-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I don’t think tonight’s campaign is going to do much to radically change te trajectory of this race. Nobody dominated, and nobody bombed. That said, I thought the following about the performance of each.
1) Newt Gingrich performed best. He didn’t dominate, didn’t rejuvenate his campaign, in fact seemed a bit irrelevant to the horse race and at times even a little bored… but because he is no longer a threat, nobody challenged him and, just as in the summer and early fall, it allowed him to play the wise man on stage. He had a number of pretty good lines, and made a lot of sense. He might get a bit of an uptick in the polls from it — but that’s all.
2) Rick Santorum had to spend far too much time defending his record on spending, his past support for No Child Left Behind, and his endorsement of Arlen Specter. Still, he did pretty well over all. As in all debates, he showed that he really knew his stuff, and he again came across as the sincere person he is. Maybe it’s worth noting two comments from my wife, who pays reasonable attention to these things because of my interest in them, but who is not at all a political animal. The other night, when she watched Santorum on Hannity, she said he took too long to get to his answers, offering too many words and talking too fast and being too hard to follow without paying close attention. So she’s perfectly willing to call them like she sees them….. Anyway, tonight, on two occasions, she said, “THAT was good.” She thought he explained earmarks well, and she thought his explanation on Specter was very strong. Conservative activists may have huge bees in their bonnets about Specter, but for most Republican voters, Specter is not well known and not important. Thus, what matters is how well Santorum explained what he did. For those voters, I think, like my wife, his answer was a net plus. Finally, it helped that Gingrich three or four times made a point of saying “Rick is right” or “I agree with Rick,” and Romney did so two or three times, including on the contraception/family/culture issue in a way that gave Santorum cover against the charge that he’s some sort of extremist.
His best line of the night was: “Just because we talk about it doesn’t mean we want a government program to fix it. That’s the difference between us and the left.”
Overall, though, Santorum neither gained nor lost ground tonight.
3) Mitt Romney was far less likeable than usual. He was a little too angry, and several times almost a jerk. (He really left a bad impression with his refusal at the end to answer John King’s question about what misperceptions people had about him — first, because the answer he was giving was boilerplate and an obvious dodge anyway, and second, because he sounded really peevish when King very politely tried to remind him what the question was.) Romney also was totally schooled by Gingrich on earmarks, and made to look like a hypocrite for requesting earmarks and then criticizing Santorum for doing so, and then trying to say that his earmarks were good but…. etcetera.
Since I’m quoting my wife tonight, it’s worth noting that she said Romney sounded “remote” from ordinary voter concerns and that “he keeps coming up with the same old lines of bull.”
On the other hand, Romney sounded like his usual competent self throughout. He still has the advantage of having an executive air about him. And somehow he came across very well when asked to describe himself in one word. When he said “resolute,” he both sounded and looked resolute.
I don’t think he gained or lost any real ground tonight.
4) Ron Paul was Ron Paul. He did nothing to help himself, especially by his continuing insistence that Iran is, in effect, no real threat. He did, however, add to the general sense that tonight was Santorum’s night to be on the hot seat, because he clearly has a thing against Santorum.
(For his part, by the way, Santorum should be doing more to make a play for Ron Paul supporters. He needs to say far more often that he agrees with Paul that the Federal Reserve has gone astray and that limiting government is a goal for its own sake, not just in order to balance the budget. He volunteered these things to me in a recent interview; he should say them more often.)
Overall,this debate was nowhere near as momentous as some earlier ones have been. Romney and Santorum both missed the chance to really grab the bull by the horns and really talk about the future and about their own positive agendas. It’ll be a close race in Michigan and Arizona because neither elevated himself above the other.
View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/22/debate-was-no-game-changer
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
RJ| 2.22.12 @ 10:59PM
I agree that this didn't seem to be a memorable debate. Gingrich looked a little down at times and Santorum seemed off his game tonight. Ron Paul was consistent as usual. Romney probably was his usual self, but didn't close well by completely ignoring the last question. After all the debates, I don't think tonight changed anyone's minds, but there have been better debates in December and January.
Jack in Wi.| 2.22.12 @ 11:26PM
The debates are finally over. The Republican Party is done and good riddence to it. The only energy left in the party is Ron Paul's young supporters. No pro war Republican can win. Most of the active military supports Ron Paul. No member of the active military wants to fight another war for Israel. Obama realizes that and will run as the peace candidate who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afganistan. He will win in a landslide against such chicken hawk non entities as Romney, Gingrich, and Santoum. It truely is Ron Paul or ruin.
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 1:13AM
Finally, I hope the Ron Paul loons leave the Republican party. Go away already.
BJZ| 2.23.12 @ 11:57AM
I agree! Can't stomach the idea of seeing the old man in the White House with his unrealistic, isolism ideas. However, anyone is better than Obama!
Paul Frost| 2.23.12 @ 5:37PM
Name calling and ridicule is straight out of Rules for Radicals. Is that really the path you want to take here?
Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerous and naive. But his principled unwavering support of the constitution is why some people are looking past that. If you believe the consequences of the former far outweighs the benefits of the latter, then argue for that point. And quit acting like a Saul Alinsky radical.
Bob in Boston| 2.24.12 @ 10:09PM
It's so depressing that there are still some people with their heads so deep in the sand that the buy the old "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" repackaged as "Iran is getting a nuclear weapon!". I mean, how gullible can people actually be that they would get fooled by that TWICE!
Crassus| 2.23.12 @ 10:29AM
Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side.
Cynthia Kennedy| 2.23.12 @ 8:01PM
Jack's right, it's RON PAUL or nothin'!
One thing the republican party just doesn't get is that without Ron Paul, they CAN'T win! Ron Paul is the ONLY horse in this race. The rest are RINO's!
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 1:12AM
I think the only reason Newt may have seemed "down" or "bored" was because all the attention was on the front runners. And yet, he was the only one who was really interesting, and without him on the stage, I would have turned off the TV a lot sooner.
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 2:06AM
Newt has gained at least 50 pounds since the debates have started. He was an ugly, old, fat, slob before. Now he is of horrendous proportions.
LC JB | 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM
And your point is exactly what?
Paul Frost| 2.23.12 @ 5:50PM
IMHO Newt has won all but one of the debates. For me the race is between him and Santorum. If Ron Paul had a foreign policy that I could stomach he'd be my favorite hands down... I think Romney would be a great president. I don't think the media and a lot of conservatives aren't giving him a fair shake. BUT.... I still think Newt or Rick would be better.
RJ| 2.25.12 @ 2:46AM
Yes, Newt has his momens of eloquence which no other candidate, Republican or Democrat, can match. I have to admit though that I fell asleep towards the end of the debate. It just wasn't very interesting.
Simon Templar| 2.22.12 @ 11:01PM
Now, that was a pretty damn good analysis.
I suggest you consult your literal better half every day. She is quite insightful and has keen observational skills.
Bill| 2.22.12 @ 11:10PM
Santorum's problems:
voted for
1. Planned Parenthood
2. Medicare Part D
3. NCLB
voted against
1. Right-to-Work law
smells something? "Keystone RINO"
Walker| 2.22.12 @ 11:29PM
I agree with you, Bill!
Ken Okko| 2.22.12 @ 11:18PM
Three Establishment WarMongers VS one principled, honest, Champion of Our Constitution.
WL| 2.22.12 @ 11:22PM
The first three comments from rational human beings
VS One Space Cadet on Mars with Ron Paul
WL| 2.22.12 @ 11:21PM
Got to admit it Hillyer!!!
I was just commenting all over one of the other blog posts about how I was liking some things I am seeing from Santorum...not just that I like them...but more about them being liked by the population at large...
And you of all people nailed it.
It's the SINCERITY.
Maybe tomorrow Barack Obama will nail down some good analysis...After you, he is the only one I disagree with less!!
HA!
Walker| 2.22.12 @ 11:28PM
The author is certainly entitled to his opinion . . however, in my opinion, Santorum was rude and talked far too much. He continually talked way-y-y-y past the time. Or was I just bored so that it made his talks seem longer??
He was actually stupid enought to admit voting for things he thought was wrong . .. . . making me wonder . .just how much will he stick by his principles, since he acknowledged abandoning them to vote on certain issues. That is what is wrong with Congresss . . . .voting against principles.
I like Santorum the LEAST. I like Paul's policies the least, but I admire that he sticks to his principles. I consider him a more principled man than Santorum.
I agree that Romney looked angry too often. And I agree that Newt was the best. If people really, really listened to what he said, they should be voting for him. :) :)
Pat Leath| 2.23.12 @ 12:12AM
Newt was the winner in the debate tonight. He should be the nominee. However, the average American is indifferent and uneducated and should not vote. In the end Obama will win and it will be the beginning of the end of the USA.
Gamgra| 2.22.12 @ 11:32PM
I have to respectfully disagree with you guys on this one. Santorum was the one who looked snotty and ill-prepared for this debate, not Romney. Romney was on his toes and was ready to go. Paul did well too. But the one who striked me the most was Newt, he not only probably revived his campaign here tonight, but also probably drew upon the double booes of Santorum which more than likely had a big impact for voters. You have to remember, the image is what matters in the debate as well. Newt will get a big uptick from people leaving snotty Santorum.
Diana| 2.22.12 @ 11:38PM
Agree with you about Romney and Santorum. Newt can sound great but remember he cannot take criticism. He talks about being positive while running the most negative campaign of any. It is like we have two different Newt's.
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 1:15AM
Don't forget, it was Romney and Ron Paul who ran all the negative ads against Newt in Iowa.
aware| 2.23.12 @ 6:01AM
Maybe if Newt wasn't such a big fat sitting duck, a one man target rich environment....
Diana| 2.22.12 @ 11:34PM
I think it was a great debate for Romney as did the audience. I thought Santorum showed his true self..very weak and unpresidential. He was on the defense and more of his true record came out. Thanks to Ron Paul! For the most part Newt seemed interested in Romney.
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 1:15AM
I think you must have watched a different debate.
mjs_pa| 2.22.12 @ 11:37PM
Upfront: I support Santorum, but this wasn't his best night.
Quin pass along your wife's advice asap!
RJ| 2.22.12 @ 11:44PM
Yes, Santorum just didn't seem effective early in the debate. Eventually he scored some points. It sure seemed that Romney was able to pack the audience with his supporters. In the final analysis, I don't think this debate covered any new ground or gave us any new insights into the candidates. It was not a particularly memorable debate and I doubt that it changed any minds.
Drek| 2.22.12 @ 11:38PM
Well, the Contentions people are gleeful, thinking their guy Romney sealed the deal tonight.
And they can hardly contain themselves running down Santorum's performance.
Santorum was either getting hit all night, or getting straddled.
Quin doesn't think it a game changer; I think it was.
Santorum had an off night at the worst time for his candidacy.
mjs_pa| 2.22.12 @ 11:42PM
Another thought , on the media and twitter reaction I've seen so far:
Prior, when romney was leading in the polls, he was always declared the "winner" when no one else effectively knocked him out.
Now that Rick is ahead in the polls: For him to "win" he has to actually "win."
Drek| 2.22.12 @ 11:58PM
Yea, the standards always seem to change with the pundits, and they always seem to shift in accord with Romney's candidacy.
Do have to acknowledge though that nobody has really plastered Romney in one of the debates. Scored points against him? Sure! Put him flat on his keester? Nope.
lesstressrx| 2.22.12 @ 11:51PM
No wonder Newt looked bored. It was boring. Rick and Mittens battling about nothing, Paul being Paul and in the meantime Newt was trying to give some solutions and ideas. He is the best person for the job to beat Obama. The media will never say that because the dislike him so much. He dislikes government and the media along with Washington can't stand that.
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 1:16AM
Dittos....
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:06AM
And Quin,
haven't you ever asked yourself why Santorum takes so long cutting to the chase?
This guy has spent twenty years in politics, participated in God only knows how many radio and television interviews, where time is of the essence, and usually one must make one's points in bullet fashion.
Yet here tonight, where the stakes were huge, he obviously struggled cutting to the essentials. And cutting to the essentials on questions he HAD to expect would arise.
Everybody knows I don't like Romney.
But Romney meticulously prepares himself for these events.
Now THE OTHER MCCAIN just waxed rhapsodic about all these wonderful campaign events that Santorum has, while his opponents have much less. But then again, Romney WAS READY TONIGHT, so maybe his time was BETTER SPENT.
A guy who screws up time management is a guy without proper executive experience!
Look at Andy Reid of the Philadelphia Eagles! He STILL screws up time management and time out management.
rnd| 2.23.12 @ 12:30AM
Drek, why are you placing so much emphasis on the televised debates? Are you really so sure that that many people are watching?
If you want to use sports comparisions, okay. CNN wants to let you think that this is the "debate" or game that decides who wins the pennant race.
Perhaps a savvy campaigner knows that, today (or just due to many, many campaign variables), these 95 minutes televised debates fall only into category C of importance. One should look good and competent. Get a couple of base hits, don't have any dramatic strike outs, catch a few infield fly balls. All you need is a solid performance.
Maybe today's political campaign strategy is that "other" elements of the campaign require and deserve your "A" or "B-Game."
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:44AM
You're right, that they're not that viewed.
But they're reported on, and narratives are created about them, and those narratives move numbers.
Another thing is that the debates have moved numbers throughout this campaign cycle. Gingrich climbed in the polls prior to Iowa solely because of them. And prior to Florida he was hurt by two rather flat debate performances. He might have been trying to send a signal that not every debate would be explosive such as his South Carolina performance. Whatever his motives, those two debates hurt him.
And you're right that of course each media network desires their debate to be understood as decisive, key, crucial.
We'll see.
These debates need to be understood in conjunction with ad campaigns underway in those states.
Don't forget about them.
WL| 2.23.12 @ 12:47AM
As much as I am not agreeing with Drek on this one...and see some of your points....
I am afraid that the debates are actually pretty important right now...
The main reason that they are more important than they normally are is from our (anybody who doesn't want Obama to win) desire to see Obama EXPOSED for the fraud that he is...
There are usually a few opportunities to do that in a debate, and whoever the nominee is needs to take full advantage of one of those opportunities to make Obama out to be an absolute imcompetent RUBE...
If our guy can't take that moment when it's just him, the Bamster, and the viewer...and stand 3 feet taller than Barry for even just a magical moment of stark divine contrast....WE WILL LOSE.
Diana 2| 2.23.12 @ 12:22AM
I have always been for Gingrich, ever since the "Contract with America". He is the only one who knows the history, knows the facts and can beat sleazoid pols. I wish people could see this. It is not a popularity contest. We need to vote for someone who has proven his beliefs and is a true conservative. Gingrich.
Diana 2| 2.23.12 @ 12:24AM
If we lose this election the America we believed in will be gone forever. Every day more and more freedoms are being lost and our children are being indoctrinated into communism. God help us. We still have a chance.
Norman| 2.23.12 @ 12:40AM
I agree with your wife.
Rommey will have serious trouble with health care.
I will vote for the R nominee.
PatHenry52| 2.23.12 @ 5:30AM
The general election isn't going to be won or lost on "can you attack Obama on Health Control".. like all pres. elections, it's fundamental economics. Barry's been horrific, and people aren't going to forget that he has been sinking the economy for the last 3 years whether the situation improves or not..
PatHenry52| 2.23.12 @ 5:36AM
I'm also kind of shocked Romney hasn't highlighted the 2 critical points of "Romney care"
1 - Religious exemption if you have "deep and sincere religious opposition."
2 - It's MA!! There was no choice between mandates and not mandates.. the choice was mandates or socialized medicine... if you doubt this, remember MA re-elected John Kerry and Barney Frank more than once and TWICE rejected a ballot initiative to lower the income tax.
PatHenry52| 2.23.12 @ 5:48AM
By "twice rejected", I mean, it was actual voting on 2 separate occasions. One time was eliminate the tax, the other to cut it in half.. more than 50% of voters... voted themselves higher taxes.
Steve| 2.23.12 @ 12:54AM
Good analysis overall and generally I agree. I'm still undecided but favoring Newt. Just when I think Paul says something that makes sense, such as getting rid of the Dept of Ed among others, his next answer makes him look/sound really extreme. I was paying particular attention to Santorum tonight and thought he did a good job explaining his past votes. While many people may criticize being a "team player", I think it shows that people in government have to be pragmatic at times and make the best choice given a lousy hand. As voters, we should demand the Senate and House vote on one thing at a time to avoid this philosophy or situation where you have to vote for something unpalatable as part of a large bill to get something you want. It costs us billions in waste and leads to all sorts of programs that could never pass on their own.
PatHenry52| 2.23.12 @ 5:43AM
I like the idea that every single expenditure be required to have a sponsor. Clearly there was at least 1 politician championing the item in order to have it exist... let them put their name on it.. and when they retire or lose, require it be put back up for another vote. Then any and all corruption, stupidity can be "owned" by someone that must be responsible for it -- top to bottom. I suspect that will swiftly eliminate "flow rate of ketchup", "Bridge to nowhere" and "Shovel-ready project" type boondoggles quite effectively.
dick toomey | 2.23.12 @ 12:54AM
The best line was Newt's. While others seriously characterized themselves with lofty single words, he said he was "cheerful." His looks hurt him, but his mind, knowledge and capability are in another league. Nothing wrong with the other guys, but I'm tired of hearing RS and MR, "I did this and I will do that, I, I, I . . . ."
BillboTex | 2.23.12 @ 1:55AM
I know this article's intention is not to report unbiased news, but it is just YOUR version of the candidates you want to support, ordered in the order you want them ordered into.
The problem is all your comments are also biased the same as your article.
The same "angry" Conservatives who want to BEAT UP on Obama and not BEAT Obama.
I see the same silly comments like "We don't need you liberals" - as we get closer and closer to the election it looks more and more like you "angry" Conservatives will re-elect Obama, and then you will be the loudest whiners about it.
Bet my comment doesn't get posted?
Kenneth| 2.23.12 @ 1:56AM
Obviously the writer of this article is not a Romney fan...All the reports I saw on CNN gave the nod to Romney as the winner and looking Presidential...He was strong, didn't take any guff and turned the arguement back to critics.
John| 2.23.12 @ 2:15AM
Regardless of who needed to tweak his responses, I was impressed with the fact that all four have more competence in their little finger than Obama has in his entire torso. I think that Gingrich, Romney & Santorum demonstrated that either of them would be capable of leading this country out of the muck and mire that has been created by Obama & company.
Logic| 2.23.12 @ 4:47AM
Ron Paul never said Iran isn't a threat. He just said the Soviets was a MUCH bigger threat yet we still talked to them. Iran is a smaller threat yet we're always threatening to bomb them.
Nancy in NC| 2.23.12 @ 8:04AM
Unless you're Israel.
PatHenry52| 2.23.12 @ 5:20AM
Wow, really? Yeah, Santorum did -not- look good in this debate (I watched it twice).. In fact, he fell apart and looked absolutely "politician-y".. falling back into a D.C.-eased insider, which is probably better than looking like the Pope in chief, which he did avoid doing.
Romney looked strong, Gingrich looked strong. Romney's only negative was a little bit of argumentative behavior between himself and Santorum.
CNN heavily gave the nod to Romney and their reasons were very sound.
The writer of this article clearly was unable to see their own obvious preferred guy (Santorum) in an honest light.
Personally, I don't think any of that will dissuade hardcore big-C conservatives/"Born again"(Evenagelicals) from going for Santorum, but I think he'll lose AZ and get closer than Romney'd like in MI , but that's because alot of voters of that sort really don't like Mormons, or at least really, really seem to from what I've seen. I'm no psychic, but for my part, I'm predicting Romney walks away with 75% of all delegates next Tues.
Note that I don't necessarily want or am advocating for that, and I have zero psychic ability.
