Tape-delayed debate analysis

Michele F., IN — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:26:31 GMT

As an moderate conservative, Ron Paul appeals to me because he is against the war, which I believe is quite unconstitutional, and is also for Civil liberties (Even the democrat-controlled congress gave bush more spying powers) and cutting out all the wasteful and inefficient government programs.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Michele — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:34:50 GMT

And as for Ron Paul "shouting". I don't blame him. I'd be shouting too if I was there facing them. The way our civil liberties are disappearing is horrifying!
I don't want a National ID card! What's next, a computer chip? Oh wait, they already have that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6237364/

Tape-delayed debate analysis

John Desaulniers, Jr., Mingo, Iowa — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:47:44 GMT

Mike Huckabee was more a winner than Giuliani. Giuliani's responses were within his element and backed by his role as mayor. Huckabee extended himself beyond his governorship and addressed issues as a president. His exchange with Congressman Paul showed he understands what "honor" means, recognizes what it means for the U.S. to be a republic, and can hold his own while complementing a competitor (Senator McCain) and never disrespecting his debate adversary (Congressman Paul). His post-debate interview with Hannity and Combs demonstrates he can talk about domestic issues as well as foreign, and his video-camera "sparring" with Cameron shows him for what he is - a genuine guy just like the rest of us. He just happens to be a genuine guy who can also lead this country in the next eight years!

Governor Romney was indeed the loser. His answers were canned and prepared, and when he had the chance to demonstrate true compassion and personally apologize to a soldier's father for his earlier remarks about his sons' "service," he balked. He couldn't bring himself to say he was wrong.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

John Desaulniers, Jr., Mingo, Iowa — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:52:12 GMT

Congressman Paul's view is naive in my opinion. Those from the Islamic world who are actively attacking us will do so until we are destroyed, not until we are out of the Middle East. If we were to remove our military from all the areas where we are currently stationed, wicked and evil men and forces will fill the vacuum we leave. His desire to trade equitably would be ruined by our enemies owning all that we vacate, and they will not "forgive and forget" because we "went home." Sadly, Congressman Paul's approach to saving soldiers' lives now will cost more in the long run.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Jesse, Mountain View CA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:56:43 GMT

I believe Ron Paul & John McCain answered the tough questions and stuck to their principles. Rudy & Romney ducked the hard questions, and would only give scripted answers. Tancredo spoke from the heart, doing much better than his previous performances. Fred Thompson was the big loser of the night.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Joel, Milwaukee, WI — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:57:50 GMT

Ron Paul definitely has room to improve as a speaker, but his positions on the issues are difficult to refute. His response when posed the Iran hypothetical was perfect.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

JOHN INDIANA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:00:50 GMT

IF NBC THE LAST PLACE NETWORK WAS FAIR, AND NOT "SUCKING UP" TO HILLARY, PERHAPS THE GOP WOULD BE ON YOUR RAG OF A NETWORK..GET A CLUE NBC, OR STAY IN LAST PLACE....

Tape-delayed debate analysis

annefrank — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:09:47 GMT

Doesn't Paul want to abolish the CIA and IRS?
Shameful that Dr. Paul doesn't even have a health care plan - while the working poor and middle class with NO health care - pay HIS health care costs.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Mike G, Denver, Colorado — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:10:49 GMT

I saw it differently, and I am a Giuliani supporter. I honestly saw it as his worst performance since the first debate. Even before Frank Luntz did his informal focus group bit on FOX I felt the same thing as the comments that group had. Rudy sounded like a one-trick pony, "as Mayor of New York", "as Mayor of New York", as Mayor of New York".

He will need to expand on that if he hopes to make his case to the public over the course of the next five months and then another nine months or he will wear out his welcome. Thing is, he's got it and has displayed it before, but he went back to that well too many times this debate.

The most useful part of the debate, but also most frustrating was the way the moderator staged the candidate responses to Ron Paul's isolationist, defeatist remarks. None of the responses evoked the feelings of Republican viewers like Giuliani's reply in one of the earlier debates. Good news has been coming out of Iraq in recent weeks, more good news then had been out there in previous debates. Yet, most of the replies to Paul were timid, apologetic, and while Huckabee's "honor" remarks received the praise of commentators afterwards, they still were fairly week. By the time that the question got to Giuliani it had morphed and was no longer a spirited, engaging exchange.

