Huckabee has to use up his 30 sec. with Jokes, otherwise he might have to say something straightforward...

I AGREE with "ALMANOJODO" on Mitt Romney...
I think a Washington "outsider" & a Businessman will get will GET the JOB done..

I'm undecided, but found this great article called "The Convenience of Civility" on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com

It takes a great look at each of the GOP Candidates.

Here is an excerpt:
"Last night's MSNBC Republican Candidates Debate was an important one for the GOP Presidential Candidates because it was aired from Florida, an immense State from which many of these candidate's continued tenure depends upon. The expectations ran high, when you considered the latest Democratic Candidates Debate was headlined with personal attacks and other assorted political squabble that many claim overrode the serious discourse of issues. It had thus been expected of the Republicans to elevate their own profile by engaging in some fighting of their own, giving the Media Networks something interesting to talk about the next day. Unfortunately for them, from the very beginning of the debate, the mood was calm and composed, thanks in part to the absence of Fred Thompson from the race, a candidate known for his overwhelming boorishness but prone to aggressive attacks against his opponents. In fact, it was the utter civility and mature tone of the debate which truly stood out of the whole night, a fact attributed by many pundits to the Republican intention of distinguishing themselves from the opposing party's antics. This tranquility in the discussions allowed for a comprehensive debate on current political and economic problems affecting our Country. What did each candidate bring to the discussion which finally highlighted their individual personalities?..." Find the rest of the article at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com

So Chris;

What would be the GOP consensus on universal healthcare ? IS there a serious plan ?

If John McCain is too old to be Pres., then would Chuckles Norris be to imbecilic to be a Republican?

Answer to No. 2 is NO, no-one is TOO stupid to be a Republican.

Answer to No. 1 remains to be provided.

But America needs help NOW, not eight years from now.

Am I the only one who's noticed the background similarities of Mitt and G.W.? All but 4 years as governor (Bush was re-elected but immediately began running for president), time in the private sector, privileged upbringing...

At least Bush had a higher popularity rating in his state than Mitt did when he left office. Will a GOP member please explain the Mitt appeal to me? Do you all really want another George Bush? At least George has a sense of humor!

Great Debate, Finally the party is starting to pull together and understand who the real enemy is (Democrats, namely Hilary). I am impressed with Romney. He's got my vote.

I can't see how McCain will overtake Mitt in the Fla. primary, and as I have said before Rudy is toast. The only thing I can't forsee is the support of The Huskster, and how it will play.

Jim, I watched the whole debate, and I'm not sure I agree that Romney had the "deer in the headlights" look. Personally, I thought he performed better last night than in previous debates. That said, I don't know how anyone could not have been made uncomfortable by his refusal to answer the question of how much of his own money he's used in the campaign. There's something very un-American with the idea of the super wealthy being able to buy his/her way into the presidency.

My take on the others:

1) McCain seemed old & tired. His repeated use of "bridge to nowhere," "white flag," and "pork barrel," sometimes seemed out of place. He was, however, very gracious to defend Giuliani. He was also very much a gentleman when he asked Huckabee about the "fair tax."

2) Giuliani seemed nervous. I also noticed a lisp for the first time. Has it always been there?

3) Ron Paul - he's consistent. I gotta give him that. While some of the things he says make sense, he often comes across as an anarchist to me. And that whine in his voice!

4) Huckabee - he is the most likable guy who'll never get my vote. He's by far the quickest on his feet. He consistently comes across as the most charming, funniest, and as the true southern gentleman. I'll miss him when he drops out.

But the big winner: Hillary Clinton.

Another typical liberal reporter who doesn't truly understand Romney's appeal to conservatives--here are the issues:

1. His stance on illegal immigration. McCain attempted to grant amnesty.

2. His stance on the economy. Mitt outclasses every candidate on both sides and will provide the middle class with tax cuts, and slash the ridiculous corporate taxes stifling business growth. McCain is a joke on this issue and admitted he does not understand the economy.

