Here’s the full Huckabee Presidential Forum that includes Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    Another debate ?
    Lemme see..should I watch it
    or
    give myself a facial with Tabasco ????
    Hmmmm….
    😛
    OK, facial it is

    • Anonymous

      I’d go with the facial.

    • Joe

      Have you tried whipped cream and chocolate syrup – my preference

      OH – Don’t forget the FOIL HAT! for whatever you use

      Who are you kidding ? – You’ll watch

      • Anonymous

        I prefer spinach with sweet pea soup and a touch of
        olive oyl. Uck, uck, uck. 🙂

    • Anonymous

      It’s not a debate, it’s a forum. From what I understand they will all get the same questions and given plenty of time to answer.

      Should be a great format.

      • Anonymous

        It might be a good idea to forego the facial and watch.

        • Anonymous

          Out here in CA we go for the avocado facials, Just as green and smooooth too.

    • B-Funk

      Which type of Tabasco? I like the chipotle. It has a nice burn to it.

  • Huckabee…

    His website –
    >> http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

    FOX –
    >> http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/index.html

    “Huckabee Previews Republican Presidential Forum”
    “Special will focus on issues affecting every American”

    Art

  • Anonymous

    When did they decide this? Last hour?

  • Is it live or recorded earlier?

  • Anonymous

    Newt’s idea about local juries determining the fate of illegals seems bizarre.

    • Anonymous

      No kidding. How about we just follow our laws!

      • Anonymous

        Newt will outsmart himself and implode in no time.

        • Anonymous

          That is the hope.

    • Anonymous

      My only, only beef with Newt is his lack of “wisdom to know the difference”. When we look at his past history like him criticizing Clinton for his affair, climate change with Pelosi, Consultant for Freddie Mac, Scozzafava, etc. It begs the question: why? Couldn’t he see the writings on HIS wall?

      • cabensg

        He did!

    • I think it better than a government board. You may not know how draft boards worked. They would actually deal with individuals.

  • Anonymous

    Great questions so far by the panel. Newt, how will you get rid of all your former ideas that suck big time?

  • Anonymous

    I love the fact that it’s states AG’s that are asking REAL questions, not media pundits!

    • Anonymous

      so far this is a great idea. except for the commercials right when he was just getting started.

    • Anonymous

      Yes and the Attornies aren’t letting them tap dance with their answers. All of the AGs are reeling them back in when they give platitudes. I like that they have to give a specific answer on specifying a strict Constructionist on the Supreme Court for example. Jon Huntsman doesn’t like this type of forum? Too much sharing?

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, why wouldn’t he want to participate ? Bothers me too. Is he serious?

  • Anonymous

    These AG’s are great. Every question is about getting the heck out of our state’s business.

  • Anonymous

    Great question: Who is your favorite founding father and why?

    • Anonymous

      and on to another commercial break. This is annoying.

      • Anonymous

        Hey it’s Fox, not CSpan. We’ll have to deal with it. Good break to get a beverage!

    • Anonymous

      You said it….. Perry said Madison, but I’m not sure he clearly explained why, but they were running out of time.

      • Anonymous

        Blah! Checks and balances….

        Can’t wait to see Mr. Robot-Romney and his snake oil…I’m sure he’s “Mr. Conservative” from the gay marriage, Romney-care state of MA.

      • Madison is called the Father of the Constitution. He was the leader of the movement that lead to the Convention, he introduced the Virginia Plan, who was the basis of the document, he was the most prominent floor leader at the Convention, was instrumental in getting Virginia to ratify the document and of course, wrote most of the Federalist Papers in support of it. Not only that he was Leader of the House in developing the Bill of Rights.

        • KenInMontana

          You may want to check your facts, Madison was adamantly opposed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Virginia Plan which proposed a bicameral legislature apportioned by population (the House) and a state representing Senate apportioned as well, the executive proposed by the plan would be appointed by the legislature, and a judiciary. This was actually proposed by the Governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph. The Virginia Plan was opposed by the New Jersey Plan which unlike the Virginia Plan favored the smaller states, what we got in the end was what was known as the Connecticut Compromise which gave us the House and Senate we know today, a House apportioned by population and a Senate in which all states have equal representation.

  • Anonymous

    The forum format is so much better than the stupid debates. A few months back Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Steve King did one similarly. It was fantastic.

    • Good format…

      The AGs asking questions of 1 candidate at a time works very well.

      Combining this 1 candidate at a time answering questions from 3 questioners, followed by 2 candidates doing a point/counterpoint for 10 minutes without question from the 3 questioners, would also be a nice alternative to the line-up debates.

      The 2 candidates, rotating until all debate each other in a point-counterpoint for 10 minutes might work as a mini version of the Lincold-Douglass 3 hour debate.

      Art

      • Anonymous

        Here at our house , we were wondering why they don’t ask each candidate the same questions.

        • Anonymous

          I thought that was going to be the format. Obviously, I was wrong. They went for the issues the candidates have been outspoken about and gave them a chance to clarify – not in 1 minute or 30 seconds.

          Romney up next.

          • Anonymous

            But , we all need to know what they envision themselves doing upon taking office. Though when I was still wet behind the ears, my parents told me that first, people vote their pocketbooks and second, that usually the winner ends up doing what their opponent was touting during the election. An interesting paradigm at best, and in this election could come out disasterously at worst. I pray that we can stem the tide of the current powers that be, and can turn that paradigm around.

        • Anonymous

          he questions were centered around the candidates unique record or past comments. Paul has a unique view on the Patriot Act and has made past comments about it. Perry is a BIG 10th Ammendment governor so questions to him focused on him defending that belief. Always if all of them were presented the same question, the last candidate would have scripted answers with no element of suprise. Mitt Romney indicated he had watched the other candidates performances backstage.

          • Anonymous

            True, and I do get it, but most people that don’t follow these like we do, want to compare apples to apples, to make it simpler. I know, you’re gonna say that’s irrelevant, but people that can’t put in the time need to see it in abbreviated or abridged form. I got three people to register to vote for the first time this year, they haven’t been paying much attention til now, (busy making a living etc.), and they are my age, old, and I’m working on a few more,. It’s something I can do.

  • Joe

    Hey Cheezwizz-

    Stop your facial – It’s not that bad

    You must be watching on the boob tube

  • Anonymous

    Santorum brags too much.

    • Anonymous

      I hate to say it but he does. He always reminds us that he is “the only one” that has done this or that. It’s a real turn off because every one has a unique way in how they are serving and saving our country from the Sarah Palins to Rand Paul to the military to Justice Roberts to those AGs to Tea Party leaders. We all have a part to play.

      • What vs. How…

        I don’t really mind ANY candidate giving “the only one” type of reference.

        “How” a candidate mentions their accomplishments might be problematic, but if they don’t at least mention the “what” of their accomplishments, their opponents definitely will not.

        Art

        • Anonymous

          I’m referring to Santorum’s repeated comments and attitude in several debates when he said that he is “the only one” who has initiated a great piece of legislation in his eyes or fought for good causes. He has done it multiple times because he has left me incredulous. All of the candidates have done exemplary things.

          • Anonymous

            There is definitely something off-putting about the way Santorum phrases his accomplishments. It smacks of desperation.

            I say this as someone who would support Santorum 100%. Someone needs to help him improve his presentations.

            • Anonymous

              Agree, agree, agree.

  • Anonymous

    candidates look like they are sitting in a naughty chair.

  • Anonymous

    Perry is stumbling.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, cut the crap Maxine…and who isn’t stumbling? obama?

    • Anonymous

      He looks nervous.

  • Joe

    Keep your EYE ON

    AG Ken Cuccinelli (VA)

    I was hoping he would run for President

    I believe the FL A.G. and Cuccinelli started the Obama Healtcare suit

    He is sharp

    • Anonymous

      ALL of the AG’s are doing great! Is it just me, or do all of the candidates so far look far MORE nervous tonight. Guess they haven’t gotten questions from constitutional legal eagles. Love it!

