.

Who Won the GOP Debate?

New Hampshire political observers offer their take on the CBS contest.

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich were the biggest winners, and CBS the biggest loser in Saturday night’s GOP debate, according to one New Hampshire political activist.

Jennifer Horn of Nashua, a former Republican congressional candidate and founder of the We The People liberty group, said she thought Saturday may have been Perry’s strongest debate performance to date.

“Perry was strong and focused, handled his previous poor performances with humor, and probably actually did repair at least some of the damage,” Horn said. “This might have been his debate performance overall so far.”

Former State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, one of the few who predicted that Perry would be able to rebound after last week's debate gaffe, said he was also impressed with the Texas governor's performance on Saturday night.

"Rick Perry didn't miss a mark, and effectively made fun of his brain freeze of the previous debate," Splaine said. "He's in this race as long as his money holds out."

Horn felt that Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney also performed well.

“As Newt fights to move into a strong second place, this debate helped,” she said. “It showcased his strengths; if he builds on it with more time in the state, he could be poised to surprise people on Election Day.”

Splaine said he thought Herman Cain appeared out of his element discussing foreign policy, the topic of the debate, while Jon Huntsman and Gingrich "seemed to come across as very competent."

Overall, he said Romney, Gingrich and Perry had the strongest debate performances.

The biggest loser, according to Horn, was CBS. She called it “unbelievable” that CBS went to a repeat of “NCIS” instead of showing the final 30 minutes of the debate.

“Apparently, dissecting fake crimes is more important to them than evaluating real candidates for the position of leader of the free world,” she said.

Horn added that the moderator, Scott Pelley, was “awful – rude, condescending and more than once, misinformed… If I were a candidate, I would not accept another debate invitation from CBS.”

Matt Masur, a history professor at Saint Anselm College, said it was good to hear the candidates finally spend some time talking about foreign policy, which wasn’t the case in previous debates. He said he wished the candidates had been more specific about their positions on foreign interventions, as none of the candidates truly articulated what actions they would take regarding the “Arab Spring” movements.

He said many of the candidates, including Perry and Gingrich, were very critical of foreign aid.

“But I think they may overlook the importance and success of a diverse security strategy in which foreign aid is an important component,” Masur said. “It can build goodwill, contribute to economic development, and address humanitarian crises.”

He said the audience reactions on Saturday night show a real challenge facing the candidates for the GOP nomination. He said many people cheered the hawkish talk from Romney and Perry. But there was also vocal support for Huntsman's call to end the war in Afghanistan.

“While a portion of the GOP electorate may want an aggressive, hawkish foreign policy, another contingent is more inward-looking and seems frustrated with ongoing and open-ended military engagements,” Masur said.

Splaine, the former Portsmouth lawmaker, said he found it interesting that there was such strong and clear division among the candidates on whether to go to war with Iran if they are about to build a nuclear bomb, not to mention the difference of opinion among the candidates about withdrawing immediately from Afghanistan and the use of torture and water boarding.

Meanwhile, Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said she found it “astonishing” that Romney and the other major Republican candidates advocated zeroing out the foreign aid budget, including support to Israel.

“Putting a political calculation above Israel's security doesn't inspire confidence, to say the least,” she said.

