• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Critics Applaud Heritage-AEI-CNN Presidential Debate

    Last week, millions of Americans tuned in to CNN to watch eight presidential contenders debate foreign policy and national security issues live from Washington D.C.’s Constitution Hall. Questions were asked by policy experts from The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, the co-hosts of debate. Critics agree that it was the “most substantive” debate of the season. Here are a few of those reactions. What did you think? Let us know in the comments below!

    … a substantive debate that brought to the fore differences among candidates on a variety of foreign policy issues …

    Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times

    The Republican presidential candidates have held many debates with terrible moderators, biased questions, and nonsense about what food and beverages they prefer eating … Finally, America was brought a serious, adult debate where substance was served up from beginning to end.

    Eric Golub, The Washington Times

    …probably the most substantive and serious presidential debate of this election cycle.

    Michael Barone, The Washington Examiner

    The idea of having think-tank executives and scholars ask the questions worked marvelously well. The queries were much deeper and more substantive than those the candidates typically get from political journalists and handpicked ‘regular voters.’

    James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal

    Republican presidential candidates grappled Tuesday over how to balance civil liberties and securities, as they engaged in a lively and substantive debate over how best to protect Americans from threats around the world.

    David Lightman and Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers

    The hosts of this debate – CNN, Heritage, and AEI – did a very nice job with both the debate generally, and with outreach to New Media sources (like, well, RedState**). The logistics to these things are formidable, by the way: successfully presenting a debate is not easy, but they did it.”

    Moe Lane, Red State

    …we got an articulate, informed and serious group of candidates responding to sober, intelligent questions — most of which were posed from the audience by associates of two conservative think tanks, Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

    Michael A. Walsh, New York Post

    Fortunately for CNN, Tuesday night’s debate will divert from the previous 11 network debates in both content and location … And to help drill down where the candidates stand, CNN has teamed up with two prominent conservative think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation … Feist said, “It really is a partnership between the three organizations. In many ways, they are the foreign policy experts, so they are very much helping to drive the content of the debate.

    Michael Calderone, The Huffington Post

    …a tense national-security debate that laid out sharply contrasting views on how to keep America safe from attack.

    The Seattle Times

    This was also the best audience participation we’ve had at a debate, largely because the joint sponsorship by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute meant that the questions were coming from conservative intellectuals (including some recognizable faces, like Ed Meese, Fred Kagan, and Paul Wolfowitz) rather that the usual YouTube and Twitter rabble. As such, this was the first debate that actually seemed formatted for the tastes of a Republican audience aiming to seriously vet their choices for the presidential nomination.

    Troy Senik, Ricochet.com

    Posted in Featured, Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Critics Applaud Heritage-AEI-CNN Presidential Debate

    1. Jim Gray says:

      We need more debates like this. a) the MSM cares not about policy, only getting reactions and gotchas. b) real issues, real answers, not just lists of soundbites. The Republicans should stay away from the MSM and liberal pundits for debate venues.

    2. Bob says:

      By self admission I did not watch this debate in its entirety as i found it to be rather insulting at best. I culminated this assertion due to the constant berage of blame being thrown about from candidate to candidate that seem to have nothing better to do than throw insult that more than likely have little or no merit. Yes i believe in our system of voting and shall come November 8th 2012. I will not infor anyone but perhaps my wife of whom i cast my vote as this DUTY is my private matter. I can and will say this as to said presume candidates. There is one that has at least 40 years of hands on work experience runing businesses on a very large scale and appears to be nearly squeaky clean. The second is of superior intelegents and holds the distinction of having direct and personal experience inside the granite walls of Congress that is revered through out the D.C area as wel as the world as a whole

    3. Bob says:

      . In short I was highly disapointed that the actual issues were not covered vary well at all. Our electoral process has become a joke at best. Who can con the folks best is usually the oval chair sitter. This is a travisty to this country and thse that perished builing and protecting it. Serving this country and voting is a DUTY, not a right, priviledge or joke. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START FULFILLING OUR DUTIES??

    4. Oscar Brown says:

      I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Serious questions got serious answers. Even Wolf Blitzer controlled his liberal bias, sort of. Who'd've thunk it. This is now the gold standard. Thanks.

    5. Lloyd Scallan says:

      The CNN/HF debate went as many of us expected. Why, in the name of everything holy, would HF expect any substantive discussion between GOP canidates, when CNN (Communist News Network) and the leftist Wolf Blitzed moderated. The only highlights was Wolf pitted one against the other like fighting dogs. If "cridicts such as NYT and the Huffington Post applauded, it should give HF an insight into how it effected the average watcher, regardless of the spin it puts out.

    6. Julia says:

      I watched and listened to the debate. I would have liked it better if a Heritage Representative took Wolf Blitzer's place, although Heritage did have their own people asking questions. The Heritage people asking the questions were very impressive, as I thought they would/should be. I would have liked to see the time extended because of the rebuttals. I am so tired of hearing blame and I just want to hear the results 2013 will bring with a new President. Give us HOPE.

    7. M Baker says:

      It was great, a good model for debates in the future. CNN wasn't THAT bad. For fun, try to imagine what organizations would sponsor/host a similar style of debate on the left? SEIU,New Black Panthers and CurrentTV maybe? Nice work to all involved!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×