After six months of debates, it was high time that at least 90 minutes of the country’s popular political reality show be devoted to the primary responsibility of the presidency: foreign policy. The results of the aptly-named “Commander-in-Chief” debate broadcast on CBS did not revolutionize the race. Mitt Romney is still in the strongest position of any of the candidates. A good sense of humor can’t revive Rick Perry’s hopes and strong performances from Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann won’t get them into contention. But it did illustrate that Herman Cain’s weaknesses can’t be disguised forever by his unflappable temperament.
The debate illustrated again that the divide in the GOP presidential field on foreign policy is between those who know what they are talking about and those who don’t. A clear grasp of war and peace issues won’t transform Rick Santorum into a first tier candidate from an also-ran. But his lack of command of the issues does make it difficult, if not impossible, for Herman Cain to put forward a plausible argument for himself as a potential president.
This was Cain’s most subdued performance yet in any of these debates and the first time he went the whole evening without letting loose with one of his standard crowd-pleasing one-liners. While it must be admitted that he’s come a long way from the comical ignorance he displayed on this topic when he began his campaign, he still came across as the weakest of all the contenders. His supporters may pretend this isn’t a big deal, but most voters understand that he is on thin ice when it comes to war and peace issues. Coming as it did in the week when his candidacy was assailed by sexual harassment charges, this was a case of very bad timing that may help speed his descent in the polls.
Romney emerged from the evening again looking good because of his ability to put forward a coherent critique of Obama’s foreign policy and a vision for his own presidency. Newt Gingrich illustrated why these debates have been so good for him. His professorial tone was perfect for this discussion, and while his boomlet may be a function of the fact that few in the press have taken him seriously since his campaign began so disastrously back in the spring,, tonight’s debate won’t hurt his numbers.
As for Rick Perry, one can’t help but think that if he were this animated and informed back in the first debates in which he appeared back in September, his campaign might not be on life support. But there’s no turning back the hands of time, and even if the Texas governor deserves credit for a fairly good performance tonight (though he undermined his dwindling band of pro-Israel backers with comments about foreign aid) and for having a sense of humor about his infamous gaffe in Wednesday’s debate, he’s still dead in the water.
As for Bachmann and Santorum, both showed that they knew what they were talking about even if they were struggling for the attention of the moderators as they have for months. John Huntsman and Ron Paul may have been articulate but they also showed that their isolationist stance would get a better response in a different political party.
With only seven weeks to go before the first votes begin to be counted, tonight’s GOP debate did nothing to alter the basic political equation of the race. The field is crowded with conservatives who have failed to emerge from the pack. While Cain still has strong support and Gingrich’s numbers are rising, neither has enough backing or a strong enough rationale for their presidential hopes to seize control of the race. As far as Perry’s candidacy is concerned, he’s still a dead man walking. Santorum and Bachmann are too far behind to make an impact. Huntsman and Paul are irrelevant.
That leaves Mitt Romney; the most polished and well-rounded of any of them, as the most likely nominee of the bunch. Conservatives may still be reluctant to back him, but this debate, like the last few, have done nothing to alter the basic math of the race. With Cain falling back in the pack, Romney remains the candidate to beat.
The two times Paul was allowed to talk he got the most applause. The corporate media is getting desperate. He probably won the poll, but it wasn't one of the Hitlers, so cbs will come out with another phoney poll tomorrow.
Actually, basic math says the majority of the voters are in the Not-Romney voting block. The only constant has been Romney's inability to gain in number in spite of the volatile polling of the other candidates. n nWhen they do finally solidify behind a candidate, it's improbable that it will be Romney. Romney's hoping to ride out the clock and cash in on the 'inevitability' meme with a little help from his friends, and it's a very, very slim hope.
Sorry, but that does not leave just Romney. The support for Gingrich is growing behind the scenes. Those of us who are conservatives are still undecided but Gingrich has the momentum for now. Don't dismiss him.
It's time for the field to start getting trimmed down. It's too much of a distraction to have to listen to people who, although I respect them, don't have a chance of winning.
Another Romney plug. Anybody who really watches these debates will know that the Romney campaign "walked back" half of what he said and "clarified" the other half. In a national debate that ends up making him look like an "empty suit". n nThe only candidate that handled this debate with knowledgeable and factual answers was Gingrich, and this article devoted 3 sentences to him. Cain is a "non-starter" on foreign policy, always has been, and that's not acceptable for the position of POTUS.
