishes the good and the bad at the same time. It’s better to figure out who doesn’t deserve it first and cut them first, so as the rest have an incentive to straighten up without having to punish the people who have been consistently good to the US.
CrankyTRex on November 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Yup, I’d say we already have a mighty good idea who’s for us and who’s agin us. A deep thinkin’ super-committee is really not needed on that account.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 3:18 PM

I agree with some of the posters as we are within 60 days of the first caucuses that the field should be winnowed down to Romney, Gingrich, Cain, and Perry.

Any disagreements here?

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Ron Paul would rightfully disagree here. Heck, he’s polling better than Perry in a lot of ways.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I totally agree, however, Ron Paul WILL NEVER win the Presidency because of his foreign policy views are just not reasonable.

g2825m on November 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM

And if I start spouting my opinions, I’d say Rick Perry doesn’t stand a chance of winning the primaries. You pick the top 4, if you chose to exclude the lower tier candidates.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Mitt Romney: I almost get tired of saying this, but Mitt was once again just being Mitt. He’s very good in a standard debate format and he once again avoided any seriously embarrassing gaffes. He went a bit further at one point, giving what I felt was an excellent answer on dealing with China in terms of both trade and military considerations.

And how exactly is China stealing our jobs? For someone that claims to be a disciple of Friedman (he does, right?), he sure comes off un-Friedmanesque.

Of course, those that were called on to answer about China policy don’t have the intellectual foundation to challenge Mitt here. Huntsman tried, but really didn’t leave a zinger.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM

It was pretty obvious to me that Perry set himself up with his zero-based foreign aid policy and didn’t think about Israel (and a few others) before he decided to pitch that policy position. To me that is what was enlightening about his comment. Not well thought through. He should have seen that one coming.

All countries are not equal and I would guess any American who pays attention knows this. We have allies, we have fence-sitters, we have fair-weather friends and we have enemies. They are not equal in their historical relationship with America and you don’t start off by treating them equally. Our allies ought not be required to prove their value to America with every new administration. I have no problem with an assessment of traditional allies but each country has their own self interest. The US government’s job is to find the common interest and build on that.

Texas Gal on November 13, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Huntsman raised the bar last night.

He also came off a little amateurish with his “The Youth are the Future!” chant.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Zero foreign aid? My Governor doesn’t know that such aid is his only foreign policy tool towards getting or maintaining allies, besides trade esp. in these troubled times. sigh!

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM

I have to disagree with you on this one. We cannot afford to bribe our way into having friends, and I don’t think we need to do so. There are many shared values between us and our traditional (i.e. pre-Obama) friends, who understand and will be grateful to see that we understand, that we cannot keep borrowing money and giving it away in foreign aid. As others have pointed out, we have trillions of dollars to repay before we climb back up to the position of being “broke.” We need to get started on that climb, and Perry’s position on foreign aid makes a lot of sense in this context.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 13, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Huh? Perry’s “down to zero” announcement at the debate is even noted up top in this blog entry, in addition to being extensively covered by the news and trumpeted by his campaign. I’m not sure how anyone could have missed it.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Idiot.

Vince, you heard my Governor. Foreign aid to start at zero. You will be hearing more gaffes and scandals during the general election if he wins the nomination.

Goodluck! he he

TheAlamos on November 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Bozo.

He scored huge points early on when discussing foreign aid, proposing a “start with zero” theory, where America would judge each case individually before agreeing to pay the first penny to other countries. A few people took that as a questionable answer, focusing more on the budget, but the moderators brought the subject up in terms of foreign relations, so it was definitely applicable and expertly explained.

What was noted by Jazz up top in this blog entry. I agree and note that some commenters are dishonest.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 3:32 PM

…and another thing. Compare Perry’s soundbite to “OMG. Perry is going to cut of all aid to Israel.”

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 2:56 PM

When you read a comment from someone criticizing Perry without reason:

1. Try and find out who that commenter is supporting.
2. 99% chance that it is Cain and/or Romney (to a lesser extent).
3. Ask what that person’s views are towards Palin.
4. 99% chance that the commenter is an ex-Palinista.

Behold, you have met a “bitter Palinista” now supporting Cain and/or Romney. They do not love Cain as much as they hate Perry because they’ve been made to believe by their cult that Perry kept Palin out.

Arguing points based on facts is not their forte. They hate Perry and that is all that matters to them.

Now go through the comments above and try to spot the ‘bitter Palinistas’

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Idiot.

Heartless and downright un-Christian.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM

It was pretty obvious to me that Perry set himself up with his zero-based foreign aid policy and didn’t think about Israel (and a few others) before he decided to pitch that policy position. To me that is what was enlightening about his comment. Not well thought through. He should have seen that one coming.