3. His stance on energy independence. Mitt understands the substantial investment required to develop clean, efficient energy resources but he is not going to punish the US by not drilling oil and refining gas--oil production in Alaska will not only be key to reduce gas prices for every American citizen, but will further boost the economy by providing an abundance of well-paying jobs. Remember the 80's? Again, McCain is an ignorant liberal on this issue.

Romney will handily defeat the Clintons in 08'

"The success [in Iraq] is due to the blood and the courage of our service men and women... not to General Hillary Clinton"

- Mitt Romney

"McCain denounced Clinton for what he described as her "white flag of surrender" policy toward the future of American involvement in Iraq." -- TheFix

Is that really what Hillary Clinton advocates? If Hillary Clinton had made a similarly inaccurate statement about John McCain or Barack Obama, TheFix would have EXCORIATED her. That would have been THE story. But if someone lies about one of Senator Clinton's positions, well, that's just politics, just "boys will be boys," so to speak. Sadly, this bias is not just blatantly obvious in this column but is widespread in the media.

"Kick Hillary all you want. In fact, here, we'll kick her, too" says the media.

But when Hillary kicks back or heaven forbid should she kick first, it's a sign of the end times.

Stick Characters we saw last night are empty suits, trying to appear the most Conservative. Slick Romney keeps talking like Bush: "make tax cuts (for rich) permanent". Huckabee would impose a Religious Test in his Administration, and run Government like His Church! Guillianni is a Dangerous Liar: blamed Clinton for reducing armed forces, when we all know Republican Congress Cut Military budget! Guillianni wants "To Increase Size of US Military" (so we can continue to invade any Country we Choose)! Warrior McCain... wants to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb IRan! Paul, is just libertarian inconsistent waco.

They are all Morally Bankrupt, and when asked All Embrace Reagan (who started wars mess) and None Disavow Bushson crimes!

The candidates need to pull together behind the eventual nominee and are smart not to buy into the rancor that is happening between the leading democrats. Mitt Romney was clearly the winner, which distressed Fox news talking heads, because their "fair & balanced" translates into elect McCain because we told you to! These are just a few of the obvious reasons Romney is the most electable candidate for the Republican party.
1. We need his economic expertise and experience creating and holding jobs. He has real world experience dealing in today's global marketplace. Without a strong economy, nothing else works. Romney is or best hope to grow our economy. Many people consider Romney an economic genius.
2. Romney has a history of asking the right questions, listening intently, evaluating carefully and decisively LEADING. He brings new vision, efficiency, and energy to every endeavor
3. Romney has impeccable integrity and high standards. He is absolutely trustworthy.
4. Romney stands firmly in support of our constitution. He supports states rights and individual rights. He is committed to the preservation of our freedoms.
5. Romney is strong on education. While his was governor, Massachusetts students ranked #l in the nation in education. He will encourage innovation in technology and research and development to find answers to the energy crisis. Romney is an exceedingly intelligent man and proven problem solver!
6. Romney is committed to a strong national defense. He will protect our borders and keep our nation safe. He is also an excellent negotiator.
7. Romney will work to ensure our laws are enforced, our borders are secure, and illegal immigration is controlled.
8. Romney is a self-made man who owes no one favors. He will bring fresh voices and new ideas to the table. Romney will bring dignity and respect to the office of President.
9. Romney is a committed family man. He supports socially conservative values and walks the walk in his personal life.
10. Romney has strong grass roots support all across the west. He is an excellent strategist and a winner.