      • Anonymous

        Heck ya they all look nervous. Who would you prefer questioning you? Bad a$% AGs who want direct answers and get followups or Brian Williams who will give you a 30 second sound bite? Is that why Huntsman didn’t show up? He didn’t want to be in the hot seat about working for the Obama administration?

      • Anonymous

        That’s a good point. They weren’t dealing with opinionated journalists and they had to face law experts to put their ideas to the test. I’d be nervous, too. You might be able to outwit a snotty journalist, but not an AG as easily.

    • AG Ken Cuccinelli just announced he will be seeking to replace Gov. Bob McDonnell when his term is up. Much to the displeasure of Lt. Gov. Bolling who feels our AG should wait his turn. I say let AG Cuccinelli spread his wings and soar. He was leading on this healthcare lawsuit. He is a true Constitutional Conservative. I imagine he is taking steps to climb to the top. America could use him.

      • Not a Virginian, but I like his style. Obviously smart as a whip, but a dry sense of humor, I bet.

  • Anonymous

    He looks great.

    Credible, knowledgeable and NOT PHONY

    • poljunkie

      Go Perry Go! Alioto and Roberts yes!

  • Anonymous

    Who the hell wants to sit down with 3 lawyers, unless you’re OJ

    • Anonymous

      O.J. doesn’t need three lawyers. He needs one executioner.

  • Anonymous

    Good Perry – Just say no!

  • Anonymous

    I’m moving to Texas.

  • Anonymous

    Rick Perry’s inside pocket has become a part of the 2012 campaign.

  • poljunkie

    Constitution in his pocket! Looooove it! hahahhaaa

    • Anonymous

      Better than obama and his skank ass wife who uses it as toilet paper.

      • Anonymous

        That really, really isn’t necessary…

        • Anonymous

          Sure it is, the statements are true. Plus it feels good for all the slaps in the face to this country the two of them have performed.

      • Anonymous

        Hey, show some respect for our First Lady and our President who refuse to wear the pin of the American flag or to put their hands over their hearts during the National Anthom. On the last pic I saw of them during the National Anthom they had their left hands over the right sides of their chests. No way can that be an accident. Do they think we are stupid? I suppose the pic could be fake.

    • Good point he is making. Any literate person of the time could read and interpret the Constitution. Which is why the ordinary voter got to cast his ballot for or against it, at least in most states. It was posted in almost every town. More Americans cast a ballot in any national election until 1828.

  • Anonymous

    Overall, I think Perry did really well.

    • poljunkie

      we did too. I hope Fox replays this

    • I love this from the PPP Iowa poll coming out tomorrow:

      “Other thing that grabs my attention in IA is Perry appears to be in double digits, much better than he’s been doing elsewhere”

      Perry/Rubio 2012 Viva! Everybody rumba!!!

      • Anonymous

        Perry/Rubio power-bombs obama/biden

  • Has anybody noticed…

    The knock-anybody-but-Perry supporters have stopped flaming everybody but Perry… since Perry had his turn?

    And.

    Has anybody noticed that there were absolutely NO anti-Perry flame throwers?

    Just askin’… ’cause it matters.

    Art

    • Anonymous

      It looks like EMT got the old heave ho.

      • Anonymous

        Short vacation. Welcome back.

      • “Guest” replaced Mr. EMT…

        Hey, Rshill7, you musta been funnin’ about leavin’, huh.

        That’s good.

        Some educatin’ about not flamin’ seems to still be necessary.

        However… I could be mistaken… time will tell.

        Art

        • Anonymous

          I hear ya’ sir 😉

          • Influence vs. Insult…

            Thanks, and kudos to you also… patient and professional is a journey.

            You comments on a previous comment page hit home with me.

            I called it a “gold nugget” sentence in a post to someone there.

            >> “It’s nearly impossible to influence and offend at the same time.”

            That is in my mental file, along with these 3 spontaneous comments in a theology class over 30 years ago.

            #1 – “If 2 people agree 100% on something, one person has stopped thinking”

            #2 – “I wish I could, I wish I could, I wish I could.”

