« Out Of The Gate, Romney Contrasts With Giuliani | Main | Other Thoughts.. »

And The Winners Are....

05 Sep 2007 10:19 pm

My head tells me not to anoint winners, because, really, I'm not a New Hampshire voter and what the heck do I know about how they watched the debate?

My gut instinct: Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani won. John McCain did very well, too.

Debates are about moments, and this debate belonged to an impassioned exchange between Ron Paul and Huckabee about the Iraq War. Fox News smartly let the two men have their say. Refreshing: an actual substantive debate about core principles. What do we owe to the Iraqi people? Ron Paul says nothing -- "we" as in Americans didn't make the mistake, the neocon cabal did. Mike Huckabee believes that the war was a mistake. But -- America's honor is at stake. Honor -- a word that Huckabee associated with John McCain. A word that resonates with the Republican electorate. "We have to be one nation. That means, if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country. Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor." Huckabee said the country owes to the Iraqi people our best effort to prevent genocide and stabilize the country. "We have to continue the surge. What we did in Iraq is we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to try and fix it." Huckabee earned the biggest applause of the night. It may have been -- dare we say -- his break-out moment in New Hampshire, where support for the war isn't all that strong. (If this exchange had occurred in South Carolina, it definitely would have been a vote-earning exchange.) Huckabee was also asked tough questions about his immigration stance; he should wear them as a badge of honor. It means that his rise is being taken seriously by the press and by the Republican electorate.

The crowd seemed to like Giuliani's every answer on subjects resting on all three legs of the Republican stool. As he's done in all the other debates, Giuliani sought to contrast his own governing experience with the lack of said experience on the resumes of the Democratic rivals.

Generally, any effort to knock Giuliani's record in New York City fails. Maybe not factually, but Guiliani just sounds like a guy who knows what he's talking about. That aura really helps -- it's also why so many evangelicals hear him and say, "yeah, he's a conservative" even when presented with his moral liberalism. Giuliani's response to the question about his New York City immigration policies was concise and strong. Props to Giuliani's research, team, though, for producing the actual executive order that was the subject of a back-and-forth with Romney.

Another good moment: asked to explain his messy personal life, Giuliani answered with a great sensitivity: "I am not running as the prefect candidate for president as the United States. I am running as a human being..." and "Any issues in my private life do not effect my public performance."

The press will love his answer on the Grover Norquist tax pledge: "As president, I take only one oath," he said.

John McCain mustered strong answers on the economy, his national security experience and even on immigration, and managed to create a conflict between himself and Mitt Romney on whether the surge was working; McCain was 100% sure it was working, and Romney was... pretty darn sure it was working. But -- realistically -- how could Mitt Romney possibly know for sure whether the surge was working? It might be an article of faith with McCain, but Romney was where most Americans seem to be -- cautiously optimistic. Clearly, McCain finds Romney irritating.

When the father of a U.S. soldier chastised Mitt Romney for comparing the Romney boys' political service to the service of soldiers for their country, the dramatic tension would have been resolved by an apology -- even though Romney has already apologized. It was the hardest moment to watch. This is where Romney's crispness cuts too harshly. He seemed not to connect with the father's evident pain and hurt.

Otherwise, Romney, being very familiar with New Hampshire's inner maw, had well-thought out answers for every other question, even as three of the first four turned, in some measure, on whether he flip-flopped. A strong answer on abortion; there "two lives" to consider, he said -- the baby and the woman. Fox's Wendell Goler implied that Romney would withdraw troops quicker than Hillary Clinton, a low blow that might hit Romney later on. Romney seems to want to balance support for the surge with an acknowledgment of the political realities in America. That Romney raised $260M in fees came up for the first time in a debate, but it's a subject many New Hampshire Republicans probably know about and probably is irrelevant when McCain and Giuliani refuse to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge. TBD: whether Romney's efforts to draw a distinction between himself and Giuliani succeeded or was lost in the rest of the debate.

In case the audience reaction was confusing tonight, this is New Hampshire. Moral libertarianism and social conservatism. It was hard to tell whether gay marriage got more applause than boos. Surprisingly for a debate in New Hampshire, there was little debate about the economy and fiscal policies.

Also present, without much distinction or lack thereof: Duncan Hunter, strong as always but lost among giants, and Sam Brownback, knowledgable and on his game, but, as always, lost among the giants.

Comments (114)

As I pointed out in the other thread Romney was a big looser. Whats wrong with Romney? Romney smiled right after the guy (law enforcement official) told Romney that Romney was wrong in saying his five sons working on his campaign is same as serving in Iraq and he and his wife were offended since their son is serving in Iraq at the moment.

Rewind the tapes and check out yourself Romney did smile for a moment before answeing the question. Whats up with that? He clearly looked mean.

Huckabee was the clear winner.

Biggest loosers were Romney, Giuliani and Thomson.

Rudy sounded like a joker. His biggest joke was his statement that he is NOT running on 9/11 platform. What a liar! He has exploited the tragedy in every single way.

He also flunked on the family value question.

Romney never answered the question about why he compared his sons working on his campaign to that of soldiers serving in Iraq. And he did smile when the deputy sherif asked him about it.

Here is Romney's original quote:

During "Ask Mitt Anything" Town Hall meeting in Bettendorf, Iowa one of the audience member Rachel Griffiths asked Romney if any of his five sons were serving in the military, and if not, how did they plan to support the war against terrorism? "The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it," Romney told the crowd, adding, "[O]ne of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd be a great president."

Maybe it was just me, but I thought Huckabee got schooled by Ron Paul.

Marc, did you watch the same debate? Rudy was the biggest looser today. Another looser was Romney.

The winner is McCain followed by Huckabi.

Romney also never apologized during the debate to the deputy for comparing his five sons with deputy's son who is serving in Iraq. He only said he shuld have been clear. Romney was so shaken that his plastic face almost collapsed. He never showed any passion and looked cold.

Winner was most definately Ron Paul. Did you see the way the crowd so emotionally applauded him? He had the real answers. He's the farthest thing away from Bush that we can get and that's what this country needs the most.

Huckabee is now in the top tier. He could be the next President.

Was it just me, or was it true that every time a question was directed to Ron Paul, someone near a microphone was laughing for all to hear.

"Refreshing: an actual substantive debate about core principles."

Exactamundo.

Ron Paul made mincemeat out of Mike Huckabee.

Ron Paul convinced me tonight that he is the real thing. I was hoping that Thompson was going to be the one, but then I found out he was a CFR member (council foreign relations look it up on Wikipedia) I cannot vote for a New World Order. These are the same jokers who want to get rid of the US dollar in favor of the Amero. Look it up. I want to hate this Paul guy, but he is so right on so many issues. He is the only one who can beat Hillary in the general election.

Indeed, Ron Paul won the debate. It is sad that some Republicans consider "honor" more important than the lives of our soldiers.

That puts them up there with those who do "honor killings" of their female relatives for immorality.

Iraq is hopeless, the country was held together by state terror from a brutal dictator, either the Shi'ites in power will have to reproduce that, or the country will simply split apart like Yugoslavia with the lines drawn with a bloody civil war. Nothing we can do now will avoid one of those results, infact these are happening right now.

