Not an impressive dabate. Except for Ron Paul (and this wasn't his finest hour) nothing but a bunch of professional politicians intoxicated with power and/or lusting for more. Zeros on leadership qualities and (except for Paul) intelligence. Giuliani is outright embarrassing in his seemingly bottomless ignorance. I hope Romney gets to be a god; he's obcviously a failure here on earth.

They're just a bunch of hayseeds. No one intelligent ever voted Republican.

Ron Paul is the best choice.  He gets shoved to the back a lot.  If it seems like he is coming out of left field on some of his points of view, particularly economics, it is because he has a very good grasp of just how broken this country is.  For some not paying attention, it didnt get broken in 7 years.  Ron Paul is first and formost a real fiscal conservative, and may be one of the few that has not only read the Constitution, but believes in it and protects it.  Check his voting record.  He is that voice in the wilderness in Congress.  That he cant give up quick little tidy solutions is not because he doesnt understand the issues.  Its because he would probably need weeks to explain the causes and solutions to our problems.

RE:  Joey NY

What do you mean Mormons aren't Christians?  Do you not know the Mormon church's real name...The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!?  Every met one?  They are the most honest, sincere people out there! Don't say something unless you can prove it!

As for the debate...Sure Thompson did OK but coming in late seems kind of playing it safe for me.  Kind of like waiting to see what everyone else was answering before stating his answer just to look cool.  I'll be waiting to see how he fairs farther down the line when more of them start dropping out and the focus gets tighter.

If you can allow an outsider's viewpoint - I saw the show on CNBC here in Singapore. Apparently, Fred Thompson is no presidentaial material both in form and substance.  He appeared nervous and seemed to be looking for notes and unsure. Too gruffy to carry the stature of American President.  I would pick Giuliani as the best GOP candidate, but Hillary for president.

I am sorry to say with all the qualified people in this country that no one is running for president that i could vote for. I just wish republicans & democrats for once in my late years could come together for the people & country rather than try to kill the other party at any cost.

Admiral Painter did just fine...

"Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan."

Jon Zanders
What do you know about Mormons?  What does that have to do with the issues anyway?  Sounds like you subscribe to the "Drive-by Media"

After reading all of the above I feel the need to say stop worrying about the past and vote for someone that will make a change in the future. I am for Thompson.

My vote is for a Thompson Romney ticket . We have to have strong leaders in the White House .Men that will stand up for our freedoms our rights and take care of America first not Mexico and not giving our hard earned tax dollars to people who just step on our soil .The Mexicans need to be picking crops not driving trucks doing construction work and working in manufacturing . And the ones that do hire them need to be fined and shut down . The borders need to be closed now . Vote vote vote ! Please !

Let Romney believe what he wants to believe when it comes to religeon. I think it's safe to say that their are a great number of politicians who are Catholic, who believe praying to the mother of Christ will help them with forgiveness. As far as I know, that's not taught in the Bible.

There are a lot of reasons why MSM doesnt like Paul.  The first being he is not their annointed "frontrunner".  Amazing, even 2 years ago, we were being told who our frontrunners were.  Things that make you go Hmmmm.

Go Thompson. With this Guy dem's are sure to lose.  

I must have watched a different debate than the above commentator did. I thought Thompson did well and spoke as he always had but then I have seen several of his interviews which the commentaor critical of his debate has not. He answers short, simple, and straight, which makes it very difficult to twist his words to mean he said something else and a Liberal just hates that(he would have to think and that is an oxymoron). With the exception of Ron Paul ( a democrat in republican clothing) I think all the candidates did a good job of explaining their positions.

Does Thompson strike you as someone who really WANTS to be president enough? Or might some of us just be too smitten by his laid back, knee-slappin' style? Sure, there is a folksy charm to that. An engaging "just plain folks" charisma.  Are we confusing that with sincerity? As we watch him get out and press the flesh will we see real warmth and empathy in this one?  Or is it method acting? No doubt he can read a script and will be better prepared for the next debate but is he, and are his answers, genuine? I wonder.