Alice| 2.23.12 @ 7:20AM
Iran does NOT pose any threat. This is a Wag the Dog set up. Anyone can see that. I'm voting Ron Paul no matter what, even if I have to write him in. Why? Because LIBERTY IS EVERYTHING.
Ryan| 2.23.12 @ 8:44AM
Should we allow Iran to commit genocide?
ca| 2.23.12 @ 7:55AM
the candidates gave us insight into their ideas and policies on jobs, taxes, immigration, national security and energy. WHAT they say on these topics is what is important not their weight, delivery, facial expressions blah blah blah. how shallow you are to dwell on physical observations
Alexandra Mark| 2.23.12 @ 8:01AM
The author is too cynical. Those four men did their best to try and convince Americans that they deserve our trust. How easy to rip them apart when we each know in our own heart who the winner was and who we want to support. Who cares what someone else thinks?
JimH| 2.23.12 @ 8:05AM
There are many voters who will not support Paul for various reasons, think Newt has to much baggage and just generally distrust Mitt were looking for a reason to support Santorum. He did not give them one.
Nancy in NC| 2.23.12 @ 8:06AM
I'm getting sick of debates. Has anyone really learned anything recently? I'm at the point that I would vote for anyone other than Obama...and I mean anyone.
SovereignMary| 2.23.12 @ 8:48AM
RON PAUL DID A GREAT JOB OF REMINDING ALL HIS REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS WHEN HE TOLD THEM THAT THEY TAKE AN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - "WHICH IS THE LAW" -- AND NOT TO A POLITICAL PARTY!
It seems as if Rick Santorum forgot about that covenant when he freely admitted that he will compromise his beliefs and principles and "take one for the team", when it comes to politics and party.
Peggy Griffin| 2.23.12 @ 8:48AM
This debate didn't change my mind that Santorum is competent, knowledgeable, sincere, and the most honest of the four. I think it may still be possible to win on a shoestring budget if what you say resonates with the people. Romney came across as too angry, combative, and (especially when answering the last question) arrogant and elitist. Gingrich had good responses and is a brilliant but not so likable man. Paul is too whiny and has his head in the sand when it comes to foreign affairs and dealing with crazed dictators who absolutely hate us.
Daryn Kent-Duncan| 2.23.12 @ 9:53AM
I couldn't disagree more. Romney and Gingrich clearly stood out as strong and articulate and qualified. Gingrich is particularly notable for always honing in on the essential point of any question and having the best policies to deal with issues.
Karen| 2.23.12 @ 10:09AM
The writer of this article is trying to spin this to make Santorum look good or even acceptable which he did not. Santorum looked weak, defensive, and inept. Romney clearly prevailed over Santorum and looked and acted presidential. Romney appeared competent, and incredibly in control. Gingrich did very well, but I don't know it will benefit him greatly. Romney clearly came out on top, and his performance will help him in the days and weeks ahead
Viet Nam Vet 67-68| 2.23.12 @ 10:32AM
I am tired of people ignoring Ron Paul, his way to get this Country is the only way we are going to survive and that is to downsize Government and the Three Stooges are not going to do that. Number two is that the Federal Reserve has got to go and the three stooges are not going to do that and Ron Paul will. Number three Ron Paul embraces our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and the Three Stooges don't they voted for the two bills that took our rights away and embrace a totally different way to own guns. Number 4 is that we need to balance the budget and pay down the National Debt which believe it or not is the most important issue we face not the economy the economy will take care of itself by virtue of Ron Paul going back to the basic's of our Constitution and Capitalism. Illegals will leave when Ron Paul institutes his program on Immigration and e verify. Being a constitutionalist Ron Paul will use the Congressional process to get things done and I don't think that Congress will allow Ron Paul to pull all our troops home, yet I am fearful of our current Congress as far as Muslims are concerned. The Muslim Cult needs to be sent back to its 4th century life style and that is letting them kill each other as they have done for 700 years or longer. Their Cult and Laws do not belong here we have our laws and don't need Sharia Law anywhere in this Country.