Ron Paul definitely taught few basic lessons to Huckabee and the rest. Romney, Giuliani sucked while Ron Paul was the star of the night.

The conduct of the Fox News crew was disgraceful and undignified. With their childish fratboy laughter on the sidelines, they showed their true colors as the hacks they are. These are the people supporting US interventionist policy.

Ron Paul stood firm to his principles and respect for the constitution. The reactions of the crowd clearly show him as the winner.

Ron Paul showed for the first time his true conviction. I was really impressed. Ron Paul was the winner hands down. Huckabee looked humbled by Ron Paul's conviction.

To be an advocate of peace and constitution doesn't mean you are a wimp or unpatriotic! Ron Paul is the BEST!

Ron Paul cleaned their clocks.

I have voted Republican every single time in my life, and my hope is that Ron Paul will steer the Republican party and then America back to its roots. I just wish it was not so painful to see how the MSM ignores Ron Paul. When Ron Paul wins it will be SO sweet to see the looks on the faces of the imbeciles in the MSM who just don't have a clue what they are up against.

Ron Paul clearly won with his message. He's right when he introduced himself in the beginning of the debate as a true conservative, not the way republicans are now. And yes, I also heard that guy laughing in the background.

"Maybe it was just me, but I thought Huckabee got schooled by Ron Paul."

It wasn't just you. Ron Paul schooled Mike Huckabee.

I certainly hope that it is mostly Repubs that are blogging tonight. The spelling is horrible. You mean "loser" and "definitely".
"Joel is definitely a loser, but his candidate will still win in November 2008."

Huckabee's the one! He's on the move!

Ron Paul in an extremist, activist, idiot. He should be in a debate with himself, and not affiliated with the R's. What a whiny freak.

Huckabee put him in his place, and any reasonable person cou see that Paul is way out of his league and out of place on the stage with the others.

McCain did very well. Guliani did ok. It would be nice to narrow the field to Guliani, McCain, Hucabee, and Thompson.

BOTH CNN and Fox news left out Ron Paul's final response when recounting the exchange:

"We have lost over 5000 over there in Afganistan and Iraq. How many more do you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long? What do we have to pay to save face? Thats all we're doing is saving face. Its time we come home."

Winner was Rudy Giuliani with McCain a close second

The Biggest loser was Mitt Romney followed by Ron Paul

Huckabee's the one! He's on the move!

I understand the pottery barn rule, but if you keep breaking pots, perhaps you should leave the store rather than trying to find the superglue.

I don't agree with everything Paul said, and Huckabee is definitely more charismatic, but at the end of the debate I had a far better idea of what Paul stood for. Someone who wants to follow the Constitution sounds pretty good right about now.

Winner was Rudy Giuliani with McCain a close second

The Biggest loser was Mitt Romney followed by Ron Paul

Ron Paul was the clear winner, but the mainstream media won't even mention him. Seems like they're too scared of him.

The person in the background laughing at Ron Paul sounded like it was either Guiliani or Romney. The laughing sounded disingenuous as if he was trying to pre-empt the sheeple watching him to discount what they were hearing.

That made me even more angry at the fiasco put on by Fox News, and made me want to listen even more intently to what Ron Paul had to say. It seems obvious that there are powerful persons and forces in the establishment who are scared of Ron Paul, but they haven't quite figured out what to do about it... yet.

The debate between Congressman Paul and Governor Huckabee was a defining one, but not favorably for Congressman Paul. Some have suggested he would save the lives of American soldiers, but his desire to withdraw from all foreign fields is a naive understanding of the world as it is today. In the long run, more soldiers lives would be lost by his creation of a global vacuum which wicked men and terrorists will fill.

Governor Huckabee understands that honor is a national issue, and that those who represent us in Congress represent US - all of us. That's a true understanding of a Republic, which is what we are. Thus, the United States is responsible for what the Congress does.

Governor Huckabee is fresh in his conversations, yet experienced in his executive leadership. He's consistent and conservative in his principles without being harsh or exclusive. He had my vote before the debate, and he only improved his position tonight.

I have a feeling Huckabee will be the candidate, but boy did Ron Paul slap him silly!

Romney is getting a bit too much heat for the comment about his sons' serving the country by getting him elected.

Clearly, he was saying "hey, we have a volunteer army - good thing, too. But I'm proud of waht my kids are doing." This was a FAILED TRANSITION. Just bad public speaking that bit him in the ___. We can't expect people to have a perfect response all the time. Romney obviously meant no disrespect - somebody accept the apology already. Heaven knows he's had to accept apologies for Mormon-bashing.

So the question is - how does this flub affect Romney's ability to run the country. Well, not in the slightest.

I never wanted to serve in the military and have no plans to encourage my kids to do so. I think its dangerous and want them to be around. Call me selfish, but leave military sevice to those who want to do it. Good for them - and I will respect them for it.

It seems to me that so many of the candidates rely heavily on rhetoric and jumping to issues or stories that will pull at people's emotions. Huckabee did that with Ron Paul - relying on a loaded word such as honor to explain why we should continue to lose american lives in Iraq. Ron Paul states what he believes to be the best direction for our country in matter of fact and perfectly rational means. I have a lot of respect for that.

Romney is getting a bit too much heat for the comment about his sons' serving the country by getting him elected.

Clearly, he was saying "hey, we have a volunteer army - good thing, too. But I'm proud of waht my kids are doing." This was a FAILED TRANSITION. Just bad public speaking that bit him in the ___. We can't expect people to have a perfect response all the time. Romney obviously meant no disrespect - somebody accept the apology already. Heaven knows he's had to accept apologies for Mormon-bashing.

So the question is - how does this flub affect Romney's ability to run the country. Well, not in the slightest.

I never wanted to serve in the military and have no plans to encourage my kids to do so. I think its dangerous and want them to be around. Call me selfish, but leave military sevice to those who want to do it. Good for them - and I will respect them for it.

I have NEVER voted Republican, but if Ron Paul were the nominee, I would have to give it very serious consideration.

Aside from our observations/opinions here about who "won" and who didn't, I can't begin to express how disappointed I am with the conduct of the moderators and with Fox news. Their biases are clear.

The sad reality is that the candidates that get the support are the ones that the media CHOOSES to endorse. So much for unbiased news reporting.

This country is in grave danger when candidates for public office aren't given a fair, unbiased shake by those reporting the news.

Go Ron Paul!!!

Ron Paul was the winner.

Ron Paul was the winner.

It seems to me that so many of the candidates rely heavily on rhetoric and jumping to issues or stories that will pull at people's emotions. Huckabee did that with Ron Paul - relying on a loaded word such as honor to explain why we should continue to lose american lives in Iraq. Ron Paul states what he believes to be the best direction for our country in matter of fact and perfectly rational means. I have a lot of respect for that.

Why can't Republicans spell "loser"?

Huckabee is the only Republican running who isn't a hopelessly worthless evil hack, apart from Ron Paul, who is not really a Republican. I can actually see Huckabee running a decent administration, something far beyond the other scumbags and dummies and has-beens in the field.