All countries are not equal and I would guess any American who pays attention knows this. We have allies, we have fence-sitters, we have fair-weather friends and we have enemies. They are not equal in their historical relationship with America and you don’t start off by treating them equally. Our allies ought not be required to prove their value to America with every new administration. I have no problem with an assessment of traditional allies but each country has their own self interest. The US government’s job is to find the common interest and build on that.

Texas Gal on November 13, 2011 at 3:26 PM

It was a memorized applause line/position, probably that his staff came up with. It didn’t answer the question posed of him, and you can see him pause very unnaturally a couple times as he tries to remember where to go, which I suspect was him nearly falling into the “Oops” trap again. Fortunately for him he pressed through it.

CrankyTRex on November 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Arguing points based on facts is not their forte. They hate Perry and that is all that matters to them.

Now go through the comments above and try to spot the ‘bitter Palinistas’

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 3:33 PM

This message paid for by Rick Perry for President.

Lowering the bar again I see, Perryslug.

Maybe if you all weren’t so vile in assaulting and mischaracterizing Cain I’d have some concern for your opinion.

BKennedy on November 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Arguing points based on facts is not their forte.

Ironic coming from a Perry supporter. The only solid foreign policy we got from Perry would require Israel to prove they deserved foreign aid. The rest was just rambling from a man that didn’t know what was going on.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:38 PM

So what a surprise that the rightwingers are again–still–hating on Romney. They stamp their feet like three-year-olds and whine that they won’t vote if Mitt is the nominee.

Zumkopf has written an excellent post, there’s really nothing more to add. Why worry about the extremists in the country, on both the right and left? It’s the voters in the middle who will determine Obama’s fate. Give them a candidate who comes across as unqualified (Cain), stupid (Perry), or lacking in character (Gingrich), and they’ll play it safe with the incumbent.

As is proven by the True Conservatives at HA on a daily basis, ideologues don’t have minds. Can’t change what doesn’t exist. So please, stay home, don’t vote. Sulk rather than be a responsible citizen.

One blogger is making note of these malcontents so he can slap them down when they start grousing about Obama in his second term. Good for him. Wish Ed and AP would do the same.

If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.

Meredith on November 13, 2011 at 3:38 PM

It was a memorized applause line/position

Ding, ding, ding! What we saw last night (from more than just Perry) was some rehearsal. Mitt just comes off looking smarter for whatever that’s worth.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Meredith on November 13, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Moderate Meredith likes Jazz. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

kingsjester on November 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM

60 Minutes on CBS (I know, CBS, blech!) today will have a segment on how members of Congress personally profit from its actions and knowledge — the “insider” information that is illegal for the private sector.

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s $2 million profit from a land sale just months after he quietly earmarked $207 million in federal funds to finance the Prairie Parkway is featured among other Congressional deals.

In 2010, Newt Gingrich showed up headlining a fundraiser in the fighting 14th District of Illinois to try to muscle Ethan Hastert (son of the former Speaker) into Denny’s old congressional seat. This is why I just can’t ride the new Newt wave.

Fallon on November 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Meredith on November 13, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Oh, good, a Romneybot. How is China stealing our jobs?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM

What was noted by Jazz up top in this blog entry.
Vince on November 13, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Yes, just as I explained to you – a major policy announcement – hardly a “soundbite in a debate”, as you called it, that you hadn’t heard about until just now.

Now, scroll back up and reply to what would be the disastrous real-world results of Perry’s “Israel To Zero” policy, if you can.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Heartless and downright un-Christian.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Oh please. I’ve been on here a long time and you know it takes a lot to get me to insult someone. I am a Newt supporter but I hate the bs from the anti-Perrys.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

It was a memorized applause line/position, probably that his staff came up with. It didn’t answer the question posed of him, and you can see him pause very unnaturally a couple times as he tries to remember where to go, which I suspect was him nearly falling into the “Oops” trap again. Fortunately for him he pressed through it.

CrankyTRex on November 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Yep. It was obvious to me Perry averted answering the question because it offered an opportunity to segue into his prepared zero-based foreign policy line. I’d prefer to think Perry just delivered into the wrong context rather than he or his camp didn’t think it through. Personally, it is not a foreign policy concerning our foreign aid that I agree with. I believe those who stand with us are allies just as I expect those who we stand with to view us as their ally.

Texas Gal on November 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Oh please. I’ve been on here a long time and you know it takes a lot to get me to insult someone. I am a Newt supporter but I hate the bs from the anti-Perrys.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

The heartless line just doesn’t work when it comes to Newt supporters. My bad.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Incidentally I just finished watching the debate online and the only time Cain even mentioned his advisors is when he was asked about those statements in a question.

So once again, another debate where the bar for Romney is set so low he could not possibly fail to reach it, while the other candidates are sneered at. Not surprising in the least.