MR. CLIZ, I GUESS 'THE FIX' IS REALLY IN. 5 ON THE STAGE, YOU TALK ABOUT 4. I KNOW THE PROBLEM. PAULS IDEAS ARE WAY TOO CONTROVERSIAL. CONSTITUTION ? FREE MARKET ? GOLD STANDARD ? NO INTERVENTION IN THE WORLD ? NO GIANT BUREAUCRACY ? NO IRS ? HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH. THE REST ARE JUST 'BUSHIES' IN WOLF'S CLOTHING. THEY ALL WILL GO FOR THE 'STATUS QUO'. YOU ARE ALL AFRAID OF HIM BECAUSE IF HE WINS, YOU'LL HAVE TO GET AN HONEST JOB AND TELL THE TRUTH.
I'LL HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GET HONESTY AND FULL COVERAGE OF THE FACTS. HUCK IS NOT THE ONLY CONSERVATIVE SOUTHERNER, UNLESS TEXAS SUDDENLY MOVED NORTH ???
FROM A FORMER LISTENER/VIEWER.

Ahem, JD. I've been a political junkie for over fifty years. You don"t savage a candidate to get them elected, you savage them to get them beat. Why did they only mention Hillary Clinton last night in the debate and not Obama. Be sensible, who does this help. Hillary? Sure.

Posted by: BNW173 | January 25, 2008 10:20 AM

It's not about helping anyone on the D side. It's about appealing to the Rs at this point; and the Rs hate HRC about 1 million times more than Barrack. So she becomes the target.

Plus, she still has the media's blessing as the frontrunner (indeed, she might even BE the frontrunner), so she becomes the de facto target.

You seem to be suffering under the illusion that the Rs have formed some kind of cabal or unwritten pact to attack a certain candidate, in the hopes of getting another one nominated by the Ds. Seems to me a self-described 'political junkie' would understand that campaigns simply don't work that way.

Ahem, JD. I've been a political junkie for over fifty years. You don"t savage a candidate to get them elected, you savage them to get them beat. Why did they only mention Hillary Clinton last night in the debate and not Obama. Be sensible, who does this help. Hillary? Sure.

'Leading Republican presidential contenders agreed in a campaign debate Thursday night that the newly minted bipartisan economic stimulus package marks a good start, but does not do enough to cut taxes.

"It's something I support and I look forward to taking it further," said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who backs permanent tax cuts along with the rebates that are at the heart of the bipartisan agreement between President Bush and House leaders.

"I will vote for it," said Sen. John McCain, the only contender on stage with a Senate seat. He quickly added he wants the tax cuts Bush won from Congress in 2001 and 2003 to be made permanent. '

I see that as usual, the republicans are racing to see who can plunge the country into the deepest debt and destroy it first.

"At least CC is acknowledging what I have believed since day 1: That the media hates Romney, and he is ALWAYS ambushed at these debates, regardless of the network."

Mike - read what Chris wrote - the ambushes were by his fellow candidates when they got to question each other. It has long been obvous that the other Republican candidates do not have a high opinion of the Mittster. It seems both the left and right in here have obsessions with how the media treats their candidate(s).

Thank God we have the Democrats to oppose everything, so that when their opposition turns out to be foolish, they can take credit for the success they previously opposed.

Give me a break.

vbhoomes is right -- a NYT endoresement is like cryptonite to a R. John McCain had better win FL or he's done.

I thought Romney gave a good answer about his personal contributions.

At least CC is acknowledging what I have believed since day 1: That the media hates Romney, and he is ALWAYS ambushed at these debates, regardless of the network.

That should give us a clue about who our strongest candidate is - the one the elites hate the most.

I was impressed with the Huckster, and I don't think the Huckaboom is quite over. A 2nd or 3rd place showing in FL could keep him alive. If this thing draws out BEYOND super Tuesday, and TX comes into play, Huckster could pull something off there (according to my friends there).

By FAR, the best answer of the night, was Romney's on HRC *taking credit for the surge*.

How convoluded is this: Because D's opposed the surge and oppose the war, that has somehow catalized Iraqis to step up? Like General Hillary planned this all along? She opposed the surge so that she can take credit for its success? The woman can spin anything, and will do so, to win.

I'm glad Romney called her on it.