matthew November 13, 2011 at 08:46 PM
I'm surprised you even allowed a picture of Ron Paul in this post, because his name was never mentioned.......I'm pretty sure he was there, but it's hard to tell with the way the media (including this post) blocks him.............people are waking up to this type of BS bias in order to put paid puppets in place. (the top tier according to mass media are just put in place puppets)..... nice fluff posted here though....good job:)
Aram November 13, 2011 at 09:33 PM
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUL 2012
Tony Schinella (Editor) November 13, 2011 at 10:04 PM
@Matthew: If the subjects of the story don't mention Ron Paul then they don't mention him. I would point you to another story by Marc that addresses the CBS blackout issue: http://concord-nh.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-silenced-by-cbs
ItBeMe November 13, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Newt's the man. Ron Paul and Newt are the only one's on the stage who can think on their feet without talking points or a script. Perry was funny but shows how shallow he is. Mitt is Mitt - I don't think he'll ever get higher than 30%. Considering the week Cain had with the anonymous accusations (where's the beef) and such I though he did quite well. But again, rehearsed answers and no depth. Bachmann , Huntsman and Scortino my as well save their contributors money and go home. As always, Scott Pelley confirms he's a major a**hole. News reader that he is it's amazing he has a job on TV. Nice suit though !
David McGraw November 14, 2011 at 12:58 AM
Ron Paul's 89 seconds of respect for the rule of law, human rights, peace and prosperity dominated the 3600 seconds of air time.
Ed Thurston November 14, 2011 at 07:52 AM
The GOP debate made it clear that Perry and Newt good arguments and made their points clear but Herman Cain did well too even if he kept on hiding behind his 999 tax plan ( http://HermanCainsTaxPlan.com ).
Chris November 14, 2011 at 08:39 AM
Here is a quick break down of this and all past and future debates: Ron Paul is a nut and his supporters are garbage. Also, let's imagine he was elected....What is then accomplished? Nothing, because no one listens to him. Bachmann is about as off putting as a woman can be. Clearly insane, pandering, not too bright. Cain: Golden personality, but does not have the experience or even the knowledge on most of the topics. To watch him shoot from the hip on forign policy is very much uncomfortable. Perry: Let go it is over. I can;t imagine him being elected for any office after the mediocre performances he has put forward. A truly terrible candidate. Romney is the 2nd best of the pack. I could get behind the guy, but his track record is worrisome. However, Reagan was a democrat before realizing that he had been taken for a fool. Points for self awareness. Newt: The exemplary candidate, an absolute statesman in his grasp of issues, experience, and record of getting the job done. www.nationalsponsor.com for news and videos concerning American politics.
Jan Schmidt November 14, 2011 at 12:58 PM
I just want to know when a real candidate is going to show up. One with intelligence and knowledge, one that doesn't have to live down various and sundry scandals, one that doesn't have to get past bad "performances", one that could actually lead the free world - the more they debate, the clearer it becomes - there isn't one among them with what it takes to be President.
Jack Doheny November 14, 2011 at 03:21 PM
I would have to agree with Jan... were are the Republicans? As a registered Democrat I remember men that the GOP put up candidates who were true presidential material. Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower, George W. Bush and I would imagine Lincoln. Of course I wasn't around for him. This cast isn't meeting the test for sure. Huntsman is a man that makes sense but it appears that common sense is lacking with the Neo-GOP.
-Paul- November 14, 2011 at 03:50 PM
Chris, simply calling people "garbage" is neither substantive nor constructive. When people say things like that, their words reflect negatively on themselves and discredit their ideas. Furthermore, if Paul were elected he certainly could help make significant changes. Really, if the next president would simply bring the troops home from around the world, restore a more sane and responsible foreign policy, not based on endless war, and veto anti-liberty legislation and unbalanced budgets, I think they'd do an outstanding job. To be frank, I think a lot of republican voters would do better to think for themselves, and do their own research into these issues, rather than listen to the likes of Oreily, Hannity, and other mainstream media personas.
-Paul- November 14, 2011 at 04:35 PM
In my opinion, Ron Paul clearly fits all of the criteria. His economic knowledge is unmatched in the R field -- he predicted exactly why and how the housing crisis would occur years in advance, and his comments during the 2007 campaign have proved to be exactly right as well.
Barbara November 14, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Well, let's see, Jan. We can't invite Obama over to the Republican candidates' side because he thinks there are 57 states in the U.S., plus he just can't keep his promises, ie. "I'll have the most transparent government ever," then is the first president to have to be subpoened to get material for a congressional investigation (and lots of other stuff done behind closed doors); and we can't invite the beloved Clinton over (if we could get a special term limit dispensation) because he likes to get 'you know what' from very young girls in the Oval office, and then lied to everybody about it. Can't dig up Eisenhower to run because he had an affair with his military driver during WWII. Well, actually, there's just WAY to many to list them all here, so I guess we have to give up on the 'Jesus candidate' (read that: 'without sin.') So let's stick to what we need most now...knowledge and intelligence. Have you listened to Gingrich in the debates? Have you read his books? He was also a history professor, and you know what happens if you don't 'learn from history,' you repeat it. So you might want to listen to him very carefully and see if he doesn't measure up to what you're looking for in a candidate, once you give up that silly 'perfect president' idea. Are YOU perfect?
-Paul- November 18, 2011 at 08:33 PM
Barbara, a belief in individual liberty matters, right? Newt: -Supports forced socialized medicine, including an individual health care mandate -Supported the TARP bailouts -Endorsed Cap and Trade on PBS’s Frontline , and later did an ad with Nancy Pelosi urging people to demand that politicians take action on climate change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154 -Supported the hugely expensive Medicare part D -Supported Ethanol subsidies -Co-sponsored "Fairness Doctrine" legislation -Credits FDR with ending the great depression (the man who exploded the size of the federal government and whose insane policies extended the depression for almost a decade), and said he'd choose him to add to Mt. Rushmore. -Supported expanding federal education programs and I could go on ... I do also think character is important. Newt cheated on, and left his first wife while she was suffering from cancer, and then cheated on and left his second after she was diagnosed with MS. He's a bright guy, I'll give you that, but I think decency and goodness matter more - as would, I hope a belief in free choice. With all due respect, I think he's just another dishonest politician who's most interested in collecting more power for himself -- and whose record doesn't match his rhetoric.
Scott E Downer November 21, 2011 at 09:34 PM
RON Paul 2012 .....Stop the bullsh-- the people know it stop the game ! RON PAUL 2012

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »