Chris, How come no one has asked Huckabee, who advocated isolating (he doesn't like the word quarantine-which means the same) people with aids, even though the Surgean General had publically announced aids was not contagious. There were about 195 thousand aids victims then. How did Huckabee plan to "isolate" them? Did he plan to put them in Internment Camps, or have them wear some sort of identity badge? We interned Japanese-Americans to our shame in WWII, and Hitler forced Jews to wear a Yellow Star of David. I think Americans have a right to know how Huckabee would have isolated these people.

I think the Republican race is now McCain's to lose... again.

McCain at this point may be best compared to Kerry in '04, who all along was considered a heavyweight, but who fell out of favor. When Kerry came back strong in Iowa and NH he wasn't the darkhorse but the thoroughbread reclaiming the prize.

Huckabee apparently must have said something previously about making "No Smoking" a national issue.

Huckabee should appeal to the SC folks.
Romney second, based on McCain backing amnesty
McCain
Thonpson
Giuliani

I watched the debate and am watching the post-debate with H&C. Mitt absolutely has to win Michigan, Rudy & Fred are toast, and SC now becomes a must win for McCain. Dr. Paul has been written off by the GOP for a long time now. That leaves the Huckster, who is the wild card. These primaries before Super Dooper Tuesday are becoming more important than I had originally thought.

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.

McCain should have learned by now that amnesty for illegal immigrants is not going to play at all. The American people are very, very, heavily against amnesty, and as more Americans become educated on the cost of illegal immigrants to American taxpayers, even more will be against anything other than forcing them out of the country through attrition.

I watched part of the Republican debate - they were finally asked about the illegal immigration problem:

Ron Paul nailed the illegal immigration problem-- his two points - enforce the existing laws against illegals, and stop attracting them with healthcare, welfare, and food stamps.

Thompson took second on his illegal immigration answer, which was also very anti-illegal immigration.

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.

A winner? Definitely not Thompson! Can't say any really stood out as winner. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee each won points but I'm calling it a draw. Losers are easy: Giuliani and Thompson. Paul adds color but is not of consequence.

Interesting debate but really kind of a joke. The bickering between the candidates was almost childish. Thompson appears to talk short sentences fine but gets lost on the longer ones. Guess this is an improvement over Bush who can't get even simple sentences out. Paul (and I'm not a supporter) hit some good points asking why his colleagues on the floor had strayed so far from Republican principles.

didn't this little fat man from Fox with the focus group give the last forum to Fred Thompson?

What's with the Fox questioners' loaded and disrespectful questions to Ron Paul? Asking, is he viable? Did I miss where Fred Thompson got 1% in NH? If the same rules applied to this debate as applied to the Fox presidential 'forum' then Fred Thompson shouldn't even be on the stage. Or did the rules change, and Fox realized that they no longer had a justification to exclude Paul from the debates?

I am far from a libertarian and certianly not a Ron Paul supporter, but I think that the way the Republican's have been engaging Ron Paul to be completely disrespectful. Shouldn't debates be about the exchange of ideas, and not belittling of an individual's legitimate and deeply held beliefs?

Why is it that the Republican candidates are laughing at Ron Paul for his advocacy of non-intervention in international affairs?!

This is quite pathetic. Its as if the hawks have become so embedded in the Republican hierarchy, that even questioning the shear absurdity of this president's foreign policies, is considered completely off limits.

'Dead' Thompson's impending exit from the race will leave the so called "true" conservative's gasping for life!

Good riddance!

Fred Thompson is a dolt! This debate must keep him up past his bed-time. He has been completly unimpressive during this election and now that his campaign is on life support; he is starting to listen to his advisors and get aggressive. Too little to late, Freddie.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.