After watching Dr. Ron Paul in the Republican debate, I was amazed at his common sense. TV and print media coverage for his comments were next to zero the next day and this makes me feel as if the news media isn't listening to him. If the news media were repeating his blurbs in papers and showing sound bites as they do for others, more people would get to know him and his answers to America's real problems. He is asking tough questions and trying to hold these candidates on stage accountable for their standard priorities and run of the mill answers with no real solutions. If he were Black perhaps he would be receiving more media coverage because he is just as smart and articulate as Senator Obama. This was the first time I ever heard him address the issues and I was impressed. Even though, I am a staunch Democrat, I hope Dr. Ron Paul receives the coverage he deserves.

Buzz, you're a moron, as is anyone else who trots out that shop-worn "amnesty" BS. Wanna bet $100 on whether or not McCain loses SC? I'm game.

Fox News did a disservice in their treatment of Dr. Paul, and their "Focus Group" was staged. Unfair and Unbalanced.

There's too much focus on candidates and not enough focus on larger themes as in, which candidate has The Fix for: the falling dollar, the long term trend to sell more bonds to China, and the funding of overseas military bases and wars. And the biggest question: will we be better off four years from now at the end of the new president's first term?

Am I the only liberal who enjoys hearing one republican calling another one liberal? They are getting perilously close to detoxifying the word by so abusing it to make it an empty word instead of a rallying cry for conservatism.

I don't think independents will rally to any of the harsh rhetoric the republicans are peddling in 2008. Better to bury it and name it a Super Fund site worthy of sequestration from civil discourse. Would Nevadans object to its disposal in Yucca Mountain? Anyone know the half-life of this vile waste?

I just thought that McCain looked old and his answers were often jumbled. Just like his speech after his win in NH. Again he looked old and was all over the place.

I find it hard to believe that he is the frontrunner. This is the person who will win in November???

anyone know if there is a transcript of this debate anywhere?

The newsletter were put out for some time under paul's name. He must have known about them. In any case, he STILL accepts donations from self-proclaimed Nazi and white supremacist organizations and is a dyed in the wool Bircher... extremely radical rightwinger.

The one thing all the GOP and Dems alike have this election is that they all have a major Achilles heal. There is one or more glaring issue that make them all unlikeable. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My gut says McCain and Hillary.

Boko: Correction, I don't think it was asked [can't remember though].

Boko: It was not asked, but later Dr. Paul explained they have never found out the source of these letters. Dr. Paul claims no knowledge of who wrote them.

I've never lived in either Massachusetts or Arkansas but this "I cut government" (Romney) vs. "He grew government" (Huck) argument seems illogical to me. Isn't Massachusetts your classic big government state, where even liberals might agree some fiscal restraint is warranted? And isn't Arkansas a relatively poorer state whose legislature - and constituents - recognized the need to expand services and actually pay for them? Comparing the two situations seems overly simplistic to me - but perfect for an election where the best sound bite wins.

BROKERED CONVENTION

did anyone ask Ron Paul about his newsletter? and did anyone ask Mitt about pulling ads in Fla. and SC, read: his questionable viability as a national candidate?

There seemed to me, at least, the moderators were very biased against Dr. Paul, now the question is how his followers will react to this in Michigan particularly where it is a must win for Mitt. Dr. Paul has about a 10% following, but they can really hurt anyone in a close state primary like Michigan, where I think the X-Over is allowed [not sure] and if it is they will be very important.

I watched for only a few minutes and most made some embarrassingly juvenile remark about terrorists. Huckabee - they should get ready to see the gates of hell. McCain - I don't like to fly with them because they buy one-way tickets. Thompson - they will meet the virgins. And I think those were the only responses I heard.