It was useful, in that it seems clear that only Giuliani has the rhetoric and credibility that can go toe-to-toe with the Democrats and mainstream media onslaught of a general election focused on Iraq. Weak, apologetic supporters of an unpopular war will have zero success at re-engaging the American public to see it through. That is the same exact tone President Bush has tried to use for several years now - unsuccessfully.

Republicans thirst for an articulate defender of the decision to go into Iraq who will take on the anti-war machine. This debate shows that no other candidate can do that as effectively as Giuliani. I actually think that Huckabee's response was so weak it even took him out of contention for Vice-President. No way he can stand up to the Democratic VP nominee in a debate and win by saying "we made a mistake, but we've got to honor the sacrifices we've already made by seeing it through." Republicans hunger for, have been desperate for a leader who will fight, really fight the defeatist anti-war movement.

Overall, Rudy's performance was sub-par. But he was questioned on things that will not be major issues during a general election. That is where his strength lies, and the weakness of the rest of the Republican field was on display tonight.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Cameron, Memphis, TN — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:23:20 GMT

What a joke. Everyone knows Ron Paul totally DOMINATED that debate. It wasn't even close, just look at your own poll numbers. Look at the text poll they had on Fox.

Ron Paul is going to be the next President.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Don Wills, Jackson, Wyoming — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:33:10 GMT

Chuck writes "Ron Paul was as angry as he’s been; At one point, I was simply wondering why he just didn’t scream, “Hey kids, GET OFF MY LAWN!”

What a stupid comment. Can't you write anything more intelligent
than that about Ron Paul's defense of his principles tonight?

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Matthew MIller, Austin, Tx — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:36:51 GMT

Ron Paul had every right to be shouting, the moderators made no attempt to hide their disapproval of his politics and on multiple occasions deliberately misrepresented his positions and misinterpreted his statements. The Spin Room interview after the debate was also very telling, with Hannity reinventing history to paint Ron Paul in a bad light. Fortunately Ron Paul was more than capable of defending himself against the blatant bias displayed by the pundits. This was a definite win for Ron Paul, it is becoming steadily more obvious that he actually understands the complexity of the issues facing this nation.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

J. Franklin, TN — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:42:28 GMT

Dr. Paul has righteous anger over what is going on in this country as do millions of others; I'm mad as hell too. Being firm in responding to Mr. Wallace's snarky and very disrespectful "marching orders from Al Qaeda" shot was in order. Chuck Todd, I'm very disappointed in the disrespect you have shown Dr. Paul as well. This man seems to care more about your own freedoms than you do. He was the most principled man on that stage and I liked that he got fired up when challenged that way. If only more Americans would do the same maybe the current administration would not have done/are doing/will do as much damage as they did/are doing/will have done. Kudos to Dr. Paul. Shame on Chris Wallace and Chuck Todd.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Jackie, Anthem, Az — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:00:13 GMT

Ron Paul won because he is the only one telling the truth to the "party of family values". In our family, telling the truth is a value.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Allan Bartlett, Irvine, Ca — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:01:40 GMT

Thank god for Ron Paul. He is the only Republican telling the truth in these debates. Iraq is a mess and we need to just get out.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Don T. NC — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:19:25 GMT

I am a conservative and lifetime Republican from NC. I am utterly baffled by your analysis of the debate. There is no way any pro war Republican will defeat Hillary or whom ever the Democrats choose. Ron Paul's message resonates with me loud and clear. The war is a travesty and a fraud and our troops should come home now, not later. Dr. Paul seems to me to be the only candidate who wants to stop this insanity and truly restore the Republic and our Liberty. All the rest are corporate hacks and have wandered very far off the conservative reservation. Paul would beat Hillary, but these other guys do not stand a chance in the next election.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

ryan rabalais, houston, texas — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:32:36 GMT

Ron Paul is easily the best candidate running for either party. Giuliani is the elitests' choice.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Micah Zabriskie Denver — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:33:24 GMT

You've got to be kidding me! Rudy did well and Romney did poorly? What debate were you watching because it seemed to me that Romney of all candidates anwered the questions with clarity, epecially the tough ones. Huckabee did well also but Rudy?

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Robert Morrow, Austin, TX — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:36:08 GMT

Ron Paul with his anti-war position and libertarian views could very well WIN the New Hampshire primary and knock Mitt Romney out of the race.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

E. Weinman — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:42:11 GMT

I can't beleive how caught up in "the spin" the author of this piece is. Saying that Huckabee's defending the surge and calling Iraq a mistake all in one statement was his best moment is a sad comment about American politics. Aren't honesty and rationality important virtues anymore?
I am yet undecided, but Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who has a firm platform and stands for something, rather than just trying to play on voters' emotions.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Sheryl — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:51:14 GMT

Ron Paul clearly won the debate. The crowd was overwhelmingly for him, and I am sure he was not able to pack the crowd, that was the American people applauding in the audience. Also, on another tv channel, he overwhelming won in their poll, however, they interviewed all the other candidates after the debate, and they tried to downplay his win by showing a graph that emphasized a momentary dip in his popularity. This looks somewhat suspicious to me, because as of 1:48am, he is still overwhelmingly ahead in their poll.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Nathan E., Hanover, NH — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:57:22 GMT

While Huckabee winning debates may be common, tonight's win was particularly important, because more eyes were on him than usual following the Ames straw poll. Solid debate performances only matter if people notice, and when more folks are paying attention to you (and they are after Ames), more folks will notice - and in the press, cover - your debate wins.

Now if only the Dems could get an Ames straw poll event so the same thing could happen to Biden and his debate wins...

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Brian A., Springville, Utah — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:55:46 GMT

Did you not see the overwhelming landslide of popular support for Ron Paul winning the debate in the official Fox News poll? His vote nearly doubled any other candidate. Please be fair and balanced in your reporting!

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Steve Ohlsen, Danville, CA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:30:10 GMT

The comment from Chuck Todd re: Ron Paul is disappointing. He dismisses Rep. Paul's political stances in tonight's debate (and apparently, the applause with which they were received - not to mention the results of preliminary polls putting him in the lead - Hannity & Colmes Fox News, MSNBC online poll). I perceived a different candidate in Rep. Paul than Mr. Todd, a presidential candidate who is refreshingly passionate about constitutional law and has a congressional record that proves his words pay more than lip service. Although his positions may appear extreme when expressed on stage with the seven other candidates, they speak to me (and I expect a significant number of other Americans).

Admittedly, I am new to the presidential race and am just beginning to understand the distinctions between the candidates' platforms. However, in the case of our involvement in Iraq, it is my understanding that Rep. Paul stood in the minority, opposing the resolution that would allow the executive branch to declare war without the consent of Congress. And as the apparent flimsiness of our intelligence (that sought to warrant the invasion) comes to light daily, it appears Rep Paul's stance was well-grounded, not to mention politically responsible. I feel that our administration failed us in providing a comprehensive, inclusive debate that fully involved and ultimately sought the reasoned (not coerced) consent of the Congress. Rep. Paul is rightfully concerned, and he is echoing the concerns of many of us Americans.

Although I may not agree with or understand the rationale behind all his views, he is worthy of more than a dismissive footnote in Mr. Todd's analysis. His campaign is gaining momentum for a reason: people are listening. Is Chuck Todd?

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Lou Nelson — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:05:54 GMT

Who in the world is this Ron Paul? Haven't been paying much attention to the field of Republican candidates, but finally starting to look at them. Sure a few of his ideas appear out there, but overall he's got the some great ideas. The media can't back bench him forever.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Mark Augustyn, Atlanta, GA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:16:18 GMT

Ron Paul dominated. Ideas and principles, plus the truth will win every time.

I just watched the video and Dr. Paul clearly had the most support in the room.

There is nothing better than the sweet smell of a REVOLUTION.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Warner Todd Huston, Chicago, ILL — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:05:15 GMT

You are way right about Thompson, sir. The rest realize he is the man they need to beat. After all, he ranks constantly as either first or second in nearly every poll out there... and he wasn't even officially IN the thing until tonight!

Romney looked horrible, too. He is finding his flip-flopping is making him less and less a reliable candidate. He is unable to logically defend his multiple positions on every side of an issue.

Rudy was smooth and on message. And his responses had an inescapable logic and the advantage of being believable.

Huckabee is always a bright star. I hope if he doesn't rise, he is a VP candidate at the very least.

As to McCain... toast. The rest... irrelevant. Worse with Paul, he is a circus act gone wild.

But, so far the top guys are Rudy, Thompson and Huckabee, and in that order. I favor Thompson, myself.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Michael, Grand Rapids, MI — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:23:33 GMT

It's good to know the Ron Paul fans are blogging when Guilliani fans are sleeping comfortably. Come on! 9/11 was a result of our bases in the middle east? Ron Paul groupie's need to listen to what this crack is saying, but often they can't hear his thoughts cause they are too emotionally untied to the war - perhaps their clapping has their ears plugged.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Vito Danelli — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:00:53 GMT

Hey, Chuck Todd, why did Ron Paul win the text-message voting poll AGAIN(!) and Huckabee score miserably? Sorry, Chuck, I'm not buying your Frank Luntz/GOP spin on the debate.

And frankly, you're being very disingenuous if you think that Rudy did well last night. Rudy FINALLY got some tough questions about his statements on Illegal Immigration while he was NYC Mayor. Rudy literally threw out the Welcome Mat for Illegals.

Seriously, Chuck, wouldn't you rather be an independent-thinking journalist instead of being a GOP shill?

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Simon, Texas — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:29:21 GMT

I have searched the net and found 7 different polls regarding this debate. Ever single one showed Ron Paul as clear winner, in many cases taking 50% of the vote.

So why does Chuck Todd say "There were three clear winners tonight: Giuliani, Huckabee and Thompson."?

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Shadow, Hamden,CT — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:34:06 GMT

Sorry Chuck, McCain has the "get off my lawn" role all to himself. Paul gets thousands of young voters flocking to his rallies, while McCain calls them little jerks; it's a no contest.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Free-trader — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:36:46 GMT

You asked which wing Dunc Hunter supports-well he and Paul both represent protectionists, who are scarce in the party but a few still exist (the old Buchanan wing) And between Dunc and Paul, the diffrence of course is foreign policy/the war, so I guess Dunc represents the protectionist foreign policy hawks.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Tom Carrington, Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:44:01 GMT

I think the big loser was Giuliani - No matter what questions he got he had the same one answer - In New York I lowered crime, blah blah, blah. - Is that all he has??? His one claim to fame - Would someone call him on this.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Mike, Lee, NH — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:46:02 GMT

I cleary agree Thompson was the ( absent) winner and will continue to ride this wave all the way to the Presidency. I think McCain did exceptionally well, and came in second. He was direct, consistant, and concise. Guiliani was impressive and I agree, as well, Rudy & Fred are the ultimate ones to watch. Great debate!

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Joseph — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:46:05 GMT

The more I hear Ron Paul the more I think he'll be my choice. Look, the fact is that all of the other Republicans are more loyal to their party than they are to the American people. This applies to Democrats as well. Do we want someone in office who's more loyal to their party and special interest groups than the American people? Huckabee gave a great response, if he were a contestant in a beauty contest, saying how we need a unified America in times of war. I agree but that's not reality and Ron Paul knows that.

As much as people complain about the government, you'd figure they would want someone in the executive who would shake things up, stick to his principles and follow the Constitution.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Shawn K., Chandler, AZ — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:51:07 GMT

Ron Paul won the debate by an incredible margin according to the 42000+ people who responded to the MSNBC online poll: 71% polled responded he showed the most leadership qualities and 69% responded he was the most convincing candidate. No other candidate got even 10% of the vote in these categories!

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Philip Fowler — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:34:47 GMT

You're always dissing Romney, Chuck. Are you just against Mormons, or what?

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Jaret Anderson, Charleston, SC — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:49:40 GMT

An interesting question posed by Michele F., IN.

What peoples civil liberties have been affected by changes that the government has made with things like the Patriot Act? On a personal level, what has changed since 9/11 that causes you to think that your civil liberties have been diminished?

From my point of view, I fly a moderate amount on business. The lines at the airports for security, and the search levels of each person are much more detailed then they were 6 years ago. The increase in security has caused delays at airports.

