Watch the Full CBS Republican Debate

Tonight’s CBS/National Journal debate was held in South Carolina and the main topic was foreign policy and national security. If you’ve already seen the first hour of the debate and only want to see the portion that was exclusively online, skip to the 51:00 mark. Also, I added a YouTube version for those of you who prefer it.



or

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

91 thoughts on “Watch the Full CBS Republican Debate

  1. Ever since Newt was most responsible for the economic boom of the 90’s, I have been awed by his intelligence. Most people will tell you that Clinton was responsible for the good times during his tenure, but he fought the progress, until he saw things turn around, then he went with the flow and signed the legislation that the Republicans proposed. Clinton took all the credit, which really belongs to Newt.

    Any one of these people on the stage would be a better president than the Socialist in office now. Even Ron Paul. Even Obama’s China ambassador.

  2. It sounds like CBS had the script written, and the “moderators” were simply directing the actors to follow the script.

  3. OMG! I’ve never seen such an arrogant, smug, it’s-all-about-me moderator as Scott Pelley. This was the worst debate environment so far. I agree with the poster who asked: “Does Scott Pelley have a stick up his ass, or what?” A debate conducted by sound bites, moderated by an Obama ass licker. I hope the next debate allows more time for elaboration of one’s positions. As a person who has problems standing for any considerable period of time, I really hope the next debate employs the format of the candidates sitting around a table. That is the best format for serious discussion.

  4. I love Newt, one of my personal choices, but I’m concerned. His working knowledge of our political landscape is second to none, but his biggest drawback is that he lacks mass appeal. Obama is a perfect example of how appeal can trump substance; radical as hell, zero experience, but he connected with voters. Newt could win the nomination – I’d support him 100% – but I have doubts he will strike a chord with voters outside of the GOP base. Fair or not, the MSM will stereotype him as the old, boring, elitist Republican & it’s only a matter of time before they air his dirty laundry. Reagan was equally intelligent, but his passion & charisma – his innate ability to relate to the common man – is why he captured independents and “Reagan Democrats.” People want to be inspired, not talked down to. If it wasn’t for the media’s attacks on Cain, who led nationally (still does) & Iowa by double digits, would Newt even be in contention as the choice of his own party?

  5. I just watched the entire debate and am thankful that you posted it.

    It is clear that, of all the candidates, Romney and Gingrich are more thoughtful than the others, though Huntsman has his moments. In my opinion, Gingrich’s answers to questions reflected trenchant analysis and knowledgeable historical perspective. He has executive experience as Speaker and seems decisive and incisive. As opposed to Romney, he is, in my view, more than a “committed enough” conservative. Newt’s so called “personal baggage” is not of sufficient magnitude to matter. Are the Evangelicals not going to vote when the contest is between Gingrich and Obama?

  6. Sanctions are isolationist policies! Ron Paul opposes sanctions, the “top tier” candidates approve of sanctions. Iraq had sanctions put on them in 1990 and over the next decade around 500,000 children under the age of 5 died because goods could not enter the country. And AFTER these sanctions we still went to war,without a declaration, with that country! Sanctions hurt the civilians more than the government. Having trade and diplomacy is non-isolationism. Not wanting to have military intervention and covert operations is not isolationism, it is a policy of non-aggression. I am fine with “just” wars, but if there is no declaration there can be no accountability.
    P.S. Ron Paul has more money donated to him by active duty military than all the other candidates combined, Obama as well (if you don’t include Ron Paul). But Ron Paul has more money donated to him than Obama the president! The troops support Ron Paul! Support our Troops, support Ron Paul!

  7. Huntsman is the only *remotely* viable candidate on this stage. I especially think the “mainstream media” bashing in this forum is hilarious, given that Faux News receives the highest ratings in the US.

    1. He swallows manmade global-warming and Darwinian macro-evolution. That makes him an extraordinarily gullible imbecile IMO. Let’s send his ‘remoteness’ back to China and control him with a joystick from here.

      By the way, how’s life under the bridge? This is a Republican Primary Charles, not a dummy contest. Would Huntsman be better than O’? Certainly. I’ve got some expired cheese in one of my refrigerators that would be better than O’ also.

  8. Cain was steady and safe yesterday and that’s all he needed to be. It’s not news that foreign policy is not his strong suit. Nonetheless, he has vastly improved from where he was earlier in the campaign on foreign policy and he will continue to improve.

    I say to the Cain detractors, keep underestimating him! He’s no fool. Cain is a very intelligent man and one of great accomplishments and if he was Commander-in-Chief it would be an enormous improvement over who we have now in the White House. He would do this nation proud.

