Tonight the Republican presidential candidates held a debate on CBS about the subject of foreign policy. This is a topic that has been little explored in the previous series of debates, and there was a lot of interest that came out of the questions and answers. There were no moments as memorable as Rick Perry's memory lapse in the last debate. Here, however, are what I think are the salient points:
1) The winners tonight, once again, were Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Both spoke thoughtfully and with clarity on the problems facing the USA in the world. Gingrich, in particular, demonstrated that he is well versed in international problems and has given the resolution of these problems a great deal of thought.
2) Michelle Bachmann also seemed quite well informed and thoughtful about how foreign policy should be conducted. Indeed, I thought she was doing great until she announced that she would end the programs from Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Maybe she forgot that LBJ passed Medicare as part of the Great Society. I do not think the American people will accept the end of that program.
3) Rick Perry had his best debate performance ever. While that is not saying much, Perry had some powerful answers. Of course, he also had some answers which he had clearly prepared in advance to use in case he did not know what to say. A good example came when Perry answered a question about Pakistan/Afghanistan with a discussion about revamping foreign aid. While Perry clearly did better than before, it should not be enough to stop his slide in the polls.
4) Jon Huntsman displayed knowledge on many points. Unfortunately, he still came across smarmy. I got the impression that he was saying not what he believed but rather what he thought he ought to believe. While this is a criticism that is often leveled at Romney, I nevertheless felt that Romney was completely sincere while Huntsman was not.
5) Ron Paul brought his own unique point of view to the debate. I doubt, however, if that point of view will appeal to more than the 8% or so who seem to support Paul on an ongoing basis. I think that most Americans accept the premise that an American who is fighting with the enemy against the USA is subject to being killed in a military strike without a court determination. Paul just has that subject mixed up.
6) Rick Santorum spoke well but did nothing to distinguish himself. He showed knowledge about foreign affairs, but I doubt too many in the audience will notice.
7) I thought the big loser in the debate was Herman Cain. Cain made clear in his answers that he was way behind the other candidates in his knowledge of foreign affairs. Particularly since he is threatened by the sexual harrassment allegations reducing his support, it was not helpful at all for him to seem uninformed regarding the world.
8) The debate moderators were quite suprising. Scott Pelley seemed haughty and unnecessarily combative. For example, rather than asking the audience to show courtesy to the candidates and please to not boo, Pelley, like a school disciplinarian, said instead that booing would not be tolerated. Pelley also seemed to argue with some of the candidates, and he took particular delight in ignoring Michelle Bachmann or cutting her off. I thought it was unseemly. On the other hand, Major Garrett of the National Journal turned in a much better performance. He asked good questions which were more even handed than those from Pelley.
9) It was ridiculous that CBS did not air the entire debate. The last half hour was available only on the internet. If CBS only wanted to show an hour, they should have cut the debate to that length.
One final note: After watching the debate, I came away agreeing with one thing that Newt Gingrich said, namely that each one of the candidates on the stage would do a better job with regard to foreign policy than Barack Obama (although I would not include Ron Paul in that group.)
No comments:
Post a Comment