BKennedy on November 13, 2011 at 3:57 PM

OT: Anybody else see this video about Obama slamming the US again? So we are lazy is the problem, eh Barack? Sheesh.
http://tv.breitbart.com/obama-americas-been-a-little-bit-lazy/
This is another example of why every single candidate up on that stage would be better than the Won.

txmomof6 on November 13, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Say, which candidates want to stop funding the UN?

Is that part of Perry’s ‘start with zero’ approach? That would be a huge plus if it is… and if it isn’t, then what earthly purpose does the UN meet that he would want to fund it?

Really we need a President who will walk away from the UN treaty. It is just a treaty organization, after all… and not a too well thought out one, at that.

ajacksonian on November 13, 2011 at 3:58 PM

VegasRick on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 PM

If I trusted the choir to be honest in reporting to the congregation I would say you are correct. No matter how badly O’Dumbo is crushed by Newt the media choir will go directly to spin cycle to insure the re-election of their messiah.

jdkchem on November 13, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Yep. It was obvious to me Perry averted answering the question because it offered an opportunity to segue into his prepared zero-based foreign policy line. I’d prefer to think Perry just delivered into the wrong context rather than he or his camp didn’t think it through. Personally, it is not a foreign policy concerning our foreign aid that I agree with. I believe those who stand with us are allies just as I expect those who we stand with to view us as their ally.

Texas Gal on November 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM

It was a good question to do it, but his segue was terrible and he clearly wasn’t prepared to be challenged on the policy, or he was prepared and froze.

CrankyTRex on November 13, 2011 at 4:02 PM

As I have mentioned before, trying to argue that Newt will be hurt by the MSM and the Obama team is not valid because whoever the Repub nominee is they will be attacked viciously by the MSM and the Axelrod slime machine.

At least Newt has been vetted and most importantly he has the best skill set and temperament to fight back. Romney will be like McCain, he will not go for the throat and that is what the Repub nominee needs to do

georgealbert on November 13, 2011 at 4:06 PM

While I agree that Perry and Gingrich did the best and Santorum was whiny, I’m surprised by how much I disagree with the rest here from Jazz Shaw. Huntsman? Are you freakin’ kidding me?! And, Cain’s “made of Teflon”? Have you seen his latest poll numbers? Cain lost 11 pts in five days in IA.

I wish this debate had been on a weekday when our regular mods weren’t away from their keyboards.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

“Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal to start each year with zero dollars in foreign aid allocated for Israel and all other countries would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security.”

This article pretty much gives an excuse against cutting any entitlement program in existence. Good job.

By the way, how is borrowing and spending this country into bankruptcy working out for the USA’s military planning and security? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m a little more concerned about America than I am about Israel, or any other country for that matter.

I’m as big a supporter of Israel as anyone, but they aren’t entitled to a single dime from us. If they’re that concerned about not getting a rubber stamped handout from us, they can borrow the money from China to hold them over until the decision is made instead of us borrowing it and giving it to them. And frankly, considering who is in the White House, they should already have plans in place on how to address an end to U.S. funding.

In case some of you haven’t been paying attention, our own military is about to have disruption thrust upon it. Not sure why you folks believe Israel is above suffering disruption as well.

xblade on November 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Aside from Cain’s harassment problems, he showed that he is nowhere near Presidential material when it comes to foreign policy. The “I’ll have to ask my advisers” bit could only carry him just so far, and he hit the wall last night.

Bye Herman. I’ll take a large ham & pineapple pizza…

stacman on November 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Heartless and downright un-Christian.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Oh please. I’ve been on here a long time and you know it takes a lot to get me to insult someone. I am a Newt supporter but I hate the bs from the anti-Perrys.

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Yeah, I don’t pay too much attention to people who are that full of themselves, and continuously bark the same tune…

stacman on November 13, 2011 at 4:41 PM

As gov of Texas Perry’s actions have been to use government power against property rights. He is a statist and is the worst candidate of the lot. And no, I don’t have a good feeling for any of the candidates, and yes, I will vote for anyone other than Obama. I just really do not trust nor like Perry.

ray on November 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Quote from the CBS spokeswoman:

A network spokeswoman, Sonya McNair, said its livestream had been overwhelmed by an unexpectedly large audience and brushed off complaints. The final half-hour had been added, she said, for the benefit of South Carolina viewers.

“We weren’t programming it for reporters in Washington, D.C.,” she said, even as it emerged that — in an unusual breakdown between network and affiliates — none of the four CBS stations in the state actually carried the last half-hour.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68223.html#ixzz1dckwefZR

Ms. McNair, exactly who WERE you programming it for?
Obviously, my part of Louisiana doesn’t count.

So are you saying this debate didn’t count because it was only for reporters?

So I don’t count?

I hope that when 0bama is ejected the new Republican president shuns you and your station.

Boycott CBS.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3