    1. Steven, just heard that Greta is doing an interview with Gloria Cain. Not sure the day. Probably tomorrow.

    2. Cain is the weakest of ALL the candidates. He hasn’t had as much as the experience one gets by sitting on a small town city council. He claims he will appoint intelligent and wise advisors if he is POTUS to advise him on the issues he is weak on. If Mark Block is any indication of the quality of people Cain will rely on, we are in deep doo-do if he wins the election. Cain’s only experience in politics is his hobnobbing with D.C. politicians when he was the National Restaurant Associations (a lobbying organization) head. Bill Gates was also intelligent, but I wouldn’t have wanted him for POTUS.

      How are you Cain supporters any different that the mentally numb nitwits that voted for Obama in 2008? They relied on what Obama said, not what he had done, or his record for governing. And that has really worked out well, hasn’t it? You have nothing to go on with Cain except what he says. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.

      If you want to sell me sausage, you damn well better know how sausage is made before you take over the sausage factory and try to convince me to buy it. It is obvious, Cain is clueless as to how the sausage is made.

      As to Cain being better than what we have now? Heck, that’s no plus. A dead cat would be better than what we have now.

      1. You are certainly not convincing anyone supporting Cain by insulting their intelligence. You certainly not convincing me. I know why I support Cain and why you don’t support Cain really doesn’t matter to me.

        I support Cain because he is real, conservative, and is not a politician. You are looking at political experience, but what has that gotten us? Are politicians the only leaders in our society? The time has come for a real CEO in the White House and someone outside the permanent political Establishment to change Washington. It’s the only way that We The People can unequivocally send a message to Washington that we want change and change now. We want an end to deficit spending. We want to throw out this corrupt tax code. We want economic growth and prosperity. We want a president that’s proud of this nation and won’t apologize for it. We want a strong military and an American centric foreign policy.

        Cain will deliver on all of those. He’s been a successful business man, overcoming great odds to get to the top of the corporate world. He is a cancer survivor. And the fact that he has taken up the Tea Party mantle as an unabashed, black conservative in the face of all that’s being hurled at him, I’m not going to leave him on the battlefield.

        So, those are my reasons and for the Cain supporters or those going wobbly because he’s not getting glowing press, I say, he will never get that. The media, along with the Establishment, has made it their job to deny this man an opportunity to win. They are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at him. But he has remained strong and steady and undaunted. Those are the characteristics of a strong leader and when he overcomes, he’ll make this nation proud. Cain is able, Cain 2012!

    1. Eleven years. If you include being elected to Lt. Governor in ’98, he’s been running day to day Texas for 13 years. But you’re right IMO. Good job Perry.

  9. Newt as always showed himself to be the most knowledgeable. Perry helped himself some. Mitt voted present mostly (sound familiar). Ron Paul again confirmed why he should not be taken seriously (ok for Iran to go nuke). Rick said let’s be friends with our enemies cause they’ve got nukes. Michelle got a new hairdoo. Huntsman was there too, I think.

    But Cain looked like all the crap that has been thrown at him has had an affect. He really looked like the wind has been taken out of his sail. Hopefully, this will pass.

    1. Michelle’s new doo looks great. I think she just had it pulled back. If mine were more than a 1/4 inch long, I’d do the same 🙂

      She did a good job here too. She was able to show off some foreign policy knowledge. Both Perry and Bachmann were able to buck the caricature the left has attempted to sketch.

      Now, I’m gonna hear the internet only portion so’s I can fill out another one of these post-a-notes.

      1. I liked her new look too, but I have not mentioned it for fear of being labeled sexist and being hit with a harassment suit.

        Optically, Bachmann looked very professional. She did well in this debate.

        1. That is correct. To balance things out, I must say that Perry and Romney’s hair looked quite lovely indeed. The entire stage did well in the internet only section of the debate. I did make a note while listening that I was impressed with Bachmann and that Ron Paul, although a prolific gun-sticker, had an ill-fitting suit jacket, which I give as much weight to as a brain freeze. Here’s how much each weighs…Not very much 🙂

    2. I think that after thanksgiving all this distractions will pass and he will announce his energy plan which will gain excitement like the 999 plan. I wonder what the establishment will use to slow him down after that.

      Cain did good in this debate. I like his answers except for one. He still has alot of growth ahead of him. He just look exhausted.

