Fox-Google GOP Debate - interactive

Funny thing about that question.

Though it's not a well-known fact, I read a quote from Johnson that he was invited into the race by Paul. And I, being the political junkie that I am, asked myself why?

If one wanted to pluck from obscurity a like-minded governor as a running mate, one might avoid the Palin-effect by introducing said governor to the core of the party via the primaries. No?

And if you are asked directly about that in the middle of a televised debate with "your boy" right there on the stage (not an easy feat) with you, one might be reticent to answer that question. Yes?

I'm just saying.

 

I agree, Perry doesn't do well in debates -and- the format was very nice.

I thought it moved smoothly. But they simply are not going to give every candidate equal time.
Very frustrating!

 

Perry's stance on illegals getting in-state tuition will keep dogging him as demonstrated by Frank Luntz focus group.

 

oops - that's "Mitt's a slick guy...."and he did blow that q.

 

I never understood why he got in the race to begin with; having said that, I think it is important to remember that this is the primary.
This position might hurt him in the primaries, it will not hurt him in the general against O.

However, Mitt with his Romneycare offers little against O with his Obamacare except for the fact that he is "not Obama", which, of course, any one of them can claim.

 

Good point, gypz. He did sound like a younger version of Paul, didn't he?

 

Many of their positions are common to both. They do have differences, like immigration. Personally, I find Johnson's plan superior to Paul's. And I can see Gary swinging Ron his way, 'specially while Ron's off cleaning house at the Fed.

 

I think people are missing the point that these illegals are LIVING here in Texas. Some of them almost their entire lives! To get in-state tuition vs. out-of-state tuition is NOT the draw that brought them here. The draws have always been #1) jobs, #2) free public school education, and #3) free medical care. I am a Texan and I agree with Gov. Perry----I'd much rather these illegal kids who are living here get an education so that they can be contributing to the state of Texas, versus being a burden on the state. Remember....they are paying for their own educations; just allowed to receive the in-state tuition rate.

BTW, California allows in-state tuition for illegal students as well.

And Texas voted FOR this. All but 4 legislators voted against it. Anyone supporting state's rights would be supportive of this.

IF they want to address something really important regarding illegal immigrants.....they need to ask some questions about the amount of free healthcare we provide illegals. Free to them; not to us. OR the food stamps they end up with. OR the free public educations they get when they enroll their kids in our public school systems. ALL of that is totally free. At least with college tuitions, they are paying for it.

P.S. As much as I prefer Fox over CNN.....I liked CNN's debate format much better. There was an echo in the chamber tonight....the video input was nice, but took imprtant time away from the candidates. PLUS....there are STILL way too many of them. They need to whittle it down to about 4.

 

I liked Cain. He was very presidential. I think he rose above the bickering. I hope Romney and Perry fall off the top. Ron Paul also did well. I think he shouldn't of opted out of that last question. I thought Newt and Paul blew it in the end there.

 

I didn't get to hear too much of Cain. Don't remember anything he said.

I know it had something to do with 9 - 9 - 9.

 

I liked how Cain explained how if Obamacare was installed when he had his cancer, he wouldn't have been able to get care in time. I totally agree. DMV style medical care will cost lives.

 

People will just accuse him a personalizing the issue. But I guess it's better than not explaining it at all.

 

Wow! I just caught Hannity interviewing Paul. What a difference a few straw polls can make.

I tuned into Hannity (gak!) to watch Paul after the SC debate. Hannity was so incredibly dismissive, rude, and combative that I was taken aback.

I'm surprised by Hannity again tonight. He was pleasant, asked questions in a civil tone, and managed a smile and a handshake.

Has Hannity been Paul-erated? lol! Paul-erated. get it? hannitized? alright, alright...

 

Me, too! and that Palin stays out.

 

I'd totally support Palin if she ran. She's my Fave. I think if she is going to run she should of jumped in already and debated the others. Kinda weak to jump in after all the fighting is done.

 

More straw straw polls..ACK..ack

That's' all Paul won last time around ..DOZENS of them.That is the Paul strategy.
Try reading up that in Wikipedia..the anti establishment vote lives!
He doesn't belong on the same stage.Make up support where none exists.
( you cant attack the poor old guy..without being mean spirited in appearances..) Obama will have no trouble with that.

Now ..since you are all about image..watch Johnson...

He appeared HIGH...weaving and bobbing about..
and totally non Presidential.

 

You sure like to attack Ron Paul.

What I have noticed a lot with people like you is that the message they present is nearly contradictory. They spout on about how poor of a choice Ron Paul is, how unelectable he is, etc. If they believe this so strongly, then I see no reason as to why they would feel this need to spread their beliefs. You already think he has no chance and isn't suitable for the job, so why go out of your way to tell everybody what you think about him? What is your motivation?

I'm going to guess that it is one of two options.

Option 1.) You feel this need to inform the uninformed and to spread the notion of making an informed decision. You believe that you are the one that is informed and making a smart, rational decision whereas those that support Ron Paul are not.