            #3 – “What gets your attention, gets you.”

            #2 is a reference to a professor saying that when a person makes a public commitment to Jesus and being a member in good standing on the “WAY” after being “called out of the darkness into HIS marvelous LIGHT,” that person can not look back at whatever captured his (… or her) attention and say, “I wish I could” touch it, take it, taste it, again.

            Now, what he DID when he SAID “I wish I could” is the reason I remember it.

            As some people are, this theology professor was a fast talker, and when he got going, watch out, something good and quotable was coming.

            Well, each time he said “I wish I could,” he turned his head to the left to look over his left shoulder, ALL the way back over his left shoulder…

            I wish I could
            I wish I could
            I wish I could

            His ultimate point was that we can’t look forward and backward at the same time, wanting two different outcomes.

            And now you know, the rest of the story.

            Art

      • Anonymous

        Let’s hope that EMT takes his own medicine. He could not possibly be what he claims, too nasty.

      • It better have been a vacation- or I’ll never speak to you again.

        • Anonymous

          Rshill7 can’t desert, he’s our Papa bear !

          • Dang right!!

          • Anonymous

            That old wizard can’t just bail out on us. I would have had to scour all the hills of Michigan to find him, so to speak! 🙂

            • You and me both! 🙂

              • Anonymous

                LOL!! What a day! 🙂

              • Anonymous

                Don’t forget me – right there with both of you 🙂

      • Anonymous

        Welcome back, my friend!

      • Anonymous

        Yep, looks like Scoop emptied the site of emt 😉

      • Anonymous

        Now I can take a deep breath and smile – you’re back 🙂

  • Anonymous

    I thought Bachmann did a great job, and I’m really glad she brought up Kilo relating to private property rights. Haven’t heard that topic in the debates so far.

    • Anonymous

      That’s great. She’ll never be President.

      Next

    • Anonymous

      I’m glad she brought it up, but I’m not sure she answered the question as to what she would do to protect property rights.

      • Anonymous

        She’s not going to have a ready made solution to every problem, bad law, or bad court decision. She’s not going to be able to address all of those as President, either. The fact that she doesn’t like it is hope that she will do something about it as President.

  • Anonymous

    Bachman was very poised and susinct in her answers. No spin there at all. Refreshing.

    • I agree. She realizes the seriousness of the situation.

  • Anonymous

    EMT was my only beef toon. Thanks. Happy days are here again.

    • Anonymous

      I know. He was ridiculous. I saw your comment saying you were leaving.

      • Anonymous

        Well, I saw that a lot of people didn’t like him being here and neither did I. It wasn’t right how he was treating folks…candidates and the rest of us. I like all of the candidates over Obama. Of course Romney is at the bottom of that “like” list 🙂

        I also like Perry a lot and that guy was Perry poison.

    • Someone sent this to me on facebook just now, and it picked me up 🙂 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXlPCFBBTJ4&feature=share

      • Anonymous

        That was nice sister.

        • Anonymous

          I think of her as that as well.

          • Thanks freenca- sister (((())))s!

          • Anonymous

            One big happy… 🙂

            • Anonymous

              ….. family! 🙂

              Love you guys, too!

        • Thanks Toon. I has a way of bringing things into perspective doesn’t it? Joy to the World the Lord is Come- and He is coming again. Some day none of this crap will matter.

      • Anonymous

        Bah humbug. Just teasing. Believe it or not, that was the first Christmas song I’ve heard this season. It was nice.

        • Merry Christmas kong 😉

          • Anonymous

            Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you as well. Same to everyone else.

      • Anonymous

        Beautiful! And the Fiddler is simply amazing!

        • I know! I have a friend on facebook who sends me all kinds of music, and a lot of Celtic stuff. This was beautiful..