          1. Ah, see I was only speaking over what happened in that last debate.
            But since we are reaching back lets talk about stopping china before they get nukes!
            Ooops too late!
            Or trading terrorists for american hostages! oops!
            Or abortion!
            Ooops!
            How about second amendment? OPPS!
            Tarp? OOPS!
            Fed audit? OOPS!
            Alan Greenspan? Ooops!
            “People need to read the constitution?” OOPS cain doesnt know that “life liberty and pursuit of happiness” is a quote from the constitution.
            Want to keep going? I got about a dozen more with out even touching the goose that keeps laying golden eggs in his sex scandals.

  10. My take on this round:

    Winners:

    Newt had the best night on balance
    Bachmann was surprisingly crisp, clear, and on point
    Perry had good answers, displayed some passion, and got over his brain freeze with some clever humor. That recovery was helped by good answers. He just needs to stop repeatedly saying “the idea that…”. (drives me nuts)

    The middle of the pack:

    Cain did what i can’t stand in a job interview: he over-generalized. Contrast his answers with Bachmann on Iran if you want an example. I am a Cain supporter, but he needs to sharpen up. I don’t need the problem solving 101 answers from him anymore. I need to know he understands the situations personally.

    Mitt Romney had detail, but I think most of us would say that there was nothing that really stood out for him. He played right down the middle.

    Rick Santorum had good answers, but was not given much time at all on stage. He did well considering.

    The bottom:

    This debate roundly confirmed why Ron Paul should never be President

    Mr. Huntsman, it is time to take another trip out of the country.

  11. Way to go CBS you’ve produce the most Anal Moderators every. I could not even imagin the possibilities of moderators being so constipated and anal with the time. No wonder ratings were so low.

    Thanks CBS next time you moderate a debate I’ll be sure not to waste my time.

    1. I loved how the debate was touted as about “foreign policy and national security” yet DeMint was allowed to ask a question about the economy. Ahem. Mr. Pelley why weren’t you paying as much attention to the questions as you were to your watch?

      Oh, and the “loose nuke” question from Major Garrett was just fear-mongering. But I’d sure like to see him ask it to Obama.

  12. Why in the hell is Huntsman and Sanatorium still in the debates? PERSONALLY I think the top 4 should be up there and that is it. We are what 3 months from the first primary? Time to narrow the field.

    1. Narrow the field before the primary?…..Hmmmm. What again is the purpose of the primary? Sounds like the great dame has been lapping up the MSM cool-aid.

  13. The thing about Newt is he’s a seasoned career politician, so of course he will do well in any debate. Some of these guys (or gal) who don’t do well in debates may actually be the better pick.

        1. There are 2 RINOS in that group: Huntsman and Romney. Cain may not be a politician however, he will be very short in words debating Obama. It looks that Bachmann and Santorum which are social conservative(I like them) have little chance in front of them. Paul is anti-Israel. It is clear that Romney & Newt are the only ones that remain in good standing, and in my case I choose Newt over Romney.

          1. I agree with you…Cain can’t possibly be our choice. If he is then the people who vote for him are as foolish as the democrats and everyone else who went with their emotions choosing Obama. Please, God, help!

          2. I think maybe Cain is “short on words” because he doesn’t babble on like a long-winded politician, but, rather, sounds like a CEO. He may need to absorb more foreign policy minutiae–but, I think he has time to do that. I like his strategy of surrounding himself with the best, and I admire his willingness to get input from the generals in the field in matters of war (something to which Obama seems averse). I have to admit, though, that Gingrich was the shining light of this debate.

          1. You do not know what a rino is to claim such a thing.

            flip:
            On September 25, 2008 Congressman Gingrich appeared on Hannity and Colmes and called the proposed TARP legislation socialism and stated that it should be defeated in it’s form.
            flop:
            ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reversed course on Monday, issuing a statement saying that if he were still in office he would “reluctantly and sadly” support the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.

            I can bring up his rabid defense of Scozzava endorsement, his attack of conservatives who would not get behind that candidate while they supported someone who stood for their values.
            His attack on Paul Ryan for his medicare plan.
            His support of mandated health care, mccain amnesty, illegal warfare in libya, etc etc etc etc etc etc.
            This is the big tent reach across the aisle guy who says “The GOP doesnt need a purity test.”

            But bottom line is how do you not call him a rino when he recognizes such a program as TARP as socialist and three days later supports it anyway?
            If it makes your little heart feel better, you can call him the “sad and reluctant” marxist.

      1. Certainly takes away any excuses he had for sitting on the couch with pelosi, supporting mandated health care, supporting tarp, supporting Scozzava, attacking conservatives who did not, attacking Paul Ryan, taking money from fanny and freddy for giving “advice.”

