If there was a loser on the debate stage tonight, it was CBS. First, they scheduled their debate on a Saturday night between two major football games. Then they decided to only broadcast the first hour of their 90-minute debate. Then their Internet feed failed for the final 30 minutes. This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed.
Scott Pelley was a terrible moderator. He treated the men who might be the next commander in chief like schoolchildren, cutting them off in mid-sentence, lecturing them to answer his questions. He even lectured Newt Gingrich on policy, telling him that killing “terrorist suspects” is “not the rule of law.” Big mistake. Newt smacked him down, explaining that we are at war and in war we are allowed to kill the enemy without a court order.
Of the candidates, Rick Perry had his best debate by far. His construct of starting at zero on foreign aid with every country (including Israel) and then deciding from there what is in our national interests got good applause, and both Newt and Romney openly embraced it. He had several self-effacing jokes about that agency he forgot about at the last debate (Energy) which got big (friendly) laughs from the crowd. Despite Pelley’s blatant efforts to trip him up, he did not trip. Who would have imagined that Perry’s best debate would be on foreign policy?
Newt had a very good night as well. In addition to smacking down Pelley on killing terrorists, he refused to take the bait in Pelley’s effort to start a fight between him and Romney. He was clear and articulate and will only enhance his growing following with his performance.
Romney put in another strong night. His best moment was when he was asked if he would negotiate with the Taliban: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists, I won’t negotiate with the Taliban.”
Bachmann got off several good lines, declaring that Obama stands with Occupy Wall Street but not with Israel, and that when it comes to terrorist interrogation, Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA.
Cain seemed to struggle and was out of his element. Seemed like every answer was: I will gather the facts and consult with my commanders/cabinet. His best moment was when he was asked about waterboarding and declared clearly: “I do not agree with torture. Waterboarding [is] not torture. It’s an enhanced interrogation technique.” (Romney was not asked, but his campaign tweeted his agreement with Cain).
It was a good discussion, undermined by Pelley’s poor moderating and CBS’s failure to broadcast effectively. Fortunately, there will be another discussion of foreign policy and national security soon: the AEI/Heritage/CNN debate on November 22. It will be in prime time on a Tuesday — on a network that knows what it is doing.
Well if the ACLU is running the CIA under Obama shouldn't we be congratulating them ?the CIA has been incredibly effective in killing the top enchelon of al Queda including OBL , something that had eluded the prior administratin's efforts. Kudos ACLA, job well done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell if the ACLU is running the CIA under Obama shouldn't we be congratulating them ?the CIA has been incredibly effective in killing the top enchelon of al Queda including OBL , something that had eluded the prior administratin's efforts. Kudos ACLA, job well done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait--putting water up someone's nose is a bad thing, but executing them is a good thing?
Puzzling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can always count on Marc to get excited and post onto the corner when there's mention of waterboarding and torture. Never mind that every upstanding officer in the armed forces is embarrassed by the fact that the Bush admin sullied their reputation by embracing torture in their irrational fear of Islam when we did not stoop to the level of torture during the far greater threats in the Cold War,Vietnam, Korea or WWII. Thankfully, it's now illegal and our infiltration and eradication of Al Qaeda has not been reduced, rather it has now gotten even more lethal and effective under the Obama administration. Why are the mostly incoherent fools of the GOP presidential primary field embracing torture when it has been shown to be unAmerican and a failed tactic decried by our military leaders?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept that Obama's current Director of the CIA, Leon Pannetta, admitted the intelligence that led to Osama Bin Ladin's demise came from waterboarding.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTechnically, Leon Panetta isn't an "upstanding officer". And since I'm sure the troll has conducted extensive interviews with "upstanding officers" throughout military history, let's just consider the matter settled science.
Besides, you want to bankrupt Media Matters by keeping the troll arguing all night. I hear they pay twice as much per-post for off-hours on weekends.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell technically, Leon Panetta isn't an "upstanding officer". And since the troll has obviously conducted extensive research on upstanding officers in military history, let's just go ahead and consider the matter settled science.
Besides, you wouldn't want to bankrupt Media Matters arguing with the troll all night, would you? I hear that pay twice as much per post during off-hours on weekends.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm still trying to figure out how scaring the hell out of someone, without harming them physically, has been elevated to "torture".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUpstanding by your standards, I presume.
Not taking a position either way on waterboarding here, but I am taking a position on your pompous assumption that your standards speak for everyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"... every upstanding officer in the armed forces..."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDarn all those downstanding military officers, including me!
Hyperbole anyone?
(1) Torture was never legal under the Bush administration. There was disagreement about whether certain enhanced interrogation techniques counted as torture.