I noticed that the Fox moderators seemed to focus, once again, on Romney, McCain, and Thompson - even the way the candidates were positioned on the stage with Huckabee and Paul on the end. The content of the questions seemed to sometimes change when they got around to remembering that Huckabee was still standing there - as when Carl Cameron asked Mike Huckabee about a document he signed at the gathering of Southern Baptist Convention ministers - remember that Jimmy Carter withdrew from the Southern Baptist church over that? If Mike Huckabee had not governed Arkansas after that time as a minister - that's more than 10 years as Governor - then maybe the question would have been okay. But Huckabee has a record in government. You can check how he reconciled his faith with how he performed as Governor. How is it ok with Fox News to ask Huckabee detailed questions about Southern Baptist doctrine, their adherance to and interpretation of scripture, as implied by Cameron's question - and it's not ok to ask all the other candidates the same kind of probing personal faith questions? Unfair, unbalanced and they've made up our minds for us.

Buzz, it's bad form to spam threads more than once, especially with the same canned talking points.

Two points to remember, Miata. First MI is an open primary -- and there is no Democratic primary. All the independents and cross-over Democrats belong to McCain. Bad, bad news for Romney.

Second, and this applies mostly to Huckabee, some states, like CA really tighted up their primary rules this year. In CA, this week you had to submit a full delegate roster, meaning three in each congressional district plus at-large delegates. If you don't submit delegates in a congressional district, you can't win any delegates in that district, even if you win the vote. Getting this done in each of CA's 53 congressional districts would be a real chore requiring real on-the-ground organization. I'll bet money that Huckabee didn't submit a delegate roster in CA so he can't win any delegates here.

Ad-mitt-edly, I didn't see the first hour of the debate, but I did get to see their answers on illegal immigrants.

Please understand that the good people of SC mimic my own sentiments when it comes to illegal immigrants. On that one question:

Ron Paul, gave the simplest answer, but the absolute best answer. Enforce the existing laws against illegal immigration (it's illegal for them to be in our country, let alone working in our country), and stop attracting them with healthcare, and welfare

Fred Thompson did well

Romney did well.

McCain is backing amnesty - he's dead meat - the people in South Carolina are dead set against illegal immigration and will most likely vote Senator Lindsay Graham out of office because he was backing amnesty in the July go-around. There was quite an uproar during that time, and Graham backed off, but it was too late - his goose is pretty well cooked in South Carolina. Candidates, even in his own party are lining up to run against him this year.

McCain loses SC on the basis of his stand on amnesty for illegal immigrants.

McCain won tonight's debate.

McCain did very well on his own, and Fred's anti-Huckabee attacks will surely help McCain in SC.

Romney did poorly. In fact, this is probably Romney's worst debate in a long time. I think he knows that after spending tens of millions of dollars in IA and NH and coming away with 0 wins, he's in a tough spot.

If Fred keeps attacking Huckabee, look for McCain to win SC.

Lights, camera, action!

Fred Thompson (looking tired) picks up his jowls and speaks:

"Mike Huckabee is a... (Fred looks down at his notecards) liberal."

John McCain (winking): "It's not amnesty! Is not... Is not!... Is not!..."

Mitt Romney (with the smile of John Edwards and the hair of Count Chocula): "People want to be positive about America's future, like Ronald Reagan was. I'm positive. Anyone can be positive. I signed a pledge to be positive!"

Ron Paul: "There isn't enough money to be positive!

FADE OUT

I'm Mike Huckabee, and I approved this debate.

GO HUCK!

i'm not a republican, so i'm not really invested in this, or have any good sense of what a republican really looks for, but the whole lot seemed weak somehow. And this ron paul guy is definitely the crazy uncle...absolutely right on certain things and completely looney on others. what cracks me up is the strength of his followers...they're everywhere. very cultish...and would be scary if anyone really took them seriously. of course, they're just the sort to keep an eye on.

and i thought republicans were so mature.

pretty childish group. guess reagan's shadow works both ways.

Huckabee is simply a silver tongued devil; he's one smooth talker; he's a preacher man, and that gives him an edge over the other candidates. He interlaces his arguments with folksy witticisms that play well to a lot of people.

However his record of governor in Arkansas paint a different picture. Taxes, and the size of government, increased subsstantially. In this area Romney's record as Governor far overshadows Huckabee. I'm not a Romney supporter, But: As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney turned a multi-billion dollar state deficit, he inherited, into a multi-million dollar surplus in the state budget. Romney was able to create this surplus by downsizing the state government, consolidating redundant programs and services, and reducing the number of state government employees.

Very good summary Chris.

Sometimes one comes away from a debate really liking a candidate even if he really is not one you might vote for - Huckabee is that type of guy - people really like him. He really strengthens the field.

I see Romney dropping out before he wastes any more money on commercials. If he is so good at economic efficiency, he should realize that any more money spent has met the point of diminishing returns. Besides, if Romney wastes any more money on his campaign, you have to question his ability to be fiscally responsible with the people's money.

McCain is looking great - he is back in the game and the polls look good for him. Thompson may even take some of Huckabee's vote in South Carolina and McCain could win South Carolina.

In fact, it is not crazy to see Huckabee win in Michigan, or Romney to squeak it out, and still see McCain win in South Carolina - the whole thing may break that way.

McCain now has the momentum to carry him through the February primaries - if he gets a break in South Carolina and wins it would be great for him. In fact, the way the other candidates are spliting the vote is actually working in McCain's favor and it looks like it might fuel his momentum.

If McCain, Romney, and Giuliani thought they could use Ron Paul as a foil for their arguments for continuing the no-win war in Iraq, they were sadly mistaken. In fact, they made fools of themselves.

I didn't see this debate yet but if you take a look at usatoday, Dr Paul is the best one up there - take a look at the photos he's the only one who looks genuine and has his usual congenial outlook. Hard to believe that Romney would attack Dr Paul like that - after Ron Paul defended Romney and said people should not reject him because of his religion.

Someone should ask Romney why -- if he's so concerned about Michigan -- he didn't run for Governor there (instead of Massachusetts where, unlike Michigan, he was not born and did not go to private school.)

Fox News Republican Debate Winner South Carolina

Who won the ABC Republican Debate in South Carolina?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1503

.

A rather boring rehash. Buzzm1 is quite correct. Lindsay Graham has got to go. Especially since he so angrily denigrated citizens who did not agree with him on the so-called comprehensive immigration bill. Graham forgot that he was sent to serve the people, not to deride them.

If the audience is in Michigan, I'm guessing that McCain and Romney are the only players of consequence tonight. Ah, defeat or hope. I go with Romney to have have hope though I suspect this is more meaningful to Union members (Democrats?) than Republicans. Defending Michigan likely gives Romney the edge.

For South Carolina, it's between McCain and Huckabee. Thinking back to debate, Huckabee was the most memorable and likely benefits the most.

Overall, I do not see a clear winner between McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.

BTW, how can anyone seriously see Thompson as a credible candidate any more than any of the candidates see Paul as a credible candidate?!

"...affirmed Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the frontrunner for his party's nomination..."

The Great New Hampshire Pundit Fiasco isn't even a week old. Will you people never learn?

McCain is backing amnesty - loser - he's dead meat - the people in South Carolina are dead set against illegal immigration and will most likely vote Senator Lindsay Graham out of office because he was backing amnesty in the July go-around. There was quite an uproar during that time, and Graham backed off, but it was too late - his goose is pretty well cooked in South Carolina. Candidates, even in his own party are lining up to run against him this year.

Romney had a job to do, he didn't get it done. If he loses in Michigan, he'll likely come in third in South Carolina. At that point, he can swap his "Olympics" metaphor ("1 gold and 2 silvers!") for a "Special Olympics" metaphor.

And what was that crack by Fred about Huckabee wanting to outlaw smoking? Isn't that a deadly insult in SC? I'm surprised no one's picked that up.