As for a national ID card, who exactly is proposing that one exist? We have enough IDs for anyone to track us anytime they really want. SSNs, bank account numbers, telephone numbers, e-mail ID and computer IPs are just several ways to track people. Is a national ID card even necessary to help track people?

Thank you for anyone that wishes to chime in.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Edw Palis /Lexington,ky — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:51:16 GMT

The debate was fair, The answer were can, And they were not allowed enough time to really know what they stand for.Mittt Romney was not allowed to answer his opponent. Mike Huckabee needed more time to discuss his stand on changing the tax code.Rudy Giuliani answer were the same on stage and off stage with the reporter,word for word

Tape-delayed debate analysis

johnson — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:55:52 GMT

Chuck, You can't be serious,Giuliani winner your funny even though they limited his time Ron Paul WON!

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Reggie — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:06:19 GMT

In a telephone poll last night, the viewers of the debate selected Ron Paul with 33% as the winner of the debate. However, you neither the network broadcasting the debate choose to express this nor make light of Paul's various applause during the telecasts. Why does someone who is grass roots, speaks his mind, wins over voters, being overshadowed by guys who are maintstream and so flawed, as shown in last night's debate.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Phil, Point Pleasant,NJ — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:07:25 GMT

Yeah, but why does Ron Paul keep winning these debates even when people at Fox News and yourselves are clearly biased against him? Even your analysis is intellectually dishonest in that you marginalize him and don't give him a fair shake.
Do you really think Giuliani, McCainiac or Cheap Imitation Reagan are any good? All we will get with them is more of the same. Shame on you!!

Tape-delayed debate analysis

PJ — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:07:28 GMT

Huckabee says Iraq was a mistake, then says we have to stay to preserve our honor...hmmm, when you've made a mistake, the honorable thing to do is acknowledge the mistake and change it. Doggedly sticking to the mistake (staying the course) is not fixing anything. In this case it wasn't REALLY a mistake because we see from Cheney's remarks back in the first gulf war that he full well understood what a disaster it would be to occupy Iraq. The only Repub that makes sense is Ron Paul, and the stubborn fools don't want to hear him. Fred is still just a non player, can't take him seriously.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Michael, Mottville, Michigan — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:18:57 GMT

Ron Paul...DANGEROUS! The winners in my opinion were Huckabee & Romney. Sure Romney was on the defensive and that was because he is the front runner and those attacks established that. I believe that stole some of Giuliani's thunder and front runner status. It is hard for me to see Giuliani gaining the republican nomination. Besides I believe he needs to run on more than what he did in New York City. I was especially impressed with Mike Huckabee, his boldness, confidence, demeanor, convicitons, positions and he is very "presidential". I just believe it is to late for McCain to rebound regardless of how well some believe he did last night. He does not have the voter appeal and his immigration positions of the past is hurting him.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

don mckinnon, washington, dc — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:31:23 GMT

McCain "uneven?" IMHO, McCain sailed through all waters, choppy and smooth. He showed a sense of humor and the kind of confidence that one can only attain from decades of experience with the U.S. military and his twenty years in the Senate. McCain should win New Hampshire.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Robert Thicke — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:35:20 GMT

No Republican is advocating a National ID for American citizens. The ID proposed is for NONcitizens.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Foster, NY, NY — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:56:46 GMT

I agree with this analysis the most. Giuliani performed like a competent frontrunner. Huckabee did well too, though sometimes his homespun remedies for international affairs starts to wear on me. McCain had his best night in a long time, but, also, seemed a bit uncomfortable at times (and trying to remember his lines). Romney had a tough night. I don't think he bombed, though. I don't like when he pretends to be stronger on issues (like immigration) than he really was. Giuliani diffused him quite effectively.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

capitolMAN — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:04:28 GMT

Chuck,
I typically agree with your analysis of campaign strategy, but I'm afraid I have to disagree on your performance review.
McCain came out strong and dignified on his defense of the surge strategy. His unquestioned patriotism was buoyed by remarks from Guiliani and Huckabee, who once again turned in a solid, natural performance.
I think Thompson made a major mistake choosing Hollywood over New Hampshire. If I was a NH Republican, I'd be offended.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Dan Shin, Sherman Oaks, CA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:25:47 GMT