Scumbags -

Rudy G.
Mitt
Tancredo
Hunter

Dummies -

Tancredo
Hunter
Thompson
Brownshirt

Has-beens

McCain
Rudy G.

I would like to think that Romney's disgustingly condescending answer to the question about his sons' non-service marks the end of his campaign. But it will probably take more than that to kill off the little creep.

As a liberal Democrat, I thought the big winner was Ron Paul. But maybe that is just because I am against the war and he has the strongest antiwar message of any candidate on either side. And I think John McCain did well, too... he said nothing memorable, but the other frontrunners made numerous blunders.

It is funny yet heartening to see everyone taking sides when we are all ultimately on the same side. This is America. This is Democracy.

For my part, I think Romney will do the best job leading this country.

It is rare to see a candidate so capable of seeing both sides, yet I believe he will stay by his principles, which are conservative at heart.

Mitt Romney is a man of faith and vision, and also of intelligence and capability.

The escalation of attacks against him is only proof that Mitt Romney is the candidate to watch for.

I would like to think that Romney's disgustingly condescending answer to the question about his sons' non-service marks the end of his campaign. But it will probably take more than that to kill off the little creep.

As a liberal Democrat, I thought the big winner was Ron Paul. But maybe that is just because I am against the war and he has the strongest antiwar message of any candidate on either side. And I think John McCain did well, too... he said nothing memorable, but the other frontrunners made numerous blunders.

Ron Paul was the winner.

Romney is getting a bit too much heat for the comment about his sons' serving the country by getting him elected.

Clearly, he was saying "hey, we have a volunteer army - good thing, too. But I'm proud of waht my kids are doing." This was a FAILED TRANSITION. Just bad public speaking that bit him in the ___. We can't expect people to have a perfect response all the time. Romney obviously meant no disrespect - somebody accept the apology already. Heaven knows he's had to accept apologies for Mormon-bashing.

So the question is - how does this flub affect Romney's ability to run the country. Well, not in the slightest.

I never wanted to serve in the military and have no plans to encourage my kids to do so. I think its dangerous and want them to be around. Call me selfish, but leave military sevice to those who want to do it. Good for them - and I will respect them for it.

Rudy's site is saying that you said that Rudy won...

I have NEVER voted Republican, but if Ron Paul were the nominee, I would have to give it very serious consideration.

Aside from our observations/opinions here about who "won" and who didn't, I can't begin to express how disappointed I am with the conduct of the moderators and with Fox news. Their biases are clear.

The sad reality is that the candidates that get the support are the ones that the media CHOOSES to endorse. So much for unbiased news reporting.

This country is in grave danger when candidates for public office aren't given a fair, unbiased shake by those reporting the news.

Go Ron Paul!!!

Why can't Republicans spell "loser"?

Huckabee is the only Republican running who isn't a hopelessly worthless evil hack, apart from Ron Paul, who is not really a Republican. I can actually see Huckabee running a decent administration, something far beyond the other scumbags and dummies and has-beens in the field.

Scumbags -

Rudy G.
Mitt
Tancredo
Hunter

Dummies -

Tancredo
Hunter
Thompson
Brownshirt

Has-beens

McCain
Rudy G.

Rudy's site is saying that you said that Rudy won...

Rudy's site is saying that you said that Rudy won...

Rudy's site is saying that you said that Rudy won...

The whole thing about Romney is a joke. Did anyone actually see the town hall style meeting? Listen, I am not a Romney supporter, but I did see the actual Youtube clip a couple weeks ago. The whole deal about him comparing his sons campaigning to serving in the military is way overblown... The question was asked about his sons... he went on to give a 90 second answer, referencing his neice whose husband is serving in Iraq... and gave an otherwise good answer. At the end of the 90 second spot, he proclaimed that he was proud of his sons and that "one of the things they're helping to do is to get me elected"... anyone who watches the actual newsclip would realize that it was WAY OVERBLOWN... and a mild mistatement at the very most.

That said... Get Ron Paul off the stage... and Fred Thompson should participate... I still think I'm holding out for Fred Thompson.

The whole thing about Romney is a joke. Did anyone actually see the town hall style meeting? Listen, I am not a Romney supporter, but I did see the actual Youtube clip a couple weeks ago. The whole deal about him comparing his sons campaigning to serving in the military is way overblown... The question was asked about his sons... he went on to give a 90 second answer, referencing his neice whose husband is serving in Iraq... and gave an otherwise good answer. At the end of the 90 second spot, he proclaimed that he was proud of his sons and that "one of the things they're helping to do is to get me elected"... anyone who watches the actual newsclip would realize that it was WAY OVERBLOWN... and a mild mistatement at the very most.

That said... Get Ron Paul off the stage... and Fred Thompson should participate... I still think I'm holding out for Fred Thompson.

Ron Paul brings a balance in the debate & he is right the Neocons highjacked the foreign policy. Now simply leaving, like his answers seemed to say, is irresponsable. Huckabee's broken potery analogy was perfect.

Ron Paul won and showed those whippersnappers how to debate.

Ron Paul brings a balance in the debate & he is right the Neocons highjacked the foreign policy. Now simply leaving, like his answers seemed to say, is irresponsable. Huckabee's broken potery analogy was perfect.

Ron Paul brings a balance in the debate & he is right the Neocons highjacked the foreign policy. Now simply leaving, like his answers seemed to say, is irresponsable. Huckabee's broken potery analogy was perfect.

Yeah, Fox News is despicable. I heard the laughter they staged ONLY when Ron Paul was speaking and right from the very beginning of his time to speak - so it was not someone in the audience laughing at what he was saying (as Fox would have us believe!). And then afterward on Hannity and Colmes and the Spin Room interviews, they tried to marginalize Ron Paul's winning position by saying... "Oh, yeah there's a few Ron Paul supporters dialing and redialing to vote for him." Well, do they thing we are stupid? Don't tell me they don't have the technology to filter out multiple calls from the same phone? Please!!!
Well, I sure hope that someone makes a big stink about this dis-honorable behavior. It is embarrassing that they are a "news" organization in this country. They belong in Communist China!
I must say, however, it would be wise for Dr. Paul to breathe and relax more. He comes across as overly angry and that doesn't help him. Hmmm...

I'm sorry my friend but Ron Paul didn't win. The simply fact the he is there on national TV is good for his cause.

Well, it's true. Fox News is despicable. I heard the canned laughter they staged ONLY when Ron Paul was speaking, and it started right from the very start! So, it cannot have been someone in the audience laughing at what he was saying (as Fox would have us believe!). And then afterward on Hannity and Colmes and the Spin Room interviews, they tried to marginalize Ron Paul's winning position by saying... "Oh, yeah there's a few Ron Paul supporters dialing and redialing to vote for him." Well, do they think we are stupid? Don't tell me they don't have the technology to filter out multiple calls from the same phone? Please!!!
Well, I sure hope that someone makes a big stink about this dis-honorable behavior. It is embarrassing that they are a "news" organization in this country. They belong in Communist China!
I must say, however, it would be wise for Dr. Paul to breathe and relax more. He comes across as overly angry and that doesn't help him. Hmmm...