I was not able to watch the whole debate but what I did see convinced me that Romney would not be a good national candidate. He had a "deer in the headlights" look when Huckabee asked him about his support for the assault weapons ban. His answer was hesitant and incoherent if you parse it. He said he was in favor of the bill, which did not pass, as was the president. Then he said he did not think new legislation was necessary. Talk about I was for it before I was against it. If he doesn't think new legislation is necessary why did he support the unsuccessful effort to reinstate the assault weapons ban?

Michael Gerson's column today contains the best analysis I've seen of why the Republicans really want to run against Hillary Clinton.

The people insisting the Republicans do not want to run against her inhabit an alternate universe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402797.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Mitt scored a big victory with the NY Times endorsing McCain, it simply validates what we conservatives already knew, that McCain is really a democrat. Do not be surprised if McCain ends up being the VP for either Hillary or Obama. He only turned Kerry down in 04 because he wanted to give it one more shot.

Don't be fooled. The Republicans are scared to death of Hillary. Why would they savage her so much if they wanted her nominated.

Posted by: BNW173 | January 25, 2008 07:38 AM

Ahem. Or they think that HRC is by far the easiest target on the Dem side, and she is mostly the 'face of the Dems' in the popular press, so they fire away at her.

As for the debate; I thought people always complain about how negative ads are bad, how the politics of personal destruction are not good for the country... so here we get a debate focused on positives, on the issues - and some are disappointed?

What a schizo country we are.

And as for the economy: if you think this is bad, either you are too young to remember the Carter admin (gas lines, 12 % unemployment) or you've never lived anywhere else. France, England, Germany and most everyone else would kill for our economic stats.

Don't be fooled. The Republicans are scared to death of Hillary. Why would they savage her so much if they wanted her nominated. Ever hear of the "Stop Hillary Express". How long has that been going on?
They want Obama so they can use those subtle racial attacks they used on Harold Ford here in Tennessee. It works. It caused a good man to lose to a weak Republican caandidate.

I think most rational Paul supporters understand that this his run is more about educating voters, as the Greens sometimes say, than about winning. He never had a chance, but he and they have done a good job of keeping his name and ideas out there. Paul has run a squeaky-clean idea-centric campaign, and even if I think he's wrong on 90% of the issues, I'm glad he's challenged the status quo and expanded the debate. We need more Ron Pauls, from every corner of the ideological universe.

And I'm still curious who the Paulistas will support in November.

Don't be fooled. The Republicans have tried to halt Hillary for years to try and keep her from being nominated. If they wanted to run against her, they would not attack her so much. They want Obama so they can use all those subtle racial attacks they used on Harold Ford here in Tennessee. It works.

To all those supporting Ron Paul:

Do you know the rules for delegate selection in the upcoming GOOPer primaries?

In Florida (based on the original plan for 114 delegates), the delegates are chosen as follows:

75 delegates, three from each Congressional District, will be chosen by whomever wins that District. If Ron Paul comes in 2nd in EACH district, he gets exactly ZERO delegates of those 75.

The remaining 39 delegates are allocated to that one candidate who wins the most votes in Florida.

According to the latest Mason-Dixon poll (Jan. 22-23) as reported by AP:
Romney - 30%
McCain - 26%
Giuliani - 18%
Huckabee - 13%
Undecided - 10%

Looks like around 97% to me without Ron Paul - would that mean he's at 3% or so? Can he win ANY delegates by winning ONE Congressional District? He certainly isn't in the running to win the state-wide vote.

Florida's not an aberration to Ron Paul's slim chances of winning a primary, or even any more delegates, as the majority of upcoming GOOPer primaries have some element of winner take all, either by district for some delegates and state-wide for the remainder of a state's delegates (Florida, Georgia for example); or in some states, the state-wide winner takes every one of the delegates (Delaware, Missouri for example).

For a comprehensive look at the delegate selection process in each state, look at The Green Papers site (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/). Based on how each state selects delegates, you'll see that Ron Paul has as much chance of winning many more delegates, let alone the nomination, as an iceberg has of long-term survival in the South Pacific.

No more sardonic septuegenarian career congressional war heroes! I don't want another Dole Administration... oh yeah, that's right, there wasn't a first one.