Clear to me: Ron Paul won the debate by miles. He stood his ground, blew up the myths of the neocon spin machine, and challenges his party to return to its roots and do better. The GOP will be lost until it listens to voices like his.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

CJ — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:28:01 GMT

A well given perspective on the neocon agenda Mike. Sadly I and most of the country do not agree.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Buddy, Houston, Texas — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:56:38 GMT

The debate was seven angry, warmongering, dragons, breathing fire and making assertions, but citing no facts in support of their positions v. the only sane person in national politics today, Ron Paul. The debate came down to Huckabee's concession that Iraq was a "mistake" but we should stay and compound the mistake for "honor":

"Can honor set a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honor hath no skill in surgery then? No. What is honor? A word . . ."

William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part One, Act V, Scene 1.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

nuanced — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:00:12 GMT

Mike G., Republicans are "thirsting" for a pro-war candidate? That one really has me shaking my head. I am totally flabbergasted and left speechless.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Ken S., Charlotte, NC — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:16:52 GMT

The debates remind me of "Twelve Angry Men", a jury that wanted to vote 11-1 to convict a young man. Ron Paul is Henry Fonda's character. Paul is fighting with truth on his side and eventually watch the the other six (now seven) change. Really - watch the change take place about the war. Why? They are all unelectable if they continue to stand behind war as our foreign policy. The latest argument to staying in Iraq seems to be to defend a government's guilty national honor (of our leaders - not the military). I am insulted that Huckabee thinks we should all apologize and share in the big mistake. Free men do not give blind allegiance to a government. Why do nations "under God" have to invade other nations under false pretenses?

Another donation is going to Ron Paul.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Mark A Shrider, Findlay, Ohio — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:23:33 GMT

Last night's debate showed why there's been much discontentment with the republican choices. I have been hoping for a Newt'08 campaign but that doesn't look likely at this point.

I guess Fred Thompson was technically the winner --- anytime you're not at an event & you're the opening discussion topic you must be doing something right.

However, of those in attendance: Huckabee, McCain & Giuliani were most impressive. Hunter did well & Romney was okay. Tancredo & Brownback are out their league & it was quite clear. Ron Paul, while he had some vocal support, vocal support for those who shot back at his talking points was just as prominent.

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/

Tape-delayed debate analysis

chris lawton — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:05:25 GMT

RON PAUL WON THE DEBATE HANDS DOWN!

GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Best Ron Paul video - (Reply: WRONG!…Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Dr. LDC — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:51:28 GMT

I though Romney looked pretty good. You don't like him, apparently.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Nathan E. — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:39:29 GMT

I love how the Paul supporters think a non-scientific poll that allows people to vote multiple times actually means anything... they're so cute. It reminds me of my elementary school days. :)

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Galen Haugh, Idaho Falls, ID — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:51:58 GMT

Ron Paul is an isolationist and is the most myopic politician I've seen in 50 years--those that support him are obviously not versed in history. Ron Paul says we have no business being in Iraq but using the same logic, we should never have fought in the European or Pacific theatres of WWII, or WWI before that. Following his logic of nonintervention, we'd all be speaking German now and there'd be absolutely no Constitution to defend!

Ron Paul says he supports the constitution, but one of the constitution's main provisions is defense of the nation with a military. But if you have to fight the battles on your own soil (and believe me, they would come), you've done a terrible job of protecting the nation. It is far better to fight destructive battles where they don’t impact your nation and its infrastructure.

If Ron Paul’s elected, we'll simply lose WW IV, which started in earnest with 9/11. The prospects of a Ron Paul presidency are no less horrifying than islamofascism, as his approach would hand them an easy victory over western civilization and those of us that are left would be eliminated.