I think Guiliani will win, but Huckabee impressed me. Ron Paul is an isolationist idiot. It was the U.S. isolationists in the 1940s that prevented the U.S from entering World War 2 earlier, which could have saved millions of lives, including the 6 million Jews exterminated and the hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers and civilian lives.

Ron Paul is not a Republican. He's a Democrat peace-nik. He would NEVER authorize the use of force. If America were attacked in the future, Congress would have to convince Ron Paul to go to war. Heck, Congress would declare war and Ron Paul would say "I'm not going to deploy our forces and put them in harms way. Yes, we were attacked, but let's just lick our wounds and stay home. Maybe they won't attack us again."

Ron Paul is a frickin fool and the rabid Ron Paul fans that flood Youtube comments and blog comments are like a cult. Get a life man! Go support a Democrat if you want, but no serious Republican wants Ron Paul as the nominee.

I think Huckabee won (gosh, he did a great job), followed closely by McCain (surprise, surprise). I'd say Rudy third for articulateness and for clarifying that he's running on his executive experience, not just 9/11. The only thing is, I think he may have OVER-STATED his experience and I bet a lot of people found it off-putting.

I think Romney really lost. He's so articulate, and I actually think many of his points are reasonable, both those in defense of past faux pas, and his assertions of his positions. And I LOVED what he said about Democrats loving this country just as much as Republicans (I am so sick of republicans calling Democrats unpatriotic). However, he's got an image problem: he comes off as too smooth. Too too smooth. He's not gonna win the primary. No way.

Giuliani needed (and still needs) to score some points against Romney in New Hampshire. His answers to the ‘tough’ questions (on the tax cut pledge, his many personal problems, etc.) will help him. Where Romney’s answer to the father who’s son is in Iraq won’t help him. Though I agree that candidate will make regrettable mistakes like that. But shouldn’t be chased down over and over again.

The saddest moment of the night was Mitt's smile after the heart-broken father's question. Holy Hell, it was ghastly. Suck it up, Mitt, lose the game face, take a deep breath, and apologize again before turning on your "speed answer" mode. For the smart man I know he is, that was moronic.

LOL! Tom Jones - you said it better than I could.

The Ron Paul comment spammers are everywhere. It's probably like 5 actual people and 10 programmers flooding all the websites. Ron Paul also won the text messaging vote on Fox News. Ron Paul spammers flooded the text messaging too.

Though I'm sure Ron Paul does appeal to naive, and ignorant young people who do text message more than older folk. Might explain why RP does so well in text message votes in the debates.

But those same young people that furiously text message cuz it's an easy way to vote, fortunately won't drive to the voting booth locations. Thank the Lord Almighty they're too lazy to physically go and vote!

Once they put on a few more years of experience and become more sane, then they can vote for decent men like Guliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain or just about anyone else on that stage.

Giuliani needed (and still needs) to score some points against Romney in New Hampshire. His answers to the ‘tough’ questions (on the tax cut pledge, his many personal problems, etc.) will help him. Where Romney’s answer to the father who’s son is in Iraq won’t help him. Though I agree that candidate will make regrettable mistakes like that. But shouldn’t be chased down over and over again.

I hate it say it, Lois G, but I would laugh that way at Paul. Any question directed to him is a gimmie to the Alice in-wonderland fantasy of an alternate reality and you just KNOW it's going to be a good ride.

Mitt is all style and no substance.

Rudy is a jerk who exploits 9/11 day and night and then claims that he is not running on 9/11.

Romney is another idiot who will get on to his knees to please everyone. He has no convictions and simply an empty suite. And his $300 makeup reflects that.

Romney = FlipFlopper Idiot
Rudy = Jerk and Liar

go McCain!

Remember what Fox's own focus group said. They said that Giuliani bombed and McCain did well. Everyone seems to have ignored Mitt as expected since Mitt sucked in this debate.


Marty, agreed

.....but Mitt will be back.

Ron Paul won Fox's text message poll.

Rudy and Romney are toads. McCain has been beaten to death but he won't stay down on the mat, and it goes from there.

Listening to Rudy giggling at Rep. Paul was difficult, knowing that talk radio "conservatives" were giggling right with him.

It's like watching Planet of the Apes, where the monkeys are hooting and screeching at the last real man.

Huckabee is my choice!

--He was among Time's 5 best governors.

--He has extensive executive experience being Governor of Arkansas for a long time.

--He can most definitely win minorities (he won 48% of the African American vote in Arkansas, and I bet you he can pull in much of the Hispanic vote)

--He is conservative (pro-life, pro-marriage)

--Oh, and he plays a wicked bass guitar!!!!!

Ron Paul won the Fox poll means even republicans are pissed off at war mogering, fear mongering thugs like Romney, Rudy, McCain.
McCain won the debate because Rudy and Mitt were limited by their lack of brain power.

Rudy would have lost the election for the post of a dog catcher if 9/11 would not have happened. Plastic Mitt would have also lost for post of a dog catcher based on his stint in MA.

Mitt commented about Edward's hair cut, how about Mitt spending $300 for the makeup. Yes, Mitt spend $300 on a freaking makeup. How about Mitt - Craig for 2008?

It was a great debate this time round, much more inclusive and much tougher on the candidates.

I think those who criticize Ron Paul for his desire to withdraw as isolationist miss half of his argument. He's for defence of the homeland rather than for the defence of Iraq.

Notable experts in the CIA have noted how our activities in the Middle East actually spawn more extremists than if we weren't there. Follow this to it's conclusion and you'll see that staying there not only creates more potential terrorists, but it also continues to weaken our own army to defend our own soil.

If you look at it simplisticly, then you'll say that Islamic extremists simply hate us because we're free, as Guliani has famously stated. However if you do take the time to read statements from Bin Laden or other terrorists, they always cite numerous historical acts of occupation and aggression in the Middle East by the US. These people might seem completely irrational in their extremism, but actually they have a lot of rational arguments to make against us.

I support Ron Paul, for it must take a lot of courage to hold his positions when it seems like everyone is against you. I also thought that Huckabee has great charisma and is very eloquent in his speech.

Ron Paul won the debate by far. He is the only one who spoke anything of substance, the rest were babbling non-sense. Noe of the others candidates has the dept of understanding reality as Ron Paul, he is far ahead of them.

Fox as always is totally biased. They are a neocon propaganda tool. They had one of those canned laughs ready every time Ron Paul answered a question thus trying to ridicule him.

Chris Wallace, one of the Fox News debate questioners, who asked Ron Paul whether the United States should take its marching orders from al-Qaida is an IMBECILE. Only the mind of an imbecile could produce such a biased question.

They are scare to death of Ron Paul. They know that once Ron Paul becomes president, their games and schemes will be over.

Fred Thompson won that debate hands down by not showing up and being on Leno instead.

Leno has way more viewers than FOX news and he didn't have to respond to attacks on Leno.