As a Floridian I will vote next week for Ron Paul. Not because I think he stands a chance - he does not - but because he is the only candidate who really believes that government should be smaller not bigger. A primary vote for him is a small way of hoping to get this fundamental issue on the broader party platform.

In many respects the GOP should be better off with a big loss in November. Let the DEM 'candidates of change' give it a try. They will fail and a GOP refocused on its core values, and cleansed of neocon lunacy, can come back in 4 or 8 years.

We can change the people in Washington all we like but we will not be happier with our government as a result. Government itself is broken and needs to be seriously curtailed, cut back, and limited in its responsibility. This is why Ron Paul deserves better coverage.

In his first inaugural address, Reagan put it best: "Government is not the solution. it is the problem."

campaigndiaries: "the Republican field chose to play nice and stay away from attacking each other"

you do remember the 11th commandment, right?

John "DoubleTalk" McCain foolishly tried to make Russert look like he was fabricating a quote for one of the debate questions.

Posted by: WakeWashington | January 24, 2008 11:33 PM

And, you will notice that the "quote" that Russert supposedly lifted was different from what McCain actually said. Russert DIDN'T quote McCain. He sorta paraphrased and added his own conclusions.

get real people- Mister "born withe the silver spoon in my mouth and will say most anything to get elcted Romney----Bain Capital is one of these international sell out groups that buy US businesses and then buzzsaw to them and clean out all of the american workers and ship the jobs overseas to be replaced by cheaper labor. Period. As a result the company saves money and their stocks go up and all the boys on Wall street are happy...at the expense of the american workers and because of GREED. Some corporate "TURNAROUND" artist. WAKE UP people the democrats will expose MITT for the shameless corporate Shill that HE is if he gets the nomination.
Governor Huckabee is BY FAR more in touch with all levels of socitety, bY FAR THE MOST GENUINE, BY FAR THE BEST COMMUNICATOR THAT WILL THAT WILL BE ABLE TO DEFEAT THE DEMOCRATS at their own game...gOVERNOR HUCKABEE IS scaring the SH** out of the CORPORATE FAT CAT REPUBLICANS ESTABLISHMENT TYPES BECAUSE HE IS EXPOSING THEM FOR THE SHAMELESS SELLOUTS THAT THEY ARE...THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY or about keeping jobs here...they do not give a SH** about the worker american or otherwise all they care about is profit.... period.

Hey Paulistas, put a cork in it will you? Nobody is trumpeting your candidate because (1) he isn't saying anything new, not even varying the wordind and (2) his ideas aren't original, just nutsy. He has some of the best positions among any candidates, R or D, freely granted, but he also has a lot more positions that are just plain irresponsible if not completely ridiculous.

Stop whining about the Constitution and acting personally betrayed. It's childish.

I'm not a Ron Paul "fanatic", but I am planning to vote for him here in Tennessee, and I'm disappointed that so many of you including Mr. "Fix" want to ignore him or write him off as a nut. It wasn't too many years ago that a lot of Republicans were supporting Pat Buchanan, and he advocates quite a few of the same policies as Dr. Paul.

It's not that Dr. Paul was never a conservative, it's that the word conservative has been perverted by people like John McCain, George Bush, and Mike Huckabee.

I'm not voting for Dr. Paul just because I support his real conservative values and positions, but I'm also voting for him as a protest vote to these statist plastic losers that claim to be "conservatives".
How can you people be content with a the same Republican brand that has ruined our movement? Campaign Finance Reform? Free prescription drugs? Faith based welfare? Expanded DOE??? What the hell?

I'm also surprised that there's not more coverage of this controversy in Louisiana, where it turns out that Dr. Paul may have in fact won the caucuses.

Mitt "Acquire and Fire" Romney knows all about unemployment; he's done so much after all to promote it. At Bain Romney was all about the Gordon Gecko model .. buy the companies and fire everyone. The man is another of those free market zombie feudalist toads. I'd bet on any of the Dem candidates against this plastic shell.

