11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Thanks, as always, to those who joined us for tonight’s live chat tied to CNN’s GOP presidential debate on foreign policy. While the Ricochet discussion always delivers, the same can’t be said of the debate forums, which is why CNN deserves substantial credit, particularly in light of CNBC’s abysmal handling of the last such gathering.
The format was inspired. Even the incessant Wolf Blitzer (he of the fire alarm timbre) managed to get out of the way, acting as little more than a facilitator and avoiding the sort of nagging about the clock that turns many a moderator into one of the world’s highest-paid schoolmarms.
This was also the best audience participation we’ve had at a debate, largely because the joint sponsorship by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute meant that the questions were coming from conservative intellectuals (including some recognizable faces, like Ed Meese, Fred Kagan, and Paul Wolfowitz) rather that the usual YouTube and Twitter rabble. As such, this was the first debate that actually seemed formatted for the tastes of a Republican audience aiming to seriously vet their choices for the presidential nomination.
There were, however, some serious strikes against the proceedings: Newt Gingrich, in his first debate as a serious front-runner, was marginalized to the extreme, suffering long bouts of silence while the vanity candidates took center stage. Mitt Romney seemed to get fewer questions than normal, as well, but Newt’s relative absence was conspicuous given his recent performance in the polls. Also, as Bill Walsh noted in the chat, some rather serious issues were left off the table, including the European debt crisis and China (other than when Jon Huntsman – playing the only string left on his guitar – repeatedly volunteered it). With that said, onto the candidates’ performance:
- A more sober Rick Santorum would be out of this race. That won’t happen, of course, until we get past Iowa because Santorum is operating under the delusion that he will be the next “anyone but Romney” candidate when Gingrich stumbles. Watching him on stage, however, it becomes clear why that will never happen. Santorum is incapable of answering a question without some reflexive indignity that his capacious record isn’t being appropriately cited. He’s a good man with some important things to say, but he inevitably comes off churlish and won’t pick up any serious traction as a result.
- Ron Paul was … well, Ron Paul. I’m generally all for giving the non-front runners substantial amounts of time in the debate, but this forum was wasted on Paul, who spent the night proving Maslow’s dictum that for a man who only has a hammer in the toolbox every problem looks like a nail. Every question, no matter the intricacy, was answered with his unwavering conviction that the United States should have virtually no involvement overseas and that much of the aggression aimed at the nation is justifiable on the grounds of our international adventurism. Paul’s second answer of the night added nothing to his first and thus did it go for the remaining two hours.
- Jon Huntsman was characteristically listless and predictable. If he had invoked his experience in China one more time, someone in the audience would have had to call “Bingo!” He also spouted the usual pabulum about America’s “global brand” and the “trust deficit” in government, sounding all the while like the kid who cheated off of Mitt Romney in business school. Kudos, however, to the former Utah governor for being the only candidate onstage with the chutzpah to note that economic sanctions against Iran aren’t going to change that country’s nuclear calculus.
- Michele Bachmann had a stronger night than she’s had in a while, particularly when she sparred with Rick Perry on the issue of foreign aid for Pakistan. Bachmann’s intelligence committee bona fides shone through as she explained both the complexities and the consequences of the situation in Central Asia, while Perry opted for a much simpler hard-line stance against Islamabad. It was one of the few moments in these debates when Bachmann has demonstrated a presidential-level command of the issues.
- Rick Perry was back in the saddle, without any major gaffes and with a fluency on the issues that’s eluded him in the past few debates. He didn’t have any remarkable moments, but it’s a testimony to how far he’s fallen that the absence of a loss can be considered something of a win.
- Herman Cain may have had the worst night of anyone on stage. Coming on the heels of his Libya gaffe with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, he had more to prove than any of his rivals. He failed. It was obvious that Cain had overstudied in preparation; when a question matched his notes, he would launch into his response with pseudo-Gingrichian bluster. When he was knocked out of his comfort zone, however, he repeatedly panicked, continually evoking platitudes about only supporting plans that could be “successful” and listening to the guidance of experts.
- That last cliché has worn out its welcome. Cain must recognize that the president is the ultimate decision-maker. As Commander-in-Chief, he must have the intellectual ability (and the confidence) to override his advisors and his generals. It’s not good enough to surround yourself with the right people. A president has to be smart enough (and discerning enough) to know when the right people are wrong. He should read Eliot Cohen’s book, “Supreme Command,” and study George W. Bush’s decision-making in the run-up to the surge in Iraq to understand how vital this skill set is.
- Mitt Romney turned in another characteristic performance – which is to say that at two hours’ remove I can’t remember anything he said, but I know he didn’t hurt himself. Say what you will about Romney’s defects (Lord knows I have), but there is no doubting that he has the discipline necessary to be a serious candidate in a general election. He is nearly impossible to move off-message and he rarely makes an unforced error. As we’ve all been warned over the past weeks, however, the same cannot be said of …
- Newt Gingrich. This was an unusual debate performance for Newt. He did not have any big breakout moment as he has in prior contests (a fact that’s probably partially attributable to how often he was overlooked). The closest he came was an exchange with Ron Paul early in the night over the Patriot Act, when he knocked down Paul’s invocation of Timothy McVeigh by noting that the whole point of the legislation is to prevent terrorist acts like McVeigh’s, not to respond to them after the fact.
- Newt may have had his first serious misstep, however, on immigration, where he gave a heavily-qualified answer on amnesty, proposing that illegal immigrants who had been in the country for an extended period of time (he arbitrarily threw out 25 years, though it didn’t seem as if he meant it as a hard and fast standard) should not be ripped from their communities and their families. It wasn’t nearly as jarring as Rick Perry’s famous “heartless” moment, but Newt was making the case on compassionate grounds without making a corresponding case for border security (to be fair, the latter is part of his agenda, but you wouldn’t have known that from watching the debate). To compound the effect, he told Gloria Borger in an interview immediately after the debate that he didn’t see how “any serious person” could disagree.
- This strikes me as a tactical mistake by Newt. If he proposes serious border security measures followed by a differentiated policy for illegal immigrants, he should be playing up the former in the primary race and only fleshing out the latter if he gets into the general. He’s now going to be refining and clarifying this position with the conservative base for the next week or two. And he’s given an opening to Romney, as immigration is one issue where the former Massachusetts governor is going out of his way to run to the right of the field.
- I’m not sure yet how much this will stick to Newt. He has the advantage of having more pronounced positives than his anti-Romney predecessors. And he also has the benefit of a base that has nowhere left to go for an anti-Romney. That being said, this will still make it harder, not easier, for him to consolidate conservatives. How quickly and how clearly he resolves this will likely be the key to determining how big of an effect it has on him.
Thanks again to those who joined us on the site. Have a happy Thanksgiving, everyone. And to repeat the PSA from the chat, the Week in Review will be in repeats over the holiday weekend. We’ll be back with new material on the first weekend in December.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Sorry I missed our live chat, Troy--we had family arriving for the holiday, and I simply had to be on hand--but I can't imagine a more literate or comprehensive summary than yours. Thanks again, man.
Apr '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
There were two notable Romney Perry exchanges. In one, Perry came out in favor of a no-fly zone, Romney pointed out that Assad wasn't using his air force much anyway, and Perry backed off, saying that it was "just an option". The other saw Romney attack Dream Act magnets, have the ball passed to Perry, who said he agreed (?) that magnets must be removed, and went on to talk about how secure he'd make the border in his first year of office.
Edited on Nov 22, 2011 at 10:46pmRe: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Thanks Troy. I still haven't found anything to counter my feeling that Newt is the most qualified and will do the best job. However, your point is well taken.
He should be playing up border security. Everyone knows we can't rip the people he's talking about from their homes willy-nilly; but the fence, the troops, whatever it takes at the border has got to be first. After that, a "just kidding amnesty back peddle" will not hurt anybody or anything, as long as the gates are shut and can be opened and shut with compassion, fairness, and in the U.S.'s interest. You just can't announce this inevitability in advance.
Oct '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
the immigration issue won't hurt gingrich. voters are more forgiving if you are articulate.
