Who Won The Fox News Republican Debate? Marco Rubio Praised For Tough Rhetoric


With Donald Trump absent from Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, some GOP candidates capitalized on the chance to distinguish themselves on the Des Moines, Iowa, debate stage. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio filled the hole left by the businessman’s characteristic bombast, and instead commanded the stage with powerful rhetoric about how to defeat extremist groups and side-stepping attacks.

The Los Angeles Times praised Rubio for his tough stance on foreign policy and confidence. “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio cast his fellow senators as weak in the fight against Islamic State, as several candidates jostled to gain an edge on foreign policy during Thursday’s debate,” the Times wrote, adding: “Tough rhetoric was abundant, with Rubio repeatedly raising his voice and jabbing his finger in the air as he implied that rough interrogations were necessary.”

As second in the polls, Texas Sen. Cruz was looking for a win in Trump’s absence, but some pundits criticized his performance. “Ted Cruz’s plan to win this debate is evidently to turn into a plungingly less humorous version of Donald Trump with at least twice the peevishness,” the Guardian wrote. “He has (surprise!) narcissistically decided that all questions are being asked with the aim of giving other candidates ammunition to ‘go after’ Ted Cruz, so he is going to litigate the conduct of the debate with the moderators.”



Check this out:

Frank Luntz Asked Focus Group Who Won Debate — and the Answer Was Nearly Unanimous



Trump won because the very first question was about him and he wasn’t even there;
However, aside from that, by being absent the other candidates got to go after each others’ throats instead of Trump’s
And so we all got to learn plenty of **** about all of them …

Sounds like they’re all no stranger to Hippocratic Hill. :rolleyes:



Last night’s show did one thing: it validated my decision to leave the Republican Party.

Who on earth is praising Marco Rubio? The way I see it, he’s attempting to compensate for his lack of understanding of the situation in the region and his lack of awareness of the current military strategy for dealing with ISIS by increasing the volume of rhetoric and bombast, as can be expected from the typical chickenhawk politician.

He says we’re not spending enough on intelligence capability and accuses Obama of “gutting” intelligence programs, yet spending rose 12% from Bush’s last term through Obama’s first term and has risen 200% from the Clinton era.

Intelligence spending is going through the roof, yet Rubio implies it’s being gutted. Further, if, as Rubio contends, we don’t know where the terrorists are (an odd claim given that ISIS, in its attempt to hold territory, is telling us exactly where they are) despite all the money spent on intelligence, why would spending even more help?


I don’t think anybody won, they all performed about equally. Most made good points, or at least points worth considering at times.

Immigration frustrates me to no end. The lawlessness of the situation and then folks saying the current situation is intolerable, right before insisting we need to do exactly what we did under Reagan that resulted in the current intolerable situation.

My college age daughter is a huge Rand Paul supporter. Her comment was the debate moderators seemed to be biased in support of Rubio, provided him much more air time than others, and seemed more deferential to him.


Considering that The Blaze is the web arm of the Glenn Beck media empire, and Beck is rabidly anti-Trump, I’m inclined to take everything I read from The Blaze in re: Trump with a grain of salt.


Just heard a report that Fox News had ratings four times higher than Trump during the debate.


I’m not sure anyone won, but some of them were much better than they have been. I think Bush had his best night and I though Rubio did well. Cruz seemed defensive some of the time. The few references to Trump, and I think they were few, seemed more comical than anything else. I still await someone to rise above the pack. Glad I am not in Iowa.


I am hoping that with Fox News receiving much stronger ratings than Trump, perhaps Iowans and others might have seen a more rational debate. It seems whenever Trump is in the room, tempers and emotions flare.


I agree that Bush had his best night. Not having Trump there seemed to make a big difference for him.

I thought Christie was the clear winner. He refused to criticize fellow running mates and had very balanced answers.

Rubio was Rubio. He’s a very sharp-witted speaker but not ready for the presidency.


I hope more Catholics will research Trump’s history on the abortion issue.


I can understand why someone may want to leave the party, but my gut instinct is that it’s an all or nothing proposition. All Repubs must leave, or none must leave. Otherwise, the Dems are far more likely assured of victory, and if someone is pro-life, that’s a must-not. I really don’t want to pursue the road to socialism to its bitter dregs. One might say that the Repub establishment is on its way there, but I guess I think it will better retain its integrity if the people with character stay in and don’t splinter off into myriad groups.

My husband does defense contracting. There were layoffs because of Obama’s policies. My Dad was in Intel, but that was years back. I’d have to ask him his thoughts about the budget. It’s an important thing to spend money on because there are a lot of people who want us out of power, or dead. What’s also important is having a Pres who recognizes that.


I think Rubio is pretty scary. If elected president, this guy will gut the Bill of Rights in the name of fighting ISIS, get us into more wars, and compromise with ultra-liberals like Chuck Shumer on illegal immigration.


It’s not enough to merely spend money; thinking otherwise is the problem with the defense industry. Billions of dollars to produce the crummiest planes and ships in generations.


Please explain how you came up with all that–


And how, exactly, does one “gut the Bill of Rights?” Do you even know how government functions?


I thought Rubio did great, I don’t know that he does himself any favor banging on with Cruz about the immigration point. Looks to me like its coming down to Cruz, Trump and Rubio. As far as Trump, obviously he has a humility issue, but clearly his path is intentional. I do not know about you, but I am tired of the media thinking they can sway how American voters should think. :thumbsup:


I think they all had a pretty good night more or less. My rankings:

Bush (!) (won the immigration spat with Rubio, as did Christie)
Christie / Cruz (tie for 3rd)
Kasich (until the yes we can campaign speech)

Carson seemed really weak to me - only loser. Out of place.

And, of course, if I forgot anyone, that speaks for itself.

I really enjoyed not having Trump around - very little ad hominem - substantive internal debate on core issues. And they went after Hillary.

Very appealing to independents, moderates, but still holding to a strong, effective conservative philosophy and message.

I am once again comfortable calling myself a Republican.

May God be with us…:wink:


Of course not. But it’s even worse to spend money with people in control who don’t value defense. I’ll ask my husband what he thinks about the quality of their products. He says some companies are better and more ethical than others, to be sure. I won’t name names.

Edit: I don’t mean to come across as trenchant!


Who won this debate? Iowans won because they were afforded the opportunity to hear out the candidates who are respectful of the process in a balanced, meaningful way. The GOP won the debate because the distracting, circus element was absent allowing all the candidates present to make respectable showings.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.