      • Anonymous

        My wife couldn’t get motivated this morning as she had planned on decorating for Christmas. I popped up the link and had her watch, and she was immediately inspired. Thanks, now I can have a happy Christmas. 🙂

        My daughter is a Celtic music fan and I am going to buy her the CD for a coming home gift. She comes home from school a week from tomorrow. You made my day. 🙂 🙂

        • I’m glad you liked it. Now that your wife has probably decorated and everything looks beautiful, here’s another one to listen to while you both sit and look at all the twinkling lights 🙂
          I have so many favorite Christmas songs, and this is no exception.

          PS- your daughter has great taste in music. Celtic music is getting to be one of my favorites as well.

    • Anonymous

      You did a great job, Rshill! I loved your jabs and you always had the upper hand! Now we can breathe easy….!

  • Anonymous

    I think Rick Perry gets nervous when it’s live. Gingrich was boring. Santorum goes on about what he did in congress and in the senate. Too bad he was not reelected, it’s time for Santorum to start to talk about what he’d do, not what he did when.
    Paul is on now.

    • Anonymous

      IMO, Gingrich was a tough act to follow and Santorum did fantastic following him. I thought those two were on their game, Bachmann misdirected when asked which Amendment…. Paul was his typical libertarian self, Perry plays the part of a federalist Gov who genuinely dislikes DC very well and Mitt looked like he was reading his goodbye from a teleprompter.

      • Anonymous

        “Mitt looked like he was reading his goodbye from a teleprompter. ”

        Bust a gut LMAO.

      • Anonymous

        NEWT 84 ethics violations in 6 years….The only speaker of the house in HISTORY to be removed….Newt Gingrich is more unconstitutional Big Government Fashist at it best……….NOT TRUSTED he makes Mitt Romney look like a Saint… They both should have flip flops on the front of whatever Constitution they hold .Because it sure is not the US Constitution with the founders….

        • Anonymous

          Newt defends himself well. Obviously the establishment republicans didn’t like Newt and ran him out of town and piled on. In Newt’s absence congress has more than doubled our debt. Hmmmmmm! Thinking……. Yep, I forgive Newt.

          Within the context of this political environment Newt has one heck of a message with that doubling of debt in just 12 years he’s been gone.

        • You are mistaken to say that he was the first removed. He was not asked to step down. IAC. Jim Wright was, and not ten years before.

    • Anonymous

      NEWT 84 ethics violations in 6 years….The only speaker of the house in HISTORY to be removed….Newt Gingrich is more unconstitutional Big Government Fashist at it best……….NOT TRUSTED he makes Mitt Romney look like a Saint… They both should have flip flops on the front of whatever Constitution they hold .Because it sure is not the US Constitution with the founders….

      • Anonymous

        Newt defends himself well. Obviously the establishment republicans didn’t like Newt and ran him out of town and piled on. In Newt’s absence congress has more than doubled our debt. Hmmmmmm! Thinking……. Yep, I forgive Newt.

        Within the context of this political environment Newt has one heck of a message with that doubling of debt in just 12 years he’s been gone.

  • Most of the candidates have said that they would shut down the federal education department. Are we getting the same unequivocal message from Romney? Doesn’t sound like it so far.

    • Anonymous

      NEWT 84 ethics violations in 6 years….The only speaker of the house in HISTORY to be removed….Newt Gingrich is more unconstitutional Big Government Fashist at it best……….NOT TRUSTED he makes Mitt Romney look like a Saint… They both should have flip flops on the front of whatever Constitution they hold .Because it sure is not the US Constitution with the founders….

  • poljunkie

    The Brady Bunch!

    • Anonymous

      She has that Fox News look as well 🙂

  • I can’t get any of these to work for me tonight- keeps messing up my puter and gives me an error message for script. Any suggestions? But then again… maybe I’ll just watch the repeats that Scoop hopefully will put up later (thank you Scoop.)

    • poljunkie

      I messed around with all the live streams and none of them worked for me very well, either and then some one in the “chat” suggested I turn on the television.

    • Anonymous

      I watched it on TV (Fox News). If you missed it, they will probably replay it tomorrow. It was a great format.

      • Thanks Maxine. I don’t have cable, and I rarely watch the tv, so I think I’d mess up the remote LOL. 🙂

        • Anonymous

          Ask the kids, they know.