With John McCain potentially days away from a coronation march, one of his rivals' last chances to stop him came tonight at the GOP debate. And just as in every other debate over the past few weeks -- as well as on the campaign trail -- the Republican field chose to play nice and stay away from attacking each other.

Read the rest of Campaign Diaries's analysis here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/in-florida-debate-republicans-once.html

The LA Times Blog is doing a far better job of balanced coverage on the GOP side... just a note to my fellow Paul supporters. I have had enough of the Post.

No mention of Paul in this column, yet again. The guy gets into the debates, and has been in 4th place since before Giuliani's numbers went down... shame on you Chris Cillizza.

Paul will stay on this campaign because his message is too important to ignore. Get used to it... it'll be a three way debate with Paul pretty soon here.

Jon: A little lesson in politics--Always build up the weakest opponent on the other side, in the hope of not having to run against the strongest. The Repubs "FEAR" Hillary, simply because most of them KNOW they can't beat her in The GE. IMHO, Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 08 and that is why they are supporting him to such a degree.

I am a Democrat who sometimes gets angry enough at the party and its local or national nominee to call himself an Independent, but I almost never vote for Republicans. I, like most of my friends under 45, am an Obama supporter. I am convinced that McCain is the Republicans' best general election candidate by a mile. I say this not as some sort of blogosphere judo, but because he is the only one I could stomach as president (although I don't really think Romney would do anything terrible, he has the moral core of a crank bait). Therein lies some of his difficulty in getting the nomination. If McCain is your nominee, I'd give him a 60/40 chance to beat Obama, and a 80/20 chance to beat Hillary (these are odds of winning, not popular vote spits).

The Democrats are going to spread enough lies about the Republican candidates. It is time to get together. Romney has a strong business background. McCain has never voted to raise taxes and is the most qualified to end the war in Iraq as efficiently and honorably as possible. Plenty of positives shown from all 5 candidates tonight. Lets tell the whole story about these guys.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain

RE: Attacks on Hillary:
My assumption has always been that Sen. Clinton is the weakest Dem. candidate in the general election (or at least the Republicans would most like to run against her), but - given the bilge that's been flowing into my e-mail in box lately - she may be real trouble for him. A good friend of mine pointed out that if the Clintons are wiling to run a whispering campaign against another Democrat based on racial innuendo and references to his father's religion as if it were his own, they will have no qualms about trying to keep evangelicals home by playing on anti-Mormon bigotry. If such a campaign kept evangelicals in Nothern Florida and Southern Ohio home in the general election, Romney would be doomed.

there were several things that disturbed me about this debate. the main dissonance with the debate was their "obsession" with hillary clinton. you would think that they would try to articulate a vision for american rather than resort to their typical message of hillary versus "all of us". have they not learned that perhaps we're smarter than that, or are they going to continue to insult our collective intelligence and think that they can scare us into voting for them?

the second is their undying advocacy for tax cuts and their played out characterization of democrats as "tax and spend" zealots. i think most middle class americans, who make up a large part of the electorate, feel that the war and the tax cuts are reasons for our present financial crisis. without taxes, our infrastructure would fall apart, which pretty much explained the collapse of that bridge in one of the midwest states. we do need some type of revenue to keep our country running, like national transportation networks, national parks and research and development endeavors for finding alternative fuels, medical advancements, etc.

a third contention of this debate is how strongly they supported bush's initial arguments for going into iraq in the first place. how arrogant they must be to assume that we did not notice the article in this very same newspaper (and many others) that reported bush and company fed us hundreds of inaccuracies about saddam, weapons of mass destruction and the connection of iraq to 911. and, that they would, more or less, continue to pour trillions of dollars into this wasteful effort.

and what about that big, fat elephant they virtually ignored? it's the economy, stupid. the republicans have been in control these past seven years and they still want to portray our present predicament as a consequence of wanton democratic spending on social programs and entitlements. after bill clinton and that republican congress in the 90s slashed and cut "welfare", there are very few programs left around today to throw "good people's" tax money at.