Sep '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
The idea that Newt or anyone else needs to not discuss immigration in an intelligent, adult fashion, but instead endlessly repeat platitudes about boarder security reveals a mindset that many are fed up with. The question for the GOP field is AFTER SECURING the boarder what should be done? Newt gave his perspective on this. Insisting that he should have blathered on about fences and other security measures because that is what appeals to conservatives is an insult to conservatives and the process. These types of answers are why most conservatives are not swayed by Romney and find the GOP establishment mildly nauseating. This seems to escape the parasitic pundit class.
Apr '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Last night's debate was the first I sat in on, although I did not participate. (Previous debates have been on nights I was working.)
Technically, it went very well for me. No trouble with the CNN feed (I used my Firefox browser, but did not use the supplemental Adobe plug-in that some people had a problem with), and I thought Diannycakes did a swell job running the Ricochet board.
The live chat had some good moments and some indifferent, but none bad. I thnk the single comment I liked best was, 'Perry is making me nervous with some of these pauses.' I had the same feeling.
I think Troy's wrap-up is spot-on, except I liked Santorum's performance slightly better than he did. But no, I can't picture him as the nominee, or even very competitive.
Jul '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Agreed. This issue will not hurt Gingrich in the primaries or general election. It's a nuanced approach that seems to have backing of a majority of voters.Close the border and find something to do with the ones that are here. A wall prevents egress as well as ingress.
Although NRO will play it up so their favored candidate gets the nod.
Oct '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
I endured the whole thing and Troy's description is both magnificent and accurate.
At one point I turned to my wife and said, "We should just elect Newt and be done with it." and then, as if on cue, he launched into his Lean Six Sigma nonsense which prompted me to immediately return to my senses. However, It was delicious to watch Ron Paul volunteer to be the clueless media type (rather than Wolf) that gets eaten by Newt. Newt's response to the silly McVeigh argument that Paul trotted out was fabulous.
As I pointed out in response to something Claire wrote this morning, I'm more than done with the idiotic sentiment that says that we need to stop doing nation building abroad and start doing it at home. We've got a perfectly fine nation at home, but we have an foolish political class who is spending it into oblivion.
I used to like Santorum early in the process, but like others I've grown weary of his whining and arrogance. His entire attitude exudes the sentiment, "I can't believe you guys don't understand what a big deal that I am."
Mar '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Like all problems acquired by negligence, this illegal immigration problem has no easy answers. Poor enforcement in general and the 1986 Ya'll Come On In Act in particular has created this problem. As we conservatives who have studied Smith, Mises, Friedman, et al know, people will naturally take the path cut by incentives and constraints. This is precisely what illegals have done, for decades. We cannot mercilessly split the families and disrupt the livelihoods of those who have been here, productively, for years.
Somebody, some time, is going to have to make a largely arbitrary decision on how long is long enough. There is a reason "squatters rights" and "adverse possession" laws exist, and while these laws don't correlate perfectly with the illegal immigration problem, I think there is a principle at work in both: if we neglect to maintain and care for a possession (land or citizenship) those who have been productive during the period of our neglect have earned some right to it.
I do not know how long is long enough. Newt threw out an arbitrary "25 years." A better answer could be less, but probably not more.
May '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Newt really does have the most facile mind of any of the candidates. Not only does his immigration answer not hurt him, I believe it actually helps him with independents. Look, Newt does have a heart!
Oct '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Remember that Newt judges you, EJHill.
Jan '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
One thing I really appreciate about Gingrich is his generosity and politeness to his fellow candidates; that truly elevates him and sets him apart. He would be a great president but is unelectable. Romney has to sell himself as the "CEO who will turn around the country" - and he can indeed sell that, and perhaps win on that basis if he chooses the right VP. Cain, sorry and goodbye, Perry, maybe a minor cabinet post, Bachmann can perhaps get a position with a public image but no power. The rest - who are they again? Gingrich will be great in a new Republican administration, should that come to pass.
May '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
James Of England: The other saw Romney attack Dream Act magnets, have the ball passed to Perry, who said he agreed (?) that magnets must be removed, and went on to talk about how secure he'd make the border in his first year of office. · Nov 22 at 10:45pm
Edited on Nov 22 at 10:46 pm
That's not how I read that. Perry wasn't necessarily agreeing with Mitt. He was referring to an exchange from an earlier debate in which he accused Mitt of hypocrisy for attacking magnets when illegals were once allegedly hired to work on the Romney lawn. Perry probably left it implied because he was trying, as he's obviously been advised, to avoid sounding negative about other candidates and focus on building his brand.
May '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul celebrated his performance last night by lighting up some weed and signing up new Goldline customers at an America First rally this morning. Nobody seemed to notice that he had been stamped with the Mark of the Beast (The Federal Reserve Logo) on his forehead.
Sep '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
How do we secure the border? By what measure do we assess that the border is adequately secured? How long do we expect it will take before we have enough evidence to claim that the border is secured?
None of these questions has ever been honestly answered by the DC political class in my lifetime as far as I am concerned.
Talking about what happens after the border is secure is pandering. Pure and simple. -- "See, I'm not racist, nor heartless!"
May '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Thanks. That's the best laugh I've had in a long time. I have been judged... and found wanting.
Sep '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
I have to say that I'm growing tired of Cain's inability to learn from mistakes. It's not like it takes that much effort to find 90 seconds worth of leader-y stuff to say in answer to utterly predictable questions. The guy's staff are clearly the junior varsity team.
Newt's immigration quotes are fine by me. At my daughter's soccer games here in San Diego, the primary language spoken is Spanish. If you think you're going to win the general by recommending draconian solutions to immigration, you're crazy.
Romney's rope-a-dope strategy is timid and pathetic. One reason that he's never the leader in the polls is because he doesn't act like a leader. He's forever playing the prevent defense. Whatever. You can delete him from all debates and you wouldn't miss a thing.
Dec '10
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
“I'm Wolf Blitzer and yes, that's my real name.” In other words, never mind those props on stage behind me—none has POTUS material, but we’ll entertain you anyway.
Last night’s gimmick: Republican think-tank experts on "National Security" and its relevance to presidential primary voters:
Any reference to the €zone collapse would have invited comparison of the wages of European socialism with the performance of our historic first Islamic apostate president’s incumbency—an area the honorable tribal media protects with omertà—which would defeat the purpose of using the candidates as prime-time game show contestants.
Apr '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
pensworth
James Of England: The other saw Romney attack Dream Act magnets, have the ball passed to Perry, who said he agreed (?) that magnets must be removed, and went on to talk about how secure he'd make the border in his first year of office. · Nov 22 at 10:45pm
Edited on Nov 22 at 10:46 pm
That's not how I read that. Perry wasn't necessarily agreeing with Mitt. He was referring to an exchange from an earlier debate in which he accused Mitt of hypocrisy for attacking magnets when illegals were once allegedly hired to work on the Romney lawn. Perry probably left it implied because he was trying, as he's obviously been advised, to avoid sounding negative about other candidates and focus on building his brand. · Nov 23 at 7:52am
I don't think that anyone thinks that in-state tuition program is a smaller draw for illegal aliens than the (now ended) mow-Mitt's-lawn program. Doesn't mean that Perry's position is wrong, but if that was what he was claiming, it was an unbelievably poorly thought out attack. I think better of him.
Apr '11
Re: 11-22 CNN Presidential Debate Recap
Charles Gordon: “I'm Wolf Blitzer and yes, that's my real name.” In other words, never mind those props on stage behind me—none has POTUS material, but we’ll entertain you anyway.
Last night’s gimmick: Republican think-tank experts on "National Security" and its relevance to presidential primary voters:
[questions on the Middle East]
Any reference to the €zone collapse would have invited comparison of the wages of European socialism with the performance of our historic first Islamic apostate president’s incumbency—an area the honorable tribal media protects with omertà—which would defeat the purpose of using the candidates as prime-time game show contestants. ·
This was my complaint last foreign policy debate, too. It's even worse second time round, given that they've already given answers before on most of this. Somalia was a nice addition. Personally, although obviously sensible questions about Europe would be good, I'd like to have more questions on B-list topics, like the moribund South Africa FTA negotiations, Law of the Sea Convention, or Chechnya. Somalia was the only surprising question, and that was wasted on Paul.