          • LOL yeah, but mine hides it, and he’s already asleep 😉

            • Anonymous

              oh, well heavy sigh.

      • Anonymous

        I did too, on fox that is. I know that you have been a big supporter of Cain and I am sad that he’s suspending his campaign. I think he’s been (forgive the bad pun) railroaded by the left. They couldn’t afford him, I truly believe that, and had to rid themselves of his threat, a conservative-business savy-independent candidate would give so many of their sheeple a choice, that they would do ANYTHING to ruin his candidacy !

  • Anonymous

    Personal synopsis. Huck was brilliant coming up with this format and in getting the folks to show up. The questioners are some of our current heroes. This is a republican primary after all and to have liberal “journalists” asking those questions seems silly.

    The one on one question sessions were cool too, for us as well as the candidates. It’s a more considerate format for everyone.

    • Anonymous

      Good night sweet bear, sleep well.

      • ditto from me!! 🙂

      • Anonymous

        Don’t either of you ever step on the cutie patootie scale.

        You’d both break it 🙂

    • Anonymous

      I like hostile questions from liberal journalists as long as they are relavent. It gives a preview of what the attack is going to be when the general election comes along, and it allows me to vett a little better. The last thing I want are surprises that could destroy our candidate and it’s too late for us to choose another one. Get them out in the open now.

  • The ‘Newt’ dominated the inquisition.

    • Anonymous

      Is it just me, or did it seem like we got less info out of the candidates than normal? Only a few questions asked of each candidate. Kinda made it seem rather short to me.

      • Unlike other formats where they talk over and trip over each other, each had equal amount of time in this format. No audience meant less pressure to answer a certain way.

        • Anonymous

          I liked the format, but I just wish it was longer. Of course, getting people to stay engaged would be a problem.

          • Longer, seriously? I don’t know how much more of this we can take. This one was 2 hours long, isn’t that enough? If you’re a political junkie there’s good news. Another waste of time, I mean debate, is coming on the dec. 13th I think. In the meanwhile obummer is in hawaii on vacation from vacation.

            • Anonymous

              I was looking more at the time per candidate. 11 minutes. By the way, it’s not Hawaii. ….it’s Asia.

  • Anonymous

    Did the AG from Florida perform a miracle by influencing Ron Paul to say the words “act of terrorism” about the Twin Towers? Priceless. Paul historically used the word “violence” as opposed to “terrorism”. Even when responding to the Oklahoma AG, he wanted to avoid that new reality.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, he sounded just like H. Clinton about the “it’s a criminal act”, he had to respond to it and finally he did.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly why Paul needs to be laughed out of the building. He was cornered because there’s no way he was going to get away with saying 9/11 was just a criminal act that should be handled by NYC. Instead of addressing the fact that the idea of the Patriot Act is to stop shit like this from happening, he says that we can’t stop every act of violence. This is a liberal view. Wait until it happens and arrest someone. If you know about it beforehand you can’t do anything because they haven’t committed a crime yet. Hogwash. Ron Paul is a disaster.

  • Anonymous

    I’d prefer voting for a Mormon than a serial adulterer. Newt’s wife leads him around by a nose ring and is running this campaign. He might be smart, but he is weak and has no campaign staff. He will implode, and we should all be thankful for that. He’s a disgrace and should not be considered a viable Republican candidate.

    • There are four other conservative choices beside Romney and Newt (Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry). I recommend investigating them. It’s not a 2 man race.

      • Anonymous

        Romney and Newt are not conservatives – Bachmann, Santorum and Perry are conservatives, and I like all three. I was just commenting on the current front runners. My personal preferences are John Bolton, Allen West and Rubio, but that is for another time. We don’t have much to work with in 2012, and it is a shame.

      • Anonymous

        No, it’s not. Ron Paul is 2nd 🙂

    • Anonymous

      NEWT 84 ethics violations in 6 years….The only speaker of the house in HISTORY to be removed….Newt Gingrich is more unconstitutional Big Government Fashist at it best……….NOT TRUSTED he makes Mitt Romney look like a Saint… They both should have flip flops on the front of whatever Constitution they hold .Because it sure is not the US Constitution with the founders….