lastly, it was discustingly ridiculous and obscene to watch them ask questions of each other as if they were trading compliments like a couple on their first date. it looked as though they got together and wrote their own questions for themselves then made assignments as to who will "ask me my own question to myself." democrats may be at each other throats at the moment, but at least there is emotional honesty and integrity in their pursuit to offer a real vision for america.

in all, they missed the point that we want and expect more from them than just "we ain't them". they have to entice us with real answers and original thoughts about our future as a nation and stop relying on our smallmindedness and warmed over, divisive strategies for invoking fear and disdain for other people. i am really worried for they have nothing to offer us but the same we've been getting these past seven years. and, by god, this frightens the hell out of me...

I think McCain hurt himself with his blind support of GW. Mitt done himself some good on the economic issue.

Romney won the Flordia debate.He has been trending upward in all Flordia polls.Mcamnesty can not lean on Independents and Dems to bail him out next week in Flordia.The New York Times endorsed McCain this evening for the Republicans.Need I say more.Romney will win Flordia.The media loves McCain and want him to win the nomination.

Ron Paul Revolutionaries....your candidate has some very nice things to say, but if you really think he is a real viable candidate you are bat crazy! That is why Chris didn't mention him, Paul doesn't get a lot of time and when he does he just goes through his entire stump speech.

The one interesting thing Paul did tonight and Chris you should have mentioned this, Paul asked McCain about his views on some economic policies playing into those quotes that Russert read and McCain denied. That made McCain look very weak economically because he responded by saying he would consult with his economic advisors, secretary of the treasurer etc. Romney won this debate hands down.

http://theghostofedmuskie.blogspot.com/

I see...this blog is about who YOU want to be in the Republican Presidential race, right?

Cause I could've sworn Ron Paul came in SECOND in two States, and raised more money in one day online than ANY OTHER candidate. Yet YOU do NOT mention the man.

The Washington Post should rethink your credibility. You, dear sir, are not up to it's standards of journalism.

more crass journalism. why are so many valid contenders not even talked about? where is a single mention of ron paul in any article coming out of the post?

John "DoubleTalk" McCain foolishly tried to make Russert look like he was fabricating a quote for one of the debate questions.

Or at 71, maybe it was just the senator's age getting to him when he denied it and said he didn't know where Russert got it.

Let me help. New York Times, Jan. 14, page 25.

The quote also appeared in a number of other publications, including the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Centre Daily Times, Chattanooga Times, and the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said earlier this month, as though the subject wasn't that important. "I've got Greenspan's book."

Zdravstvuyte and welcome to yet another "debate" ripped from the pages of Pravda.

So far I've only been able to find one site indicating that there was even one question about immigration. And, it appears that Rudy answered it with his stock speech.

If anyone would like to help make the MSM look very, very bad by doing the job they refuse to do, go to a Huck appearance and ask him this question, then upload the response to video sharing sites:

http://nomoreblather.com/mike-huckabee-mexican-consulate

The video with the question has already gotten over 40,000 views, so hopefully one of these days someone will get out there and show the MSM how to do real reporting.

Wasn't Ron Paul in this debate Mr Mazzulaa? Text not found!

This was the unity debate. And it needed to be. As a general rule, whoever can come to a consensus and rally around their candidate first has won in the general election. Hopefully the tone stays because this one could go to convention if Romney takes Florida.

"...Brian Williams and Tim Russert -- both of NBC -- sought to draw the candidates out, asking questions that seemed to invite fireworks between the rivals."

Come on, Chris: You've got to be kidding. Williams and Russert were plum awful tonight. No Q was set up to allow free discussion and debate - the kind of stuff that really brings out the snappy banter. It was all contrived garbage. Like when Russert tried to draw out Hillary and Obama by grilling them on the race thing back in Nevada.

http://www.political-buzz.com/