Discuss Fred Thompson at the BEST Fred Thompson forum on the net.

http://fredthompsonforum.com/

Tom jones. Pussycat Pussycat.
Johnnie b. Johnnie b- STUPID
Have yoy guys ever read the constitution ?
Decent men, Gulaini, pro choice, gay rigts,
anti-gun, shamnisty.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

Get a grip - entertaining, yes - but W has plenty of time left in office to further hang any remote Republican hope of retaining the Oval office. It isn't going to happen...

This is a response to an above post about Ron Paul and Huckabee's interchange, a post apparently lacking any knowledge of history or the Constitution. The post is quite inane, but I had an uncomfortable thought that someone might think there was anything to such thinking.

The posted says of Ron Paul that "his desire to withdraw from all foreign fields is a naive understanding of the world as it is today," and suggests that America leaving places like Afghanistan and Iraq would leave a void that evil people would fill. On the contrary, it is this poster's statements which show utter naivete about the constitution, our form of government, and history.

The first principle of any country is that it elects its leaders for ITS OWN PEOPLE only. It is absurd to think that we choose a government to rule over someone else! Our elected representatives are supposed to govern US and be concerned about the defenses here. We have not elected leaders to police the world or run other countries, just as those countries choose their leaders (in whatever fashion) to govern themselves and not us. (Do China or Russia's leaders have a warrant to invade Iraq? If they don't, why do we?) We already know that Iraq posed and poses no real military threat to the United States whatsoever.

The second principle is that the Constitution makes it clear that only Congress can declare war. WAR is the only time it is appropriate to take action into another country. WAR in defense of your own country, which has been invaded. We have not been invaded or even had a war declared against us by Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. There is no declaration of war by Congress, and therefore, according to our OWN supreme law -- which every president and congressman must take an oath to uphold -- we are conducting an illegal action. That makes all of those candidates tonight who support continued war in Iraq guilty of SEDITION. Don't understand that word? Perhaps you are too naive, dear poster. Look it up.

The third principle is that history shows without question that an over-extended empire grows weak and cannot ultimately be defended. See Rome for a good example. Without stealing resources from those it conquers, the empire must continue to steal the funds needed to prosecute wars from its own people, and those people are bled dry of money and loved ones.

"In the long run, more soldiers lives would be lost by [Paul's] creation of a global vacuum which wicked men and terrorists will fill." What a reckless claim, based on sheer speculation, more like wishful thinking than hard facts. Let's just use a recent example to disprove this bogus theory: did the U.S. lose more soldiers lives by its leaving Vietnam than by being there illegally in the first place? Can you document the tens of thousands of soldiers' lives lost because of that withdrawal from Vietnam? I thought not. (And those were the evil commies, who surely had it in for us, right? Rather, they had all they could do to put their own country back together. And that is what the Iraqis should be doing.)

"Governor Huckabee understands that honor is a national issue, and that those who represent us in Congress represent US - all of us. That's a true understanding of a Republic, which is what we are. Thus, the United States is responsible for what the Congress does," continue this poster. The true understanding of a Republic, actually, is a constitutional, representative government which is designed with checks on governmental power and guarantees the preservation of rights to its minorities (that is, all citizens). The people are not responsible for what Congress does; Congress is responsible to the people for what it does. It is the people who are the sovereigns, and Congress is the people's agent, not the other way around. This poster shows a severe lack of understanding of our form of government; likely this is a result of our poor government-funded schools.

The notion that individual citizens (or even citizens collectively) are responsible for what individuals in Congress do is absurd. We are responsible, rather, for calling Congress to ACCOUNT when they do what is illegal, against the Constitution, and immoral as well.

"Honor is a national issue"? Those who get all excited when the word "honor" is mentioned are thinking with the wrong head. Let's examine this a bit more: HONOR, according to Huckabee, consists of, "if you broke it, you bought it." Well, that analogy just doesn't fit. Carried to the logical extreme, it would mean -- we broke Iraq, so we have to buy it and OWN it. It doesn't seem that's what the Iraqis would want, exactly.

So let's see, let's try the analogy another way. We broke it so we should FIX it. Mmm, Huckabee, what if you said to the the store owner, I broke that, so I'll just fix it and give it back? Doubt you'd do that, that wouldn't be honorable. So, however you twist it, the analogy Huckabee used is really crap.

So let's instead look at what the word HONOR means. One definition is "glory, fame, renown," another is "good reputation, credit." These definitions show Ron Paul is exactly correct when he says the US gov is still in Iraq just to save face, in other words, to keep its glory or save its reputation.

But consider this definition of HONOR: "a keen sense of right and wrong, adherence to action or principles considered right, integrity." This seems to apply to Dr. Paul, who has the distinction and honor of applying the Constitution to everything he votes for. He, unlike the others running for president, is NOT SEDITIOUS.

But let's take that last definition and apply it to Iraq, shall we? Let's see -- is it RIGHT to continue to stay in Iraq, killing civilians there, and risking the lives of our own people (the military personnel)? What PRINCIPLE are we following? A misguided arrogance that we can "FIX" Iraq? The U.S government has done nothing so far but make it a mess, and it has no solutions for the type of civil war that it has degenerated into. The U.S. continues to act as oppressors and enslavers of a people who never threatened the U.S. in the first place, forcing the people there to the U.S. Government's (read: large corporations') will. Is it RIGHT that Iraqis die and Americans die in a war that is illegal according to our own law, the constitution? Is it RIGHT that our people there continue to die and our money be taken for a war that has been shown to have no basis, that was prosecuted on lies? There is no honor -- that is, adherence to principle, in that.

Finally, what can one say to "Governor Huckabee is fresh (????) in his conversations, yet experienced in his executive leadership. He's consistent and conservative in his principles without being harsh or exclusive. He had my vote before the debate, and he only improved his position tonight." SHEESH! Talk about a bunch of words that mean nothing at all!

For those with even a smattering of understanding about what is going on in this country, what the Constitution and our form of government is really about, there is only one man who can fill the job of President at this point in time. That man is Ron Paul. He has 20 years of public service where he has proven his character, years in which what he SAID was how he ACTED, and he hasn't changed even a little bit in this campaign. Thus he will be a president who does what he says, not a president who makes empty promises he has no intention of fulfilling. There's your "fresh" conversation! It's been so long since a person like this ran for office that those who understand him are excited and thrilled, but those who don't understand this country and its history -- and there are many -- are frightened, and want the same safe comfortable lies from the same political liars that have always sold them out in the past. (Always with HONOR, of course).

Huckabee is supposedly a Christian, but he shows with his rhetoric that he is far from the Christian theory of "just" war. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

Huckabee has LOST MY VOTE!!!

there is no honor an sacrificing 5000 soldiers!

ive changed over to Ron Paul!!

Ron Paul is simply right. He is not really a good speaker, but he has a mission.
He wants to save his country. I want to help, and I will.
WE will be on the streets. If YOUR candidate is saying somthing to get you out of your chair to hoot about, prove it.

If it wasn't for that "being right" thing that Ron Paul has going for him, I kind of liked Huckabee, too.