I am amused by the right-wingers who believe Matthews is an ultra-liberal; and by the left wingers who believe he favors the right.  He is not independent - he is an egomaniacal gasbag who tries to out-O'Reilly O'Rielly.  Didn't anyone see him try to overrun John Stewart the other night?  That showed his true colors.

And you are correct - Mormons are NOT Christians; based on my personal dealings with a number of them, I have found them to be oleagenous opportunists.

I encourage you to take a close look at Alan Keyes. He's for real.

I like Mitt, authoratative and knows the business of governing.  Fred has no real credentials, the others a bit stale.

Hey Joey of New York. You are not too informed about the Mormon religion if you do not think they are Christians. You listen too everyone on the streets instead of researching it yourself.

I watched the debate.  There are things that I like about Guliani, Thompson, and McCain, but debate after debate I am more and more impressed with Romney.  He may not have tons of foreign policy experience, but he looks and sounds like a president.  He is by far the best republican candidate when it comes to managing things economic.  He understands markets, has experience managing/balancing a large state budget, and is sharp when it comes to taxes and the economy.

I am a bit shocked by comments here.  I can't believe the ignorance of some people here.  I frankly didn't realize that a person's deeply held religious beliefs were a prime indicator for their qualifications for elected office.  I know and work with quite a few mormons, and I find them to be excellent, hard working and family oriented people.  Last time I checked Romney was a successful governor of Massachussetts...did he do anything to lead the population of that state on some evil anti-spiritual tangent?

Fred Thompson????? Are you serious??? The man served two terms in the senate and did not introduce a single piece of legislation !!!!  Not ONE! I'm no Reagan fan but at least he had been politically active for years.

Has anyone wondered why, if Romney is so hawkish on the war, that not one of his strapping 5 sons that he parades around on his speeches has joined the military? Think of it,  5 strapping young men. Who is out there fighting this war,  anyway? Certainly not the likes of our businessman, Mr. Romney or any of his family.

Mitt Romney looks and acts the most like a future president.  He is intelligent, articulate and comfortable under pressure and shows the sense of humor needed by a strong leader.  He doesn't avoid the issues but hits them head on like leaders should. His experience dealing with complex problems and ability to bring forth solutions is obvious. These traits are what should matter to the American people the most. I have not seen the same from any of the other front-runner candidates with a strong chance of winning the nomination.

I can't believe how many people like Thompson because he looks like a president! How about Harrison Ford? He looked pretty presidential in Air Force One.

Also, why does everyone have such a problem with Romney being a Mormon? If you think that the beliefs are incorrect or silly that’s fine, but it’s ironic that he’s being so criticized for having beliefs while you cannot have a serious bid for the republican nomination without believing that a man walked on water and that the earth was created in 7 days.  

Fred did great, but he should get a better suit. He looks like he got it at Goodwill.

I'm tired of folks bashing Romney and his religion....and no I'm not Mormon.  For crying out loud, Hillary thinks she's a goddess!

Fred Thompson did an excellent job. He held his own, was a straight shooter and supported it all with facts and realistic viewpoints. I've spent time looking at all the candidates and this former democrat turned republican will proudly cast my vote for Fred Thompson.

Anyone see that you tube music video "I got a crush on Fred Thompson's politics" ?? Excellent!

Ron Paul is a loon.  

Do you realy think many christians will vote for Romney based on his professed religion? Or maybe Giuliani based on his personal view on abortion? And of course there McCain. Does anyone think he could win any nomination? I'm continuing to watch Fred Thompson, I think he is got great appeal. What he isn't strong on, he can learn. It's his race to lose. He plays the authoritative role convincingly. I think he can beat Hillary or any of the Democratic HOPEFUL.

Wow, so a trial lawyer/hollywood actor/former senator isn't a total bumbling idiot?  Goodness, let's crown him immediately.

Personality cults in politics, Colin?  Is that anything like the Royal Families of Democratic politics, like the Kennedys of Massachusetts or the Stevensons of Illinois or the Clintons of God Knows Where or the (Jesse) Jacksons (also Illnois) or the Carnahans of Missouri or the Boggs's of Louisiana?  My question is this.  By the time Hillary's done being president in January, 2017, will Chelsea be old enough to take office?  We wouldn't want you leftist lemmings forced to have an original thought!  And at least after all this time, you can spell Clinton.

Thompson looks old, worn out. He looks more like a loan shark in a suit than a president. What has he really done that would impress anyone with his credentials? He'll have to show me a lot more before I'd lean his way. But nothing Hillary could show me would lean me her way. Nothing at all.   We need somebody clean and insightful as president, not someone with loads of baggage to dig out from under.

Glade Stafford --well said.  I agree completely. None of the candidates, Republican or Democrat impresses me very much.  I will eventually make a decision, but if things don't change, it will not be made with much enthusiasm.

Bring on Colin Powell as an independent with Lieberman as his VP. And watch out both parties !

I'm voting for Mitt Romney because he's intelligent, competent, and has all the makings of a great leader and president.

2 days after FRED THOMPSON thought the soviet union was still a country everybody forgets who out of touch the guy is.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION
declare a revolution
then amend the constitution
and have a public execution
of corrupted institutions.

AIPAC doesnt control RON PAUL

I thought it was the best debate so far. Someone needs to call Giuliani on his line-item veto position better then was done tonight. Why would a true republican sue anyone to get rid of a line item veto? That is not something a republican does-ever!

This just goes to prove-again-that Giuliani is not a real republican, but a closet democrat. He’s pro abortion, pro-gun control, anti-line item veto, and anti-FMA. He’s just not a real republican. Let a democrat sue to get the line item veto declared unconstitutional. That’s what THEY do—not republicans. This guy should be over debating with the democrats; he fits their mold better than ours.

It was an odd series of exchanges...here's a line-by-line review:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/10/09/live-blogging-fred-thompsons-first-debate/

I think they all failed. Vote Hillary and put a sexual predator BACK in the white house!!!!

I can't believe I'm reading Republicans actually liking Huckabee after that performance.  He showed himself to be the biggest fiscal liberal on the stage.  His response to Matthews's union question was plagiarized from John Edwards's "Two Americas" speech promoting class warfare.  And his support for the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid talking points on SCHIP framed as a question by Matthews was disgusting for me to hear.  I had read about his tax increases in Arkansas while he was governor, but reserved judgment not knowing about them and their context.  But after this debate I know he'll be just like a Democrat on government spending and fiscal policy.

Maybe it is the longing of social issues conservatives for his message they agree with and are willing to overlook these major fiscal problems.  Fact is that by being a fiscal liberal/social conservative he is a polar opposite of what 65% of what all Americans identify themselves as - fiscal conservative/social liberal.

And for Paul and Tancredo to refuse to endorse the eventual nominee of the Republican party, whoever it is, they have disqualified themselves from participating in these debates and this primary.  This is the nomination process of the REPUBLICAN Party, not a single-issue party they think they have exclusive rights to.  RNC leaders are well within their rights to kick them out of future debates and withdraw any Republican party resources they provide.  Why aid and abet these men who will only get increased exposure and a platform to advance themselves so that in 2008 when the primary is over they can go out there and trash the Republican nominee?  If they are going to do it anyway, why should the party give them the knife to do it?

It really is stupid, too.  I mean, if Rudy becomes president will he legalize abortion?  Oh yeah,it already is.  If Rudy becomes president will he appoint judges who want to legalize gay marriage?  Scalia and Olson support Rudy because they want know he wont.  In fact, the judges he appoints would most likely support parental notification, waiting periods for abortion and may even rule to overturn R v W.  Hillary on the other hand...will appoint more Ginsbergs who will do everything social issues Republicans abhor.  I'm just having a hard time figuring out what the proximate harm is social issues Republicans would feel under a Rudy presidency.  It's not like our nation becomes MORE socially liberal under him than it is today, and would most certainly become under Hillary.  At worst you get a status quo under him.  At best under Hillary you get a complete repudiation of every last shred of moral decency this nation has left.  What is your proximate harm that would cause you to permanently and irrevocably harm your country and your children because you only get someone who delivers 70% of what you want?  Selfish bastards!

the comments that are submitted are censored and only those that agree with the msnbc  crew are posted. is that not where those unbiased matthews and scarbough such are from.hmmmm sounds fishy to me.