James Lister | 2.23.12 @ 11:35AM
WHO WON THE ARIZONA DEBATE?
GINGRICH 16.1% (26,038 votes)
PAUL 32.14% (51,970 votes)
ROMNEY 33.14% (53,573 votes)
SANTORUM 18.62% (30,097 votes)
Total Votes: 161,678
Drudge Report
As for me and our home and country I will write i Congressman Dr. Ron Paul the only one still in office after 30 years all the rest are former or Ex government and don't know what is going on in Congress.
Besides 70% of the Militray agrees with Congressman Dr. Ron Paul if they like his forign policy then we should be looking at it much closer. Besides the President doesn't send our military to war congress does or should.
DICK ROBEY| 2.23.12 @ 2:29PM
Last night's debated gave me a feel of how these men would have to debate B.O. Both RS & MR spent their time on the defense while the others laugh at the poor atempt to do so.
While NG was on target with his FACTS; his capability to attach with a great deal of Knowledge of the workings of Inside D.C. I believe NG won with little time he was on. RS & MR defeated each others as B.O. would also defeat them by tangling them up in explaining their past.
People would have to be extremely DUMB if you think or believe B.O. will debated fairly. His ear piece will have his answer fed to him. NG is the only one who has the ability & talent to remember the FACTS & DATA to impress the audience against the SLICK TALKING CON of B.O.
Oldefarte| 2.23.12 @ 3:18PM
These debates are mostly a waste of time, as the candidates argue over senseless, idiotic, picayune, imbicilic issues [at the insistence of these MSM moderators in order to promote a verbal war for their TV ratings]. Each candidate sould be required to answer ONE question, so that a comparison of ideas by the voters-viewers could be made from same. Remember also that it's NOT what they SAY/OPINE that is of importance, but instead what they have previously DONE/PERFORMED [as the old saying goes, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDED THAN WORDS]. Who [which candidate] is best qualified [and who has previously demonstrated the managerial/administrative ability] to beat Obama and to run/administer as president this country? Who is most likely to demand institution of defecit/debt reductions from our excessive governmental bureaucracy? Since the presidency is a governmental-business version of a private industry entity, who has the proven credentials of CEO leadership skills to get the job done? We now have a presidency/government on automatic pilot due to the ineptness and incompetence of its current president, and the thought should be WHAT IF SOMETING SIMILAR TO 9/11 HAPPENED? Quit worrying about these silly debates of idiotic issues, and weed through same for the answers to the above vital interests!!!!!!!
reva-lution| 2.24.12 @ 5:29PM
When did the R party STOP being the party of CONSERVATIVISM? By that I mean, when did it start being a warmongering bully instead of the essence of CHRISTIAN morality? I am appalled at people who say they support the constitution, and then display their ignorance of it whenever they criticize Ron Paul for upholding it to the letter. Paul is only trying to stay within the confines that both our laws and our doctrines set out for us. It is neither just nor lawful to attack a nation who has not attcked us first, period. Somehow, the issue of NUKES confuse people. Other countries, including enemies, have hundreds and thousands of nukes, yet the anti-Paul people try to justify bombing and killing people in Iran as if it were the greatest danger on the planet. They talk about the #12 guy, Ahmadinejad, who runs his mouth but hasn't the power to push the button, and they ignore the FATWA of the main leader who says using a nuke is AGAINST ISLAM. Even if you think he is lying, it doesn't overcome the fact that their politicians are not suicidal--they know that if they use even ONE bomb Israel can WIPE THEM OUT! Where is the logic of the Republicans? All I hear are unreasonable people, drinking the Koolaid of the Military-industrial (war) complex....the elitists, and the banksters who want the status quo. They are selling it --doesn't mean we have to buy it. LET'S change things and choose the person who knows the REAL problem is our currency! (BTW, even the Iran issue is really about the dollar, look up Iranian Oil Bourse on wikipedia) Ron Paul is the new George Washington, it's time we recognized him! The fact that he is NOT the pick of the party is the biggest clue we have that he is the one who is RIGHT!!!! Do some homework and forget the MSM & Fox tv.