Ron Paul didnt have a chance to "win" tonight. HE merely made a couple of excellent points, in my opinion- better than any other candidate made. Fox news was so terribly biased to put the front runners up on the platform, allow them to contiue speaking after the buzzer and instantly cut off Ron Paul at the beep. Why would Fox news' do such a thing? Because they want to present the lesser candidates to the world, not Ron Paul - a serious potential threat to their party. Fox news' bias is inexcusable, but what else could you expect from a company that actually fears a Republican candiate. Not much. This only reassures my commitment to Ron Paul, I will do everything and speak to everyone I know about this guy. Thank you for standing up Ron Paul, this country needs you NOW.

The thing I think some of you are failing to understanding is that text message or most Internet polls are not scientific. That doesn't necessarily mean "Ron Paul people are spamming", but I think it is plausible that Paul supporters are more motivated to vote by phone or online than supporters of many other candidates, From what I gather Paul's supporters are disproportionately young, educated, and highly motivated. Likewise Giuliani supporters may feel less interested in validating him on a texting poll or Huckabee voters might per capita be less favorable to use texting in general.

The reason Paul is not being paid attention to by "the mainstream media" is rather obvious. First in virtually all scientific polls Paul is a second-tier candidate. There is no mainstream poll I know of where he is above Romney, McCain, or Fred Thompson. Second he is so different from any in the first-tier that it is unlikely any of them will choose him as a running mate. If a candidate seems to have no chance in either position it is unlikely the media will feel a need to spotlight him. You also do not see them saying much about Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback. Considering where Paul is "in the pack", and factoring in his unlikeliness as a running-mate for anyone, he is getting a surprising amount of attention.

I am slightly amused though by liberal Democrats saying they like Paul. Paul is either a "Pro-Life libertarian" or what Republicans were in the 1950s. He has one of the highest rankings from the John Birch Society. He opposes abortion, affirmative action, the Department of Education, any foreign aid, and has consistently proposed withdrawing from the UN, This is not maligning him this is simply what he states.

http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296

I think a lot of Americans are fed up with the federal government in general...

You may say what you want to about those who support Ron Paul, but please do your research first. Here are some of the main reasons why many people now support him:

1. He is the only Presidential candidate with a large following that both understands foreign policy and is willing to stand up to the corporations that have taken control of it for their own gain. All of the Dem front runners seem annoyingly supportive of keeping our troops in 100 some odd countries with loaded weapons pointed at everyone and everything just so long as it's them doing it and not Dubya.

2. He is the only Presidential candidate with a large following that is NOT an isolationist.. Yes, you heard me right. He wants to normalize relations with all countries and establish embassies in them and allow for the free exchange of ideas between them. Everyone else seems perfectly happy with pointing weapons instead of talking and calling it non-isolationism.

3. He has admitted on the debate stage the atrocious actions of our CIA in the overthrowing of legitimate governments throughout the world and in their complacency to support brutal dictators when it serves the interests of the DC power brokers. He has promised to disband the CIA after replacing it with a non political intelligence service that actually contains people of "intelligence."

4. He calls out the sham that is the federal reserve banking system without trying to "dumb it down" for easier consumption. (And yes, he recognizes that we can not go directly to a "gold standard", and has said many times that he mainly brings it up to show the absurdity of thinking a bunch of corporate scumbags meeting in a marble palace are going to set monetary policy that benefits all Americans.)

5. Most of the complaints I have heard against him are pure libel or complete misunderstandings. Yes, he does not like taxing people and sending the money to banks and calling it a "student loan program." (The only reason we 'need' for profit government backed student loans in the first place is because interstate not-for-profit credit unions are illegal... Go figure.) Yes, he wants out of the WTO, UN, World Bank, etc.. Have you seen what those groups have actually DONE to the world lately? (And no, you do not need the UN to talk to other countries, at least not the "Security Council", which through feigned ignorance and political malfeasance has all but pardoned the Sudanese genocide, legalized our war in Iraq, ignored the plight of Africa, and otherwise allowed the real crooks to run rampant over our world.) He is also, in fact, against tax payer funded foreign aid. it is rarely brought up, however, that when our 'aid' actually reaches a third world country it is confiscated by the same brutal people we are supposedly aiding the masses against. Yes, he even wants to get rid of the IRS... But he wants to get rid of them because they are one of the most corrupt organizations in our country, and it's time we call them on it... (And no, he DOES NOT want to get rid of corporate taxes, excise taxes, port entry fees, etc.. He wants to get the gestapo out of our daily lives... The personal income tax only pays for 1/3 to 1/2 of our budget... If we weren't always at war and quit giving billions a year to oppressive regimes we wouldn't need it.. And we would still have enough left over for the programs people are dependent on.)

6. He has promised not to gut Social Security, Medicare, or any other federal program that people depend on, but instead to focus on reigning in the criminal and moronic elements inside our own government. He has promised not to get rid of anything that that doesn't already have alternatives proven and working. And yet people call him a fringe radical simply for admitting the ideals he follows.

7. He has promised to leave all the money and power he won't be collecting at the state level so we can fix things for real instead for paying someone in DC to do it for us. Seriously, how many times must we watch Democrats and Republicans alike spend the money on white phosphorus and corporate welfare before we DO something. Heck, he even wants to leave issues like abortion out of the hands of the federal government despite his convictions on the issue, because he admits He Does Not Have Perfect Knowledge. (Try getting other 'candidates' to admit they might be wrong.)

8. He will quit enforcing the "Patriot Act" and revoke all unconstitutional executive orders and "signing statements" on day one... Period.

9. He will stop the war on drugs, the war on alternative healthcare, the war on privacy, the propaganda machine that the Dept. of "Education" has become, (and yes, the Dems helped on that one too..), disallow the EPA from legalizing pollution through the creative use of token fines, and end the subsides for big oil that have kept us petrol-dependent for the last century. Yes, there is a trade off... If we decide we want school and healthcare for all we will have to do it outside of the federal government., using the money he won't be taking from us. But really, are the feds even competent enough to do it if they wanted to?... I mean gawd, look at their agendas and their histories and tell me you have faith in these people for the future of mankind..

10. And most importantly, he is honest... When says these things he actually means them... How many other candidates can you say that about? I mean truly, he is, and always has been, a man of his word. Unbelievable they were dumb enough to even let him on the debate stage in the first place.

So, why would Ron Paul be such a bad choice for our country? I mean yes, you'll have to do more in your own back yard instead of waiting for Washington to do it for you. But really, with their track record, why wouldn't you want to?

Anyway, just some food for thought,
Chris.

Watch the democrat debates. They'll remind me you of the not-cool-enough kids who ran for highschool president making unrealistic promises: two-hour lunches, five recesses, and one month less of school!

Watch the republican debates and you'll be watching adults.

Unfortunately the average Republican doesn't have the intellectual capacity to view foreign policy beyond Hucksterisms. As McCain did come off as the more statesman like his bounce from this debate will be the most significant. There is a large following for Paul that transcends party lines which makes him the premier choice for a third party candidacy. People are tired of an unwinnable occupation, plain and simple. Unfortunately the rigged nature of Presidential electoral politics will not allow for a viable candidacy. Let's face it folks, the sheeple in both parties are on a headlong course for Rudy & Hillary as the nominees. It's just a matter of time.

I'm sorry but Ron Paul comes off as a nut.