Hah!  You Fools!  Posting this stuff on a LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA website...  You are all funny...

Thompson's debut wasn't especially awful. It's just magnified more because it's SO LATE in the process. Rudy tanked in the spring, not October.

http://political-buzz.com/

Mitt is very presidential---He will run the country
as a business and that's good.  Maybe he will do something about this countries deficit.  He knows how to turn things around for the better.  I know Mormons
care for families and their unity.  What's wrong with
that.  He will be the next President.

I thought Thompson lost the independent vote tonight.  The folksy, deadpan answers he gave are too close to those we are used to from Bush.  Seldom are complicated questions answered by less than complicated answers.  None of them showed me they can beat the Democrats.

Personally, I can't be passionate about any candidate on either side.  The front runners for both parties aren't my taste.  Hillary scares me and Giuliani is too liberal on social issues for me.  Although I'm probably extremely hard to please because I'm moderate, (truly right down the middle) my vote right now would go with McCain.  Has he slipped up a bit?  Yes.  Has he lost some of his fire since 2000? Yes.  But I think he can regain it and be the "rebel" that he was then; calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell agents of intolerance and such.  

I find it a little scary that so many comments are "Fred Thompson LOOKS like the President."  No no no please don't make this an issue.  Romney is one dashing man, but he shouldn't get your vote because of that either.  Thompson is also not politically inexperienced.  Politically lazy perhaps though.  Ron Paul would not run better as a democrat, just because his stance was against the Iraq war doesn't make him a better Democratic candidate.  He's still very conservative on a number of issues, especially government programs and the economy.  He and Mike Gravel are the long shot old coots who don't stand a chance.  Kucinich doesn't either, but he's not a coot quite yet.

If anyone knows of an anti abortion, pro gay rights, pro illegal immigrant amnesty, anti extreme troop timetable, mostly fiscally conservative, pro universal health care, somewhat anti affirmative action and welfare (they need reformed), and anti extreme gun control candidate, please tell me.  (I'm kidding of course, if such a candidate existed I'd combust from excitement)

The job of President is not easy -The really good Presidents like Reagan surround themselves with solid advisors to help them stay abreast and then chart their own course based on the best advice - Fred Thompson appears to be the best candiate to pick up the Reagan Mantle and get the country back on the right course.

What I'd LIKE to see discussed in these debates are real issues, such as medical care for ALL children, education, police and fire services, and other matters that effect REAL Americans in their day to day lives.  Since these are not considered important issues by ANY of the Republican candidates, I am generally disappointed with all of the candidates in these debates.

Romney won.  Thompson put me to sleep.  McCain and Giuliani looked uncomfortable trying to understand basic economics.  Huckabee did pretty good.  I still think Hunter is great.  Brownback and Tancredo...I'm sure they're nice guys.  Paul - seriously???

I guess we will need a super duper president seeing what is on the agenda (economy, the war in Iraq, Iran..Social Security, No child left behind, raising or cutting taxes? you name it.) Does any of the candidates (either Republican or Democrats) cut this butter?  I would say no.  I would say, we are in a situation in which we will have to vote for the one that may be able to handle a few and befuddle the rest in a skilful way (by flying by the seat of the pants so to speak).  There are going to be more debates. Let us watch and see. People like that Matthews will not fail to show their true colors. Just listen carefully.

There is no doubt that American's have seen their country sold out by decisions made by their elected officals at every level of government but mostly at the federal level. Everyone asks why? Here is the answer-"Something for Nothing". I will vote in November 2008 for the candidate that will oppose this most popular concept 100% and have the backbone to say it.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):