Ron Paul did not win the debate last night, since his main support base consists of relatively young people that communicate by text messaging. As a consequence, the Fox polls are biased and pretty much useless.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

chareli chang, League City TX — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:56:13 GMT

I agree with Ron Paul's earlier statements that we were attacked becuase we are over meddling in the middle east. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT BIN LADEN SAID. Are we that dense? No wonder ron paul gets angry. Read Bin laden's declaration of war on pbs.com. Bring the troops home.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Mike G, Denver, Colorado — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:04:17 GMT

I never bought into the Powell "Pottery Barn" line of thought that if we break it we buy it. Implicit in that reasoning is that Iraq was whole, unbroken before we went in. For anyone, especially any Republican to accept that premise is to absolutely discredit any rationale for going into Iraq in the first place, something that 70%+ of the public and 98% of Congress agreed we needed to do, and were NOT misled into. Iraq was horribly broken under Saddam, he destroyed his nation from within, it was a totalitarian, repressive regime that stole the lives and dignity of it's citizens using torture and thuggery to stoke hatreds within. And it gave aid and shelter to global terrorists: paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide terrorists, welcomed Al Qaida's Al Zarqawi from Afghanistan after we drove the Taliban out, hosted the terrorist who pushed the wheelchair of an American off a cruise ship to his death in the Mediterranean , etc.

Polls show high public disapproval for the war, but they remain nearly evenly divided on if we were right to do so. Polls reflect dissatisfaction with the execution of it, not the rationale for it, and reflects skepticism that we still can get it right. Give appearances that Iraq can be handled competently and support will rise again, and Democrats linked to the anti-war machine will be the big losers.

Huckabee's comments accepting the Pottery Barn analogy may help Senator's buy time from their constituents to let them stay the course for the current administration, but are a sure loser when presented to voters deciding who will lead the next administration. We didn't break Iraq, but we are helping to put it together. Americans will elect a leader who stands for the honor of our actions, doesn't apologize for them, unless the choice is between two candidates who agree we acted dishonorably in Iraq, and one will extract us from it immediately while the other pleads for forgiveness and to see it through for honor's sake. Giuliani and McCain are the only ones who get it and can connect that message to voters.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Marcellus Belleville, IL — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:07:00 GMT

Robert Thicke,

I got this snippet from http://www.ncsl.org

"On May 11, 2005, President Bush signed into law the “REAL ID Act of 2005,” which was attached to the “Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005” (H.R. 1268, P.L. 109-13). Title II of REAL ID—“Improved Security for Driver’s License’ and Personal Identification Cards”—repeals the provisions of a December 2004 law that established a cooperative state-federal process to create federal standards for driver’s licenses and instead directly imposes prescriptive federal driver’s license standards."

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Lee Holmes — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:00:52 GMT

John from Mingo raises an interesting point. Long before there was a Bush,or an Iraq War,there was Islamic nations with Iran at the top of the list attempting to gain nuclear weapons under the auspices of the AQ Khan network. Iran will be the next to go nuclear after Pakistan. Further,the desire is to gain long-range ICBMs[IAEA,Remarks,Mohammed El-Baradei,March,2006]. The only use whatever for such missles to is launch these at the West,including the US. The rhetoric from the Pakistanis anti-Musharref hardliners allied with bin Laden and those Shias with Ahmedinjezad actually believe that these can survive a first-strike response by the US,and that sailing nukes over to New York is worth the effort once the ''Jew'' has been dealt with.
Then there is the curious admittance by the captured German jihadists bearing ''hatred''against the US that specifically cites the German/NATO/US involvement in Afghanistan.[DER SPIEGAL Sept.03,2007] This raises another immediate observation. If we are handing al Qaeda a ''recruiting tool''in Iraq,how are we NOT doing the SAME thing in Afghanistan? [thus do the ''just war''principles of liberals nominally arrayed against Bush and Iraq collide]. Further,we now have Islamic sources [Jihad and Terrorism Studies Project] that have utilized statements made by the chief Democrat candidates regarding a Pakistani invasion that have been used to whip up anti-American fervour and recruitment in that nation and others. Who knows how many new Jihadis were formed out of the mouth of Obama?
Finally,how do ''law enforcement''techniques which were a patent failure during the 1990s,even begin to deal with the next stage of Islamic terrorism, that of the nuclear bomb? The jihadists will move from the usage of conventional weapons and bomb-making materials into a nuclear region with the lives of millions at stake. Think i'm wrong? Ask the IAEA,or the liberal Federation of Concerned Scientists, anti-nuclear and proliferation organizations, or the former and current PMs/presidents of England,Sweden,Holland,Germany,France,Italy,Belgium and other nations who see the pandoras box that was opened by the Khan network.
The next president,even apart from Iraq[where even withdrawl will bring no relief save temporary,[see:Above],will have to deal with refusing Pakistan and its dozens of nuclear missles to the bin Laden network and will have to consider how to deal with a rapidly nuclear-armed Iran. We will stay in the Middle East.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