Thank you Jennifer and thank you Chris W. for giving us more than a sound bite.
I appreciate your well thought out comments and outlining of facts.

Go Ron Paul!!

Mike Huckabee (who I actually "liked" before this debate) seemed to be referring to our military as the Samurai of Feudal Japan with his references to "honor" and "saving face." I was also reminded of the words of Spartan women when sending their husbands off to war, "Either return with your shield or on it." Is this what Huckabee is saying?! Have we become so egotistical and flippant with human life as to tell our own troops, "we care more about honor than your lives?!" If we are looking at military history, why not look at the Rule Book still taught in most military colleges and settings, the writings of Sun Tzu, "The Art of War":

"Invicibility is defense. Vincibility is attack. Defend and one has a surplus. Attack and one is insufficient."

"One who does not thoroughly know the harm from employing the military cannot thoroughly know the advantage from employing the military."

"There are roads one does not follow. There are armies one does not strike. There are cities one does not attack. There are grounds one does not contest. There are commands of the sovereign (president) one does not accept."

These writings are still taught at the War College, West Point, Annapolis and others, which is probably why so many generals have opposed Bush publicly. THEY KNOW BETTER!

Romney definitely has sincerity and credibility
issues, as witnessed by those who watched the debate.

Earlier he denied holding a sign that said
"NO TO OBAMA, OSAMA AND CHELSEA'S MOMA" Clinton sign, and here is a picture of him doing just that.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/21/mitt-catches-s-t-over-hillary-bashing-sign/

Romney is getting a bit too much heat for the comment about his sons' serving the country by getting him elected.

Clearly, he was saying "hey, we have a volunteer army - good thing, too. But I'm proud of waht my kids are doing." This was a FAILED TRANSITION. Just bad public speaking that bit him in the ___. We can't expect people to have a perfect response all the time. Romney obviously meant no disrespect - somebody accept the apology already. Heaven knows he's had to accept apologies for Mormon-bashing.

So the question is - how does this flub affect Romney's ability to run the country. Well, not in the slightest.

I never wanted to serve in the military and have no plans to encourage my kids to do so. I think its dangerous and want them to be around. Call me selfish, but leave military sevice to those who want to do it. Good for them - and I will respect them for it.

My gut instinct tells me that this column is as valuable as the tp I use to well... clean. My gut instict tells me you love scripted phrases, RFID and NAU. My SPidey Sense also tells me that you must not want whats best for the US either

Ron Paul was the clear winner. He is so right - he is the REAL Republican, and eveyone else on stage just spouted rhetoric and non-sense. Ron Paul is the truest, smarest patriot and we would be so lucky to have him leading this country. There is so much bias against him it make me sick to my stomach.

It is clear from the comments that each person's view of who won or lost in the debate depends on your personal political views.

No matter what you believe in, Huckabee really showed his strength, as did McCain. I think Huckabee is the best chance for the Republican party to win in 2008.

Well maybe I was the only one thinking Ron Paul is a nut trapped in the 1800's when it comes to foreign policy. Or maybe he considers himself a "healer", not a warrior and prefers to avoid conflict. Anyway, I thought it was clear Giuliani took the biggest hit of the night, after Ron Paul. Rudy is too honest to hide his social liberalism. You like the honest part, but not the liberalism, y'know?

Gov. Mike Huckabee was the clear winner in last night's debate. I happened to be lucky enough to be there and his speech was beyond moving. He wasn't saying that the war was right and he wasn't saying that as President that he would want to remain there. What he was saying is that we as human beings owe it to the Iraqi people as well as the US troops to clean up the mess that President Bush has made while in office. This is a man that values human life and because of that knows that running away from Iraq is not the answer. I have also had the wonderful opportunity to meet and speak to Gov. Huckabee when he came to my parents' NH home to speak to NH residents. In an instant it was obvious that the "realness" he exudes on television is no act. He is one of the most genuine people I have ever met and I would feel honored to have him as my president.
Please do your research before you go to the polls this winter and don't just vote for someone because they can afford to air televisions ads. This election is so important and I know that if anyone actually educated themselves on Gov. Huckabee and had the opportunity to meet him, that he would be the candidate for them!!

I agree with Jason in regards to the shameful behavior of the Fox News crew.
Unprofessional to say the least. Don't they have a Sound Editor?
I have filed a complaint with the FCC

The audible laughing & giggling when Congressman Paul spoke was a slap in the face to American Voters and to Congressman Paul.

Fox News owes all of us an apology and their Sponsors need to re-think if Fox News.

I was in a focus group last night and I am shocked that about 10 of them who seemed otherwise intelligent and articulate, would think McCain was the 'winner' just because he gave a long violin speech about honoring soldiers. There wasn't one person there who thought we should not honor our soldiers. However, I dont' think staying in Iraq and having more of them killed is honoring them. Nor do I think his little speech made him the 'winner'. He simply had taken his meds that night and for the first time in a long time did not come off as the mental case well all know he is.

Huckabee was despicable to pull out the racism card to force people into not going against his excusal of illegals. That is exactly how the liberals make you feel guilty for your beliefs and validate theirs. We don't need another president from Arkansas who in bed with Tyson Chicken. Clinton was enough.

Yet have you noticed, as I predicted, Huckabee is the media's next golden boy. Starting with the contrived Iowa poll, they are so scared of who might break out (judging from straw poll wins all over the country and $102K raised at a recent house party- more than even Romney has raised from his rich friends at any one venue) they had to find someone else to shove down our throats as Rudy and Mitt are faltering. Huckabee is that person.

But, it cannot be denied who that breakout person is: the one who will REALLY get us out of the UN, who is really trustworthy and honest and who really has the voting record to go along with the rhetoric, and the one who is most like Ronald Reagan, and indeed was his good friend..and that is Dr Ron Paul.
Impeccable personal life, impeccable voting record, scholar and gentleman, veteran, and true champion of the people, and the ONLY REAL republican on that stage last night!

The reason they can claim he is at 3% in the polls is because no one ever ASKS when they call! In NH "other" is winning. And for you who say Ron Paul was out of his league, Ron Paul is never out of his league with bunch of jerks. He is a scholar who is an expert on monetary systems and foreign policy. Huckabee? He plays guitar and preaches. Eh. Has Huck ever written a white paper on anything? Paul has 20 years experience in the Congress.

The biggest loser in this debate was FOX NEWS because they are no longer going to be trusted by true conservatives. They are no better than liberals.

A lot of people can talk well, about things that are 'moving' but does their record match their rhetoric? Paul's does.

Liz, I found Rudy to be the biggest avoider of the questions...and Mitt, well the two of them blinked and smiled inappropriately suggesting they were nervous when getting questions about spending and immigration --- things on which they have questionable records.

For those of you too blind to see, I'm sorry. They lacked credibility.
Indeed my focus group hated Rudy the most.

What it is about someone who is kind, gentle, family oriented, no ego, trustworthy, honest, non interventionist and a true fiscal conservative that makes him 'nuts'?

Suddenly what is right is wrong?
I'm sick of them all, I want Ron Paul!

MoeLarryAndJesus --- do some reading before you accuse Ron of not being a republican.