Zero-based budgeting for all Federal (or state or city) expenditures is a good idea, although perhaps better for a year 1 of a Presidential term since Congress seems to find it impossible to actually produce an annual budget. n nJust saw Jon Huntsman on Face the Nation, and I can not believe that Huntsman buys into the moral equivalency that US aid to Israel (which is 100% military, a condition of the Camp David treaty, and 75% has to be spent on US hardware) is balanced with the never-ending welfare payments of "foreign aid" for palestinians. n nGovernor Perry has the strongest position on Israel of any candidate, since his first visit to Israel in 1992 as Texas Ag Commissioner. Perry's depth on Israel as America's most reliable and important ally in the Middle East is based on his direct experience on economic, trade, technology, and military views of Israel. n nThe RJC is making a big mistake in betting on Waffle Romney. nWas it really so bad that Gov. Perry had the courage of his convictions to stand next to MK Danon in NYC, at an event organized by former Huckabee supporters? n n
I really do not understand why the entire Commentary crew is behaving like Romney gets Israel in his kishkes. I am still offended by Romney having the chutzpah to mispronounce chutzpah in a prior debate. n nI am a disillusioned secular Jewish democrat who votes in NY17 who will NOT vote for Waffle Romney or Cain (because of Cain's one bad idea and no depth). Obama lost my vote in 2008 well before the election, both because I knew he was pandering on Israel, and also knew he had zero interest in the economy before or after the 2008 financial meltdown. n n n nWhen the NYT published the 2008 NY primary results map by ED, I never understood why Riverdale voted Romney, and Borough Park Brooklyn voted for Huckabee. However, I do know that NY 1 & 2, and NY4 & 5 will be in play again in 2012, and Romney will not help turnout for the down ticket candidates. The GOP can not solely rely on the possibility of Peter King challenging Gillenbrand for her Senate seat to energize New York voters. n
gee, K2K, sounds like you're easily offended. as long as Romney is as pro-Israel as he is, he can mispronounce all the Hebrew AND Yiddish words he wants. n nbut seriously, what do you intend to do next November? if you believe that Obama is a problem for Israel, then you will vote for his Republican challenger. I happen to believe that, so I'll support whoever the GOP runs. n nmaybe commentary has already crowned Romney because they too understand that he is the only possible choice to beat Obama.
gee rulieg, I believe Mr. Romney is as shallow in his support for Israel as he is on any other issue. Mitt Romney wants to be president solely to satisfy his personal ambition. nOn Yom Kippur, 2011, Judy Woodruff interviewed Mitt Romney on PBS NewsHour. I guess he thought only liberals were watching that night, because he refused to answer Woodruff's direct question about whether he thought apartments in "East" Jerusalem were 'settlements'. In the full transcript, Woodruff asked three times. nI may be secular, but I will never vote for anyone who will not state unequivocally that Ramat Shlomo and Gilo are NOT 'settlements' just because they are east of the 1949 armistice line. n nRomney is NOT electable – he inspires no one, and has no heart. n nIt is a privilege to vote, so if Romney v Obama is the only choice, I will either 1) write-in someone else and re-read "Final Exit", or 2) do what every liberal Jew I know did in 2008 – refuse to vote for President, but vote down-ticket, and then re-read "Final Exit", waiting for my heart to shatter into a million pieces. n nAmerica's economy will not survive another four years of Obama or a private equity LBO MBA/lawyer who got rich from the blood of people like me. No more Harvard lawyers or MBAs!!!
K–as long as you understand that a vote for anyone but the GOP candidate is a vote for Obama, then you can do what your conscience tells you. me, I'll take Romney's position on Israel over Obama's any day! but in the end, I will vote for whoever the Repub challenger is–as long as it's not Ron Paul.
About Mr. Cain’s ‘revealing NO depth’ contributions to this Nov. 12 debate, I keep wondering why he always mentions deploying Aegis-equipped USN assets in the Arabian Sea aka Persian Gulf. Does Mr. Cain not realize that every USN Carrier Group has Aegis (and more) equipped destroyers, and that there is always at least one USN carrier group deployed in the Fifth Fleet AOR?r nr nNot to mention the unknown deployment of USN and other naval submarines always somewhere in and around the Arabian Sea…r nr nAlways think that point truly reveals Mr. Cain’s appalling weakness, especially since he apparently indicated he would like to be Secretary of Defense on Friday if he does not win the presidency. I doubt Mr. Cain could get a job as CEO of a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise that he bought with his campaign donations.
Word is that Obama will attack Iran before the Election,a preemptive move to nullify the GOP on Foreign Policy,and make Bush appear weak on Iran,so Obama would be wearing the scalps of Bin Laden,Ghaddafi,and Ahmandinijad on his belt,compared to Sadam's scalp on W's belt. Obama may have Assad's scalp also. nThat's pretty smart as a tactic for a President who knows that he can't turn around the economy.And the fact that we no longer need Congress to declare war,is a big boost to Obama.
poorest analysis i've seen to date.Your article gets 2 thumbs down and would have a third if i had one.Cain's poll no will prove you wrong.it's too bad you ppl are so anxious to take him out for fear he'l beat either Romney(obama lite)or obama himself.Nice try,no cigar
"As for Bachmann and Santorum, both showed that they knew what they were talking about even if they were struggling for the attention of the moderators as they have for months." nKnew what they were talking about? You think Bachmann's comment about China's welfare state demonstrated that she 'knew' what she was talking about? I understand you gotta advance your career and continue to collect your paycheck but try to at least pretend to be rational.
I really like Herman Cain… but he shouldn't win the election… Foreign policy is very important and he doesn't seem to take it seriously. Also… a national sales tax is probably a bad idea.