R LaBonte — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:32:21 GMT

Of course Ron Paul is going to get crapped on by the media - whether Fox or CNN - just like they all smear Pat Buchanan. Their little world is endangered by the inevitable earthquake of reform that must occur - an earthquake that our modern prophets Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are trying to prepare us for. But we revile them because they speak uncomfortable truth. Tancredo is another prophet. He knows that multiculturalism and open borders are creating a future cataclysm.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Benjamin Kuipers, Scottsdale, AZ — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:40:30 GMT

Freetrader:

Congressman Paul is not a protectionist, he is a constitutionalist, and a consistent advocate of free trade. He is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics, the most free-market school in modern econ... Congressman Paul had the best responses in the debate last night, and two of my friends, until last night supporters of Thompson, text messaged with me to FOX in support of the Congressman.

Vote foe a strict constructionist of the Constitution in '08! The president is the chief executive, he enforces the law... should he know the "supreme law"? The Constitution of the United States.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

TW — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:25:15 GMT

Romney, tough night, but not a campaign-ender. Giulianni looked ridiculous in his post debate interview, and contradicted himself again right there. Huckabee's a nice guy, but patriotic rhetoric won't solve real problems, it just sounds good to the party base. McCain looked good, but he's just not the contender he used to be. Tancredo, that guy needs more press time, he's got ideas. Hunter and Brownback are irrelevant. And finally, Ron Paul: Will the Ron Paul revolutionaries (all 17 of you) just quit with the media conspiracy theories. Do you know how crazy you sound? National polls don't show him leading anywhere. You've got a great web support thing happening, but apparently you're only talking to each other. Nobody outside of your circle really plans to vote for him.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Troy, Santa Barbara, CA — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:08:14 GMT

Huckabee actually uses two meanings of the word honor. One, to describe the feeling you get for protecting your country, and the other to describe "not being embarassed" for admitting wrong. By the time he is finished talking, you are left feeling that he has made some sort of point -- but he has not. He thinks as long as we stay 'in war' then we are staying 'out of wrong.' And by not admitting guilt then he can pretty much justify staying there indefinately -- afterall, since we broke it then we must fix it! Can't argue with that twisted logic. What is really appalling,though, is that he has the gall to insinuate a causal link between the war being wrong and an automatic shame/dishonor to the troops, thereby bringing fault to Paul for even suggesting we should leave. Not to worry, though... According to Huckabee, we are relieved from trying to sort out right from wrong because that must be "left to the historians." (Or anytime after the '08 Election!)

Tape-delayed debate analysis

Mike Green Bay Wi. — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:50:23 GMT

"Let’s start with the winners:"

The clear winner was Ron Paul! You are really out of touch by thinking Giuliani was a winner here.

Tape-delayed debate analysis

TI — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:21:04 GMT

Ron Paul dangerous? I find it interesting that a candidate that believes in adhering to the basis of the law of our land, the Constitution, would be considered "dangerous". (LOL) Just shows how far from it we are.

Frankly, anyone who is not seeing through the media bias at this point in time is sound asleep. They arbitrarily define who are the 1st and 2nd tier candidates without any factual basis for their statements. No primaries have been conducted and they ignore poll results totally yet we already have 1st and 2nd tier candidates.

Additionally, the candidates are always arranged with their choices in the center and the ones that wish to marginalize placed at the ends. The camera seems to focus at the center ignoring the "2nd tier" candidates.

Is America so easily led around by the media manipulations that they are buying into this stuff? I certainly hope not. I say listen to candidates and what they actually say and represent. Who talks to the issues that matter the most to you? Who makes the most sense on the issues?

America is in big trouble. Our economy is a house of cards built on a mountain of debt. According to the latest GAO Budget Update- September 2007 our economy is unsustainable largely because of the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare and the baby boomer retirees. If we don't make major changes we are tanking. The dollar is dropping steadily and our debt is mounting just as steadily.

Ignore the media manipulations and make your own mind up. After all, look at the mess we are in today in Iraq and the media's role in that pack of lies. Think they will suddenly be honest during an election campaign? Not!