        1. Sorry Mr EMT, Newt has already clarify all of those attacks. I wish you the best in your search for a PERFECT candidate!

  14. I’m so sick of Santorum. I’m so sick of Bachmann. This isn’t something to judge a presidential candidate on but her accent is annoying as hell. Its like nails on a chalkboard. Romney seemed to have a good understanding of the issues. Perry looks rediculous. He has these uncomfortable silences like a bad first date. Newt has a command on the issues. Ron Paul’s fans are animals. Unruly. Who were these people raised by? Paulites are basically hecklers. Newt and Romney won hands down.

  15. Hmm, I’m detecting a spike in Ron Paul Troll’s. Too bad, I like RP in some ways but his supporters tend to be obnoxious. Seriously, all you guys do is pop in, spam spam spam, and tend to be utterly humorless.
    Actually Herman Cain did fine, Newt did well, I agree with the comment earlier, good that those 2 mentioned the rise of the mooslim brotherhood and the ethnic cleansing of the copts and other christians in the middel east. Egypt shouldn’t get 1 penny from the U.S. in aid, I’d rather not help finance their atrocities.

    1. I agree. It’s as though he’s totally clueless about how very deep the hatred is towards the infidels, which includes the citizens of the United States and Israel, for crying out loud, and will stop at NOTHING to attempt to eliminate us.

  16. The biggest problem with these debates is that the MSM will only run with gaffes because they eventually help Obama. The only thing that the MSM covered from the last debate was the Perry mental lapse – they ate it up. That’s why the Republicans need to stop doing these debates with antagonistic liberal moderators. Their only goal is to promote infighting and encourage gaffes. Is the Republican party really so stupid that they don’t see this?

    I’d like to see a very lightly moderated Tea Party sponsored debate with the top 4 candidates: Romney, Cain, Gingrich and Perry. They should stick to the major topics such as: Stimulating the economy, reducing the debt, the role of government and their overall approach to foreign policy. I’d also like to hear them speak about their leadership style. I don’t care what their positions are if they can’t provide the leadership to get the right things done. More than ever, that means breaking this cycle of establishment politicians taking turns screwing up our country.

  17. Two of the issues I was hoping someone would address were each brought up by Cain and Gingrich.

    Herman Cain pointed out that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the “Arab Spring” is not a good thing and the White House embracing them is another failure by Obama. The other issue, brought up by Newt Gingrich, was the plight and persecution of the Copts, the Christian community, in Egypt which is another failure one could lay at Obama’s door.

    1. I’m sorry I could not get past 40min of the moderaters being so ridiculous on the time. It just to annoying.

    2. Kimberly, I noticed those points too. It needs to be pointed out at every possible opportunity that the “Arab Spring” isn’t good for America’s interest and it’s especially not good for the average Arab who will be forced to submit to sharia law. Just ask the women of Libya.

  18. Huntsman: Sane and practical, but hardly gets his fair share of debate time. He is as dull as an accountant, but as efficient as one too!

    Dr. Paul: As consistent as ever in his policies and views, not caring if what he is standing for is popular today or not. It is a shame that he got the lowest time on the clock.

    Bachmann: Never goes beyond talking points and Obama-Bashing to dicuss “details” of her own plans. But, she seems to be recovering from her Palinesque spiral.

    Romney: Obama 2.0 without a doubt. I have seen him flip flop so often that I just ignore him during debates now.

    Cain: OMG! What kind of a buffoon is gonna vote for a guy who is this bad in foriegn policy? His standard answer is that he will talk to his generals. That’s it. No other answer what-so-ever. WOW! And his standard answer to anything economic is “9 9 9.” I will bet my next paycheck that he won’t be able to point out Syria on a map, or even Abbottabad for that matter. He needs to spend some of that campaign money on books and advisors, or just call it quits before his neighbor’s wife comes out with sexual allegations.

    Perry: What’s with his memory buffer overruns? He keeps fazing out every time he is expected to say more than 2 lines. He is not fit to run a nation with such limitations.

    Newt: Amazing debater and straight talker. If only he did not have such visible skeletons in his wide open closet!!! ~sigh~

    Santorum: This guy looks so constipated all the time. He needs to take a chill pill from time to time. He lost me few debates ago when he said the terrorists hate us for our freedoms and wealth. LOL. Yeah right! And the Yeti roams the Himalayas while Hitler killed his dupe as bait and escaped to Entarctica with his immortality potion, plotting WW3. Nice try Santy boy. I think the American public gas grown up since 2001. The same rhetoric won’t work.

