It’s sort of the theme of the month, but our contributors have spoken: Newt Gingrich won the night, on a range of national security issues including Pakistan, immigration, and ethnic profiling. So, crank up some Green Day and Coldplay, pull out your “OC” DVDs, and let’s talk about the Patriot Act again, America.
Cameron Parker, UNC-Chapel Hill
Security and liberty are two issues that don’t play well together. But they’re two of conservatives’ biggest issues. Tonight laid bare that tension.
Out of the gate, Newt Gingrich — this week’s darling — suggested that there is really no limit to what the government should be able to do to keep people protected from acts of terrorism. Leading candidates all doubled down on the PATRIOT Act.
Immigration was another issue. In previous debates, the candidates have been very harsh in their prescriptions — boots on the ground, electric fences, predator drones. This could just as easily be seen as more an economic issue, but the GOP sees it as more a security issue.
Notable was Gingrich’s support of giving visas to foreign graduates of American universities. He also stuck his neck out for illegal immigrants by supporting the DREAM Act — a completely sensible piece of reform that has nevertheless been unpopular among Conservatives. Maybe he’s trying to take his poll position out for a spin? Overall, he was more agreeable tonight and got lots of airtime.
Huntsman also did well tonight as well, befitting his ambassador title. His “trust deficit” comment reminded me of his former boss’ “empathy deficit” line. It’s equally corny. But otherwise he was engaging. Intrade seems to agree.
Romney was weak tonight. He didn’t get much airtime in. He didn’t answer questions as well as in past debates. He even thought he was funny and said his first name was Mitt. But that’s not true. Whoops.
In the struggle between security and liberty, security won the night. In the battle among the candidates, I’m giving it to Gingrich. Huntsman was a close second.
Winner: Gingrich
Aaron Marcus, Columnist for the Rutgers Daily Targum
Newt Gingrich had one of his best debates by far tonight, despite CNN avoiding the former Speaker of the House for a large portion of the time considering his recent surge in the polls. Gingrich started strong maintaining his momentum throughout and finishing strong. He calmly and reasonably explained how Ron Paul’s defense agenda was dangerous to the United States expressing his interest at stopping terrorist attacks before they happen as opposed to prosecuting those who carry them out after thousands of innocent lives are destroyed. He then was able to present a reasonable immigration policy that was humane, aligned with American economic interests and one that would fill the ultimate American immigration problem by securing the border.
Gingrich’s stellar debate resulted in Romney stumbling on multiple questions, making this the first debate that does not help or maintain Romney’s position in the GOP Presidential field. It also could not have helped Mitt Romney that he started off the debate telling the American people his “real first name is Mitt” when in fact it is Willard. When someone can’t get the facts straight on their first name it is usually a troubling sign they can’t get their facts straight on other more pressing matters.
Surprisingly, Jon Huntsman made a promising performance tonight. He made three strong points showing that he knows how to handle the international community, American security at home and abroad must be taken seriously and that the American public has just as much right to have transparency from their government on foreign policy as they do on domestic policy. Tonight I would say Newt is the winner, Huntsman is the runner up and Mitt Romney finishes third.
Winner: Gingrich
T. Elliot Gaiser, Hillsdale College
Tonight’s debate saw little new discussion beyond the standard talking points of the modern conservative movement and these candidates in particular. Few new ideas or fresh facts were brought forward. However, some of the candidates were clearer and more engaging than others.
Mitt Romney was the clearest debater. His answers were succinct and even passionate. He even incorporated humor in his proposed “No drive zone” as an alternative to Rick Perry’s no fly zone proposal for Syria. His answers were clearly knowledgable and demonstrated a commitment to studying these issues.
Initially, Jon Huntsman brought his impressive specific knowledge of international issues to bare in the debate with Pakistan. He was also more aggressive than the past several debates, but he consistently drove his answers off of the topic of national security and into esoteric discussions of “trust deficit” and nation building at home. He seemed out-of-touch and missed a key opportunity to shine on foreign policy — his comparative strength — by dragging himself into abstract platitudes about American values.
Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann provided no surprises (with the exception, perhaps, of Santorum saying he agreed with Paul right before launching into a critique of the congressman’s foreign policy). This is most damaging for Perry who’s fall from frontrunner to second tier was most dramatic.
Herman Cain looked stronger in this national security debate than in any of the previous discussions that did not center on “9-9-9.” Although he stumbled briefly at the beginning in talking about profiling with the TSA, he recovered with a laugh line making fun of moderator Wolf Blitzer. But amidst sinking poll numbers, Cain needed brilliance to recover.
In the end, however, Newt Gingrich was the most interesting, engaging, and presidential on the stage. While Romney was solid, he did not have the power of Gringrich’s historical perspective. While other candidates referenced history as a distant thing, Gingrich spoke of World War II and Reagan’s immigration policy with the closeness that a truly historical perspective can bring: the conversation of the last fifty years have centered on a fluidly changing world where American principles have found definition.
Winners: Gingrich and Romney
Vishal Ganesan, SFPA Fellow at the Daily Caller
This debate was an anti-climax. Since its previous iteration, Cain’s numerous gaffes have lead to a drop in his poll numbers and Newt Gingrich (PhD) has miraculously taken his place. The on-going game of “whack a candidate,” as Wiill Wilkinson put it, set the stage for a debate full of “gotcha” questions and embarrassing Perry-esque moments of utter perplexity. However, the candidates knew the format and decided to hedge their bets, dealing in platitudes rather than tackling the issues. This is perfectly understandable, for outlining a convincing approach to American policy in Pakistan in 30 seconds or less is hardly a fair ask.
That being said, there were snippets of interesting dialogue. The discussion about domestic security in particular revealed a clear line between the mainstream GOP candidates the more Libertarian minded Paul who, for what its worth, received applause for his answers. Disturbingly, Romney, Santorum, Cain, and Gingrich seemed all to ready to support draconian TSA policies, including, it seems, some form of racial profiling. Huntsman who, it must be said, was clearly the most qualified for this particular topic, was erudite and confident but was still unable to overcome the limitations of his own gentle demeanor and thrust himself into the front of the pack. To his credit, this could also be a product of the American public’s current indifference to foreign policy concerns.
Gingrich clearly was intent on reveling in his new-found frontrunner status, but foreign policy did not allow him to offer his self-consciously wonky lectures on specific policy. His brief clash with Paul was intriguing, but I suspect that his views on immigration will play prominently in the coming days. His argument that we should ease the visa process for foreign graduate students is a good idea and will surely play a part in the election cycle, though Gingrich’s views on forgiving long-term illegal residents will open him up to accusations of being “easy” on illegals.
The debate was interesting in parts but largely insignificant in terms of larger movements in the polls. Romney kept the cruise control on, Cain and Perry survived, and Huntsman will continue to poll at 0% (margin of error, people!) despite his strong performance.
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.