Option 2.) You realize the support Ron Paul is getting and are in denial about the fact that him winning is a real possibility. You have this sub-conscious need to reassure yourself that he can not and will not win.

 

I'm going to go with: his nomination would be a roundhouse punch to party politics -- for both parties. And that, inherently, scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the opposition.

Far better to face the devil you know, if you catch my drift. Paul is a wildcard in a general election.

He is completely capable of draining votes from the Dem monolith:

Charges of warmongering and military industrial complexes go out the window - he can outdo any anti-war Utopian crap the Dems can throw his way.

Want your civil liberties back (read repeal PATRIOT Act) -- he's the only one who is willing to fight for them.

Social agenda? Doesn't matter if yours matches his -- he doesn't believe his should overrule yours.

Want more tax money -- he'll give you billions in pot taxes...a voluntary tax.

Do you weep for the disproportionate iniquities in our penal system -- see above.
Do you want to knock the legs from under the drug cartels -- again, above.​

Tired of bankers ruling the world -- he's the one who's been trying to get in their grill (the Fed) for 20 years.​

Yes, Paul is perfectly capable of drawing off traditional Dem votes (like blacks who are sick of having the drug war waged against them) and the anti-war crowd (don't discount the depth of their war fatigue), amongst others.

If he continues to win straw polls in this climate -- with the instant pulse afforded by the digital age -- it is possible, not probable, that he could clinch the Rep nod.

If he does, Katie bar the door!

 

Johnson admits that he used to smoke pot (as has our current prez -- and didn't he say something about coke? Nixon was a drunk and JFK was a junkie...). Johnson has also stated that he gave up cannabis and alcohol decades ago.

He is an avid tri-athlete these days.

Why don't you shoot him off a note that you find he's not stiff enough to be president; I'm sure he has nice things to say about you too.

 

Yahoo news just had a funny...well, its actual news, but it made me pause, esp when thinking of the last general election.

Read and weep, or laugh.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-perry-romney-defend-records-forum-074125325.html

So where did McCain fit in?

 

Ron Paul is Totally Unpresidential.And again,I voted for his son,Rand.
We don't need another professor in the White House.
Granted Romey is TOO bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.I want a President
who looks like they've been out all night on a bender.I prefer a Teddy
Roosevelt type.Rick Perry comes closest.I would vote for Bachmann,
but she is using that line ... " When I am President " this and a that.
Maybe if she said ... just once ... ' When I'm President I'll be wearing
the pants for this Country. ' Boxers er Briefs ... also. ?

 

Ok .
The Paul supporters are in denial.

1. He has no Broad based support.NONE..all your phony 300 boy scout straw poll wins dont prove a thing ..The pack the poll on Msnbc straw poll wins.
I have shown you HIS HISTORY OF USING THE SAME TACTICS LAST TIME HE RAN..He won almost every straw poll under the sun trying to say he belongs and failed miserably.
This is a truth and undeniable..and NOT DEBATABLE.
Learn to read.

2. He is not a conservative Republican and didn't support the Republican nominee the last 2 times...and I predict he wont this time.
If you dont support the plank the ONLY reason he is taking up space is to be a hypocritical 3rd party politician and take away Votes.
Enough of the BS..he is financially conservative and liberal on most other issues..including border security and intervention on terrorist.

3. He has no executive experience to attack ON RECORD so those opposed must attack HIS VIEWS on the world..which WE FIND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. He even says no one MAN could change all that he finds wrong with our government ..so why is he running ?

And why are you supporting a guy who just identifies a team is prone to fumbling and turnovers ..but short on coaching experience and lacking details on how to stop the turn overs ?? ANSWER ??
Crickets...

4. He has been in Government for over 20 years..why hasn't he changed anything ?
Just identifying a problem..ANYBODY CAN DO..its fixing them with support from others..and PAUL has none in congress...that is the key to a great legislator.
PAUL IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Now about Johnson...if you appear to be high..drunk..or out of your comfort zone..You look like Johnson did last night..we all know that.Bachmann looked x8 times more professional.

Newt..is Newt..cute lines but will never get another intelligent vote . His history has never been questioned like Romney's or Perry's..

Its time to end the charade..why not have 300 people on stage..?
Democrats..liberals and libertarians are HAPPY to see the dilution
and in- fighting..I wonder why?
Obama's only chance to stay in power..

Thanks Paul..

 

At least it's refreshing to not have to bear almost 2 hours worth
of a pack of Lies.Or some A$$klown like Al Sharpton who doesn't
even have the educational background to correctly pronounce words
with more than 2 syllable.Or some Ohio Congressman who out of no
where decides to mention Martians and getting beamed-up.

 

You get it..
Questions should be the same to everyone and every person on the stage should have 1 minute to answer.

Newt would need to answer why he prosecuted Clinton for an affair while he was having one at the same time.

 

So what you are saying is that the choices are Paul or "more of the same". I'll gamble with Paul!