(2) There have been accusations that Obama administration has absolved itself of such interrogation techniques only because it has knowingly outsourced them to countries with fewer qualms about using them than even the previous administration. These same countries also known to use methods that no one disputes is torture.
(3) The increased use of air strikes currently celebrated by the Left met with high-minded moral condemnation by the same when they were used in a more limited fashion under the previous administration.
In light of these facts, your accusations of "incoherence" on these matters among the GOP's candidates is rather rich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Never mind that every upstanding officer in the armed forces is embarrassed..."
I don't know every upstanding officer in the armed forces, but I do know many, and their first-- but certainly not last-- objection would be having you speak for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am an active duty officer in the U.S. Navy. I would even go so far as to say that I am an upstanding officer. And I could not disagree with you more. I only reply here because you claim to speak for me.
I am not embarrassed by the Bush administration.
I do not feel that my reputation is sullied.
I don't think waterboarding is torture.
I think it has been proven effective.
And I hope that we as a nation have a healthy fear of Islamist extremists who have successfully attacked us in the past, continue to attempt attacks, and openly and often declare their intent to do so.
I am obligated to say that I speak for myself here, not in an official capacity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes Sir....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Never mind that every upstanding officer in the armed forces is embarrassed by the fact that the Bush admin sullied their reputation by embracing torture in their irrational fear of Islam when we did not stoop to the level of torture during the far greater threats in the Cold War,Vietnam, Korea or WWII."
Just remember, the Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, and WWII, never saw 3,000 U.S. Civilians murdered in one day on U.S. soil. Unless you think 9/11 was an inside job, it was more than a threat, it was an actual event, and as part of the effort to avoid a repeat of 9/11, we waterboarded. Some people love to say that the U.S. is too good to be waterboarding, and I think we are too good for mass civilian casualties brought about by terrorism in our cities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYup, Obami and the dems don't torture, they just kill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseand the libs squeal in joy after 8 years of the most
gross conduct in the history of american political opposition.
Hate to disagree with Marc - especially since only the trolls have commented so far - but, in spite of the technical difficulties and other issues, I thought this was a MUCH better debate crew than CNBC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's a pretty low bar. I think they need to draw lots and have a small series of 1-on-1 townhalls. Get past the filters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, Cain's refrain "I'll depend upon consultants" is beyond tiresome; his reluctance to be able to use military force against Iranian nukes was telling.
Second, concur that Internet feed was annoyingly intermittent.
Third, Perry [my preference] was superb; "zero-based budgeting" concept resonated, and he endorsed sanctions against the Iranian bank ASAP.
Fourth, The Newt found another opportunity to attack the moderator.
Fifth, I was ANNOYED when the NRO-commentator said [on cbs.com] that, despite his superb performance, Perry's campaign "remains in the gutter."
Sixth, Michele was also precise.
Seventh, Santorum struggled for attention.
Eighth, Huntsman emerged as a pacifist.
Ninth, Romney attacked BHO's timing for Afghanistan war [September v. December] and claimed it was election-related, but that means he also supports a timetable!
Tenth, Romney would refer China to the WTO, but Huntsman said that wouldn't work; this again supports the view that Romney likes to sound as if he's talking tough...but then the comment is found to lack substance.
On another website [RedState], I have advised DeMint could enter the race if Perry kept fading; otherwise, Rick remains fat-and-away the key constitutional-conservative who has "walked the talk."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, Cain's refrain "I'll depend upon consultants" is beyond tiresome; his reluctance to be able to use military force against Iranian nukes was telling.
Second, concur that Internet feed was annoyingly intermittent.
Third, Perry [my preference] was superb; "zero-based budgeting" concept resonated, and he endorsed sanctions against the Iranian bank ASAP.
Fourth, The Newt found another opportunity to attack the moderator.
Fifth, I was ANNOYED when the NRO-commentator said [on cbs.com] that, despite his superb performance, Perry's campaign "remains in the gutter."
Sixth, Michele was also precise.
Seventh, Santorum struggled for attention.
Eighth, Huntsman emerged as a pacifist.
Ninth, Romney attacked BHO's timing for Afghanistan war [September v. December] and claimed it was election-related, but that means he also supports a timetable!
Tenth, Romney would refer China to the WTO, but Huntsman said that wouldn't work; this again supports the view that Romney likes to sound as if he's talking tough...but then the comment is found to lack substance.
On another website [RedState], I have advised DeMint could enter the race if Perry kept fading; otherwise, Rick remains fat-and-away the key constitutional-conservative who has "walked the talk."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse