Tonight's CBS/National Journal debate was the first to be on broadcast television, and was devoted to national security and foreign policy.  Out of a sense of duty to you, dear readers, your humble blogger downed a lot of vodka watched the whole thing, and is ready to offer my grades. 

Before talking about the individual candidates, I'll say this -- I've been rather harsh on the GOP 2012 field, and, to be honest, most of them did better than I expected in this debate.   I didn't expect much, but still:  kudos to the campaign staffers, because everyone seemed better briefed on foreign policy than in past debates (On the other hand, I note that none of the candidates said a single good thing about Barack Obama's foreign policy.  I wasn't expecting hosannahs or anything, but the man is polling at 60% approval on this front). 

A big fail to CBS and National Journal for having a 90-minute debate that was only aired for 60 minutes on television.  The webcasts were bad, with lots of glitches on both sites.  As for Major Garrett and Scott Pelley, they did OK, but John Harwood and Maria Bartiromo outclassed them this week. 

In alphabetical order: 

Michelle Bachmann:  She kept her crazy pretty contained for much of the night, but it escaped for two big whoppers.  The first was when she said, "The table is being set for a worldwide nuclear war with Israel."  The second was when she expressed a desire for the United States to adopt China's welfare system (or lack thereof).  GradeD

Herman Cain:  The worst debate performance of the night.  Slow, rambling, evasive, and contradictory.  His answer on torture contradicted itself inside of 30 seconds; his Pakistan response was a total dodge.  His solution on Iran -- energy independence! -- would be like suggesting that the appropriate response to a rising China would be to move all Americans to Mars.  Both activities will take the same length of time.  GradeF

Newt Gingrich:  He had a pretty good answer on Pakistan, and was consistent -- albeit disturbing -- on the assassination of Americans working for Al Qaeda.  That said, Gingrich's "I'm smarter than everyone else" schtick wears thin fast.  I say this as someone who encounters academics on a daily basis.  Gingrich gives off the same insufferable mien of academics who think they're much smarter and more knowledgable than they actually are.  GradeB

Jon Hunstman:  Not surprisingly, the former ambassador gave the clearest and most coherent answers of the evening.  He pushed back the others on staying in Afghanistan, and correctly pushed back Romney on taking China to the WTO.  If foreign policy was really important to the GOP, he'd be the frontrunner, and it wouldn't be close.  GradeA

Ron Paul:  The contrast between Paul and the rest of the field was magnified during this debate.  As someone who thinks that Paul is too dovish at times, I thought he did a very good job, and got quite passionate on questions of torture.  Also -- and I think this is a first -- he got through the entire debate without mentioning the Federal Reserve.  GradeA-

Rick Perry:  Compared to his other debate performances, it was OK.  Compared to what I'm expecting a commander-in-chief to demonstrate, it was again way below the bar.  Perry proposed zero-based budgeting for foreign aid and a lot of other areas of the government; I wonder if he knows that the first president to embrace that idea was Jimmy Carter.  Then there were odd word choices.  China has to "change their virtues"?  He invented the word "forewithal."  And he was lucky that the end of the telecast cut off his attempt at an answerr on the euro,  because it was not going to go well.  GradeC

Mitt Romney:  Romney has perfected the art of sounding firm and resolute in his first sentence of any response on foreign policy, and then, with the next sentence, inserting enough hedges and qualifications to give himself tremendous wiggle room.  He demonstrated decent knowledge for the most part, and had another strong debate.  GradeB+

Rick Santorum:  I can recall quite clearly that Santorum have a decent answer on Pakistan at some point.  Beyond that, all I can remember was his whinging about not getting asked enough questions.  GradeC+ 

Offer your own grades/assessments in the comments. 

 

ANCHISES

6:42 AM ET

November 13, 2011

Since it's going to happen anyway

Since a lot of this has been coming out of the woodwork lately, I'll go ahead and just get started:

OMG HOW CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY HE SHOOK THE HAND OF A MIDDLE EASTERN LEADER FIRMER THAN THAN A EUROPEAN LEADER! AND HE DIDN'T HOLD THE DOOR OPEN FOR NETANYAHU! SELLING OUT OUR ALLIES11!#$!@#%2!!!%1253

Not only that, but his russia reset TOTALLY ISN'T WORKING! THEY'RE STILL BLOCKING UNSC RESOLUTIONS AGAINST IRAN!!! Just like they were doing before the "reset", BUT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A USELESS AND NON-FUNCTIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EASTERN EUROPE!!11@#%@@ ABANDONING ALLIES!@#!%@!~

And he's TOTALLY BOWING DOWN TO CHINA! Never mind the tire tariff he slapped on them, or when he called for India to have a permanent UNSC seat, or when he took that tour of all southeast asian countries except china, or when he finalized the US-S. Korea free trade deal, HE'S ABANDONING OUR ALLIES11!!#$!#$!

...aaaand I'm spent.

PS. George Soros.

 

BLUE13326

11:27 AM ET

November 13, 2011

If nothing else, this should

If nothing else, this should end Cain's campaign.

 

MICHAEL C

6:32 PM ET

November 13, 2011

I would push Newt a bit higher

If the realm of discussion is pandering to a base.

I would also fail anyone who thinks waterboarding isn't torture. Forced drowning? That's not coercive at all. And one of the candidates said we should leave it up to the military to make ethical decisions. We should, but with civilian oversight. Always with civilians oversight. A lot of the republican candidates have forgotten how much the founding fathers hated organized militaries--but they conveniently forget a lot of things about the founders.

 

MAX M

5:48 AM ET

November 14, 2011

And I'd push Newt lower

...for excessive pandering.

I can't believe he repeated that delusional, fringe talking point about how Agenda 21 is a vast UN conspiracy to enslave Americans and steal their precious bodily fluids.

Really - we're talking automatic fail material, here.

 

DOUG12

3:09 PM ET

November 14, 2011

A Grade For CBS

I don't think CBS should be given a high grade. Why hold a ninety minute debate in sixty minutes? Was CBS sending the candidates a message?

 

WALTSWRONGWITHTHISPICTURE

3:19 PM ET

November 14, 2011

I agree ....obama's FP is sleight of hand and not a success

Only the left leaning media want tp portray obama's FP as having been successful. While there have been individual successes, the really difficult macro issues like iran and syria, are no closer to being remedied. Clearly Russia and China didnt fall for obama's new softer gentler multilateralism shtick....only naive americans fell for that load....and they were influenced by a heavily biased pro obama media. Using drones from las vegas is NOT a foreign policy. Good as alawki was, that's not a FP either. Bin laden was awesome, but sending in seal team 6 was the only real call to make...does that make him a tough guy on FP? Please, lets not get crazy....

The 3AM CALL is coming and were all going to FINALLY see just who Obama is and how much of a leader is really is. To this point, I think his foireign policy is a mild C. If iran gets a nuke, he goes to an F in a real hurry. I honestly dont see obama stopping iran....I think he is committed to wishful thinking, i;e appeasement.

 

NICKN12

4:50 PM ET

November 14, 2011

Paul

Paul won't get the republican nomination, but I wonder if this is finally there year where he's going to mount a real independent campaign. Granted, that will just further entrench Pres O. as the victor, but will make things interesting at least

 

JOHN THACKER

7:51 PM ET

November 14, 2011

Newt defended Obama's foreign policy...

when he defended the attack on Al-Awlaki.

I'm highly confused by this parenthetical of yours, Dan:

(On the other hand, I note that none of the candidates said a single good thing about Barack Obama's foreign policy.)

Consider that Gingrich used an entire response to *defend* President Barack Obama on foreign policy in response to a harsh question about al-Awlaki. Surely if Gingrich had taken the bait, and accused killing people of being worse than waterboarding them, that would have been criticized as an opportunistic partisan attack.

 

KXB

5:36 PM ET

November 15, 2011

Too generous to Newt

The only reason he is going up is because the other non-Romney's are losing steam. There is nothing quite so sad as watching the press try to hype up Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, and now Gingrich. I expect we'll now get more details on how much jewelry Gingrich still has not paid for/

 

WHISTLEJACKET

5:17 PM ET

November 22, 2011

Giving Newt a B? Like a toilet getting chocolate cake

If Newt can disturb you like he does me, there will be a price to pay. That price, is his inability to understand that America is on a down hill slide. He simply does not see it, and that kind of ignorance will eventually make the downward spiral all the deeper and costly. He surely gets a C-, no matter what topic he is on.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More