Ron Paul is the ONLY 'real' Republican.

He gets 100% rating from NTU
He has never voted for a tax increase
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget
He gets A+ from GOA
He doesn't participate in the congressional pension
He takes no lobbying money
He is pro-life

What about that is not 'republican'?

And for you Marty, I was in FOX's own focus group. It was quite biased. Nothing I said was put on air because it was too deep for what they wanted. They wanted people to say things like McCain sounded presidential therefore he was the best in the debate. As I said above, just saying nice things about the soldiers, that anyone could agree with does not make one win a debate.

Once Luntz figured out I was a Paul supporter anything I said was cut out.

Those who make the absolutely irrelevant and frankly pathetically illogical claims that Romney's sons aren't serving in the military and therefore he can't support the war on terror just need to go. If you can't concoct a logical argument, you have no business posing a question to a candidate on the short-list to lead the free world.

And I have yet to see how Romney has a questionable record on immigration. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are the only Republicans who have better records. Period. It's not even close with a lot of the other jokers on that stage.

And speaking of Duncan Hunter, it would be nice to see him field some questions. The whole body-slamming of Ron Paul is getting old. He needs to go. And why begin the debate with a ridiculously unanswerable question about Fred Thompson? The man doesn't show up, well, don't mention him.

I believe Huckabee stole the show. Ron Paul supporters have turned Honor into a bad word and twisted the words of Huckabee across so many blogs. These are malicious people with an agenda of taking down Pres. Bush.

Any mature individual must know that Bush has made mistakes and dug the US into a hole in Iraq, but I believe he thought he was doing what was right. The Bush goal in Iraq is a good one but perhaps too soon for a people that are not ready.

Those of you who see the islamic nations as completely radical and can never change are certianly narrow minded. In fact, why would librals say that anyway... that viewpoint is very anti-islamic and also a prejudice against a race as well. They have the same ability to act in a democratic manner as we do if the right conditions are met can be met, and that takes time.

We must get on the same page as republicans. Bin Laden was created out of the destruction of Afganistan by Russia. We supplied arms to the Afgans. When the Russians left, we pulled out also and did nothing to help rebuild their country. Those were the first seeds of hate sewn into Bin Laden's heart. We made a mistake in Iraq too, and we owe it to the Iraqi people to do our best to fix it. Otherwise, we run a great risk of creating a dozen more Bin Ladens. It is the worst mistake we can do as a nation right now. We did break it, and we have bought it.. wether we like it or not. IF WE DO AS RON PAUL SUGGEST, IT'S LIKE TRYING TO FORCE THE BLAME TO OUR IMAGINARY FRIEND... "it wasn't us(United States), it was him(Pres. Bush)". That will not cut it with Bin Laden or any other radical jihadist.

Just for the record I am no Bush-basher and don't engage in any of these impeachment efforts because I think that's a waste of time.

I do think we lost the NH legislature for the first time in 80 years to the demonrats because of the war. (People were too stupid to realize that their local reps do NOT go to DC to vote on war either that or they punished them anyway for just being republicans when they kept NH in the top 3 of desirable places with the lowest taxes)

So, no pro-war candidate is going to win.

Ron has a proven track record on all the other 'republican' issues like life, taxes, guns, and he is honest and has a good family life. He's got lots of experience in Congress and you can't beat that.

Isn't Huck a Pro-Lifer? How can he be FOR the war and Pro-Life?

anyone who thinks Huck did well last night, please explain it to us...

Chandler, AZ

I thought I was being quite reasonable. However Paul's supporters are more vehement than I'd anticipated.

I had a long thing planned, but it boils down to this. How great you think he is isn't important. I know people who just love Brownback, but it doesn't matter. In Paul's case you have to be aware of the reality.

1: Most Americans are not libertarians or paleoconservatives. At most maybe 14% are and it's not certain he can get all those. This is probably not enough to get the nomination of either party.

2: Paul is not getting only 3% because of "a conspiracy." If you want to think that's the reason you have that right, but the scientific polls have placed him by name. His support outside the Internet is weaker than in it, this is simply the reality and there is no empirical evidence saying otherwise.

3: Paul is not a viable Vice Presidential nominee either because of his core differences with the major candidates.

4: Even if you find his ideas interesting they are not politically viable. The fact that he was known as "Dr. No" and had few supporters on many of the initiatives he cares about should clue you in on that.

And I am still baffled why a liberal Democrat would support him. He is mostly a libertarian and scores low on things many liberal democrats care about. I get the sense that some liberal Democrat supporters are willing to put that to one side, but surely you have more viable anti-war candidates of your own?

Why aren't you talking about Ron Paul? He won the text in poll after the debate. HE got the biggest applause.

What was that nonsense from Huckabee about "honor"? There's no honor in sacrificing 19 year old kids in a war that has no purpose. The Iraqi people will never accept the occupation. Vietnam would be far worse off if the US had stayed in that country, and a lot more Americans would have died. There is no way Vietnam would be a stable peaceful country today that trades and is developing if the US hadn't left, no way, so why is Huckabee pretending that the US needs to stay FOR Iraq?

America is facing total bankruptcy:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

and the political pundits are still supporting the bullshit status quo candidates. Ron Paul is the only politician who has been consistently talking about this. The rest of the candidates are total bullshit.

Ron Paul entered public office in after Nixon decided to take the US off of the gold standard in 1971. RP knew this would result in runaway deficits since it would give government the ability to issue bonds and print cash whenever it couldn’t pay for its spending. He was absolutely right.

Median wages have remained stagnant or fallen for most demographics since 1972. Household wealth for median wage earners is lower now than it was back in 1980- 27 years ago. Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971, the federal reserve has printed more money, and devalued US currency more rapidly than at any time in US history, leading to the gap between rich and poor ballooning. The big financial firms that own all the mainstream candidates want this continue of course, because they benefit. The US tax code is so big and complex now that it requires 66,000 pages to explain it, and $265 billion a year to comply with it, using up 2% of US GDP.

Social Security obligations are at $60 TRILLION, way beyond what America can come close to affording meaning millions of Americans will have no money when they retire.

I realize I'm in a minority of one, but Romney looked a lot better to me after the debate. He made it clear that unlike Rudy McThompson, the U.S. can't run Iraq forever even if it can't leave tomorrow.

Does he pander too much? Sure.

But he still came across as the most reasonable guy on the stage (well, the most reasonable guy not named Ron Paul, at least!)

Another performance like this and I'll have to say (to plagiarize Edwin Edwards' old slogan):
Vote for the Flip-Flopper ... It's Important!

Mike did the best job in the debate by speaking to the American people. He's down to earth, his common sense wisdom and conservative principles along with his proven leadership ability makes him the strongest candidate with the broadest appeal. He's someone we can get behind and support because he can actually "get it done".

Anybody out there who's praising Mitt is sorely misguided. That guy doesn't have a clue and he only cares about how he appears, both politically and literally. Of the latter, his $300 make-up is a prime example.

Anybody out there who's praising Mitt is sorely misguided. That guy doesn't have a clue and he only cares about how he appears, both politically and literally. Of the latter, his $300 make-up is a prime example.