    1. We learned everything we needed to know about you from this line:
      “Huntsman: Sane and practical, but hardly gets his fair share of debate time. He is as dull as an accountant, but as efficient as one too!

  19. I hate this .60/.30 second stuff…that’s not nearly enough time for any kind of substanitive answer on a serious topic like foreign policy. Regardless, thanks for posting, Scoop…

  20. Honestly I thought most of the candidates did just fine, the only people who did not do well, in my opinion, were Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.

    My grades: Newt-(A+), Romney-(A), Cain-(A), Santorum-(A), Bachmann-(A), Perry-(A-), Huntsman-(D+), Paul-(F).

    1. Bachmann did well (they all did, besides Paul).

      Does anybody have a theory why she isn’t getting more traction?

      Was her rise just a product of constant (and often unfair) comparisons to Palin by the media during the lead up to the Iowa straw poll?

      1. She is the only candidate who was explicitly TEA party in her associations and platform. The MSM has been ramping up toward mainstreaming the OWS movement to supplant the TEA party in the public mind.
        Bachmann styled Palin, but her change in hairstyle shows she’s turned a corner. Drawing her hair back and decorating her neck with those massive pearls definitely accentuated her best features.
        If Palin does not get in the race prominently (which apparently she is running in near radio-silence for the sake of the Repub primary vetting) then Bachmann should stay in to keep the TEA party planks prominent in the debate, regardless of the ‘traction’ she’s getting from Media attention or polling.

      2. I think we have GOT to not let the media take out our candidates. If we let them take out Cain, just watch the long knives come out for the next conservative front runner. We have got to draw a line in the sand and say NO MORE. We will judge; we will decide. Stop letting the dems and republican establishment convince us that any conservative cannot win. They take out Cain, they take out Palin, they take out Gingrinch, they take out Bachman–Then what? Use your head folks!

  21. Thanks RS.

    Good on ya’, as a member of the increasingly relevant “Pajamas Mafia” to again have to clean up after “mainstream” CBS’ mess.

    Absolutely DISGRACEFUL how they handled the televising of this.

  22. Is there a reason Cain couldn’t have already hired a few foreign policy experts so that he doesn’t sound so ignorant at this point? Does he really expect to use the same lame excuses (if he won the nomination) against Obama in a debate? What a disaster that would be. Tell me again how good he is at running things, hiring top people, etc. Seems like pretty poor management to know he is woefully ignorant on foreign affairs and yet do nothing about it. It’s dangerous to consider electing a man who is so lacking in foreign affairs knowledge.

      1. Cain needs to hire Newt as “minister without portfolio” so he will be an idea man; when Newt sez something crazy, then Cain puts Newt in the closet for a while to cool off. John Bolton will be the next Sec of State if a conservative is elected, I think everybody would be confident in Bolton handling most everything that Cain would delegate to him.

        Newt makes a good point that a lot of old legislation hamstringingly the CIA needs to be repealed so our agencies can be a lot more effective anyway….

    1. He does have several foreign policy experts on his team…and he didn’t sound ignorant, he just doesn’t prattle on like a career politician does running out the clock to get as much face time as possible.

    2. The line that is the current media meme against Cain is he “doen’t hire the right people to give him gravitas”. Which is why Obama chose Biden for VP. Cain was pretty consistent with other candidates about the untruthworthiness of Pakistan, US supporting the underground opposition groups in Iran, Arab Springs uprising and declaring withdrawal timetables to our enemies. What was not brought up by any candidate is conditions in Iran would not have escalated if Obama had covert operations sent into Iran in 2009 to support the protesters against Akmadinishad, Israel and the US could have taken out the nuclear weapon sites. All the candidates had the same similiar views on foreign affairs except Hunstman and Paul. Cain wasn’t different from the rest.

    3. Cain came is a stalking horse to draw away TEA party fans (my opinion) he never planned to get this far, so he’s making it up on the fly.

      For a guy who ‘s been participating in presidential campaigns since 1996, his il-preparedness is a clear indication that his participation has always been about misdirection, not an actual effort to obtain and command the office.

      Either that, or his memory is worse than Perry’s onstage.

      1. Cain’s been participating in presidential campaigns since 1996?? Where do you get that from? Can you provide some information or links to back up that claim?

        1. Yea sure, right after he left his position at the FED branch in KC he took a gig as a “Senior Advisor” for the ill-fated Dole/Kemp Campaign (circa 1996). It’s right there on his wikipedia page.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

          Maybe the wiki article was just hyping his involvement, but he pedigrees himself as having been a “Senior Advisor”.

Comments are closed.