  • Anonymous

    THE MISSING PERSON AT THE DEBATE:
    CORRECTING THE RECORD ON HERMAN CAIN

    [This comment is exclusively posted on http://www.TheRightScoop.com .This is my intellectual property and cannot be re-posted without my permission.]

    To preface my remarks, I am an Orthodox Jew; I belong to a people that has the strongest minimum moral standards of any people on the face of the earth.

    Since Herman Cain has suspended his campaign, let me try to put into context the accusations made against Herman Cain as reported in the media [I have never donated to Cain and this is unsolicited.]:

    – No one has ever filed criminal sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain.

    – The claim of sexual assault against him was patently false as confirmed in body language experts Dr. Lillian Glass and Dr. G. “Jack” Brown’s unsolicited, independent analyses (available online).

    – Herman Cain has remained married for 43 years and his wife supports him.

    – None of the accusers have accused Herman Cain of violating any universal moral standards (the Old Testament only forbids a man from committing adultery with a MARRIED woman; likewise Herman Cain’s positions on abortion during the campaign have been fully consistent with the same universal morality – I encourage everyone to research the Orthodox Jewish position on non-Jewish abortions; moreover even if we suspect Herman Cain has lied to us about infidelity, there is no blanket prohibition against lying in the Old Testament, and he was not under oath). An individual may aspire to a higher standard than the universal moral standards outlined above, but these are matters of personal status, and the media has no business reporting on those that do not touch on public policy.

    – At worst, Herman Cain did acts that the private church he attends may consider inappropriate, but it violated no normative standard we have in this country (i.e. perhaps the majority of married men in the U.S. have committed adultery).

    – Some of our greatest leaders have had some narcissistic tendencies (Abraham Lincoln, MLK, Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt).

    – This scandal is different from President Bill Clinton’s, who was a probable criminal sociopath suspected of rape (Juanita Broderick), intimidation (Katherine Willey), murder (Vince Foster), indecent exposure (Paula Jones), abusing FBI files, fraud (White Water), selling missile technology and nuclear secrets to China, perjury and obstruction of justice (impeached on but not convicted), and he had his law license suspended.

    I accuse the media itself of been psychopathic in reporting without any evidence allegations of supposed crimes that Herman Cain committed. It has also engaged in tabloid sensationalism in emphasizing out-of-proportion Cain’s embarrassing pause on the Libya question, mis-contextualizing some of the statements that Herman Cain has made, and reporting on Herman Cain’s innocuous humor (just as some in the media could not appreciate President Ronald Reagan’s sense of humor).

    It is too bad that the media scared off Herman Cain, because as I size-up the leadership qualities and personality traits of the Republican field, I feel that Herman Cain would have had the best attributes and had the most opportune skills to meet the economic crisis facing our country, and in successfully tackling that crisis, he would have become a great President. I would have wanted the media — instead of engaging in tabloid journalism — to have covered legitimate issues regarding Herman Cain that would have helped me solidify my assessment of Herman Cain’s abilities, such as: How successful was Herman Cain in business? What was his leadership-style as CEO? Who were Cain’s new foreign policy team, and was Cain learning from his missteps and starting to bone up on foreign policy (for example Cain made an intelligent and informed response on the Pakistan issue in a Blitzer interview in the past few weeks that to me indicated Cain was learning)?

    Now that the media has lowered its journalistic standards, I predict that they will tear down whoever the ultimate Republican nominee is in a similar manner, as the media continues to exacerbate societal divisions, and distract us from legitimate issues. This undermines our democracy, and now is the time for a Republican candidate or the Congress to come out with a bold plan to limit monopolization in the media, and prevent foreign interests from buying up portions of our media — interests that through Cain’s expected role-out of a bold energy-independence plan next week had much to fear.

    • Anonymous

      I myself am a Ron Paul supporter, as IMHO he is the most principled, and stands on that. Integrity and honesty mean something to me. That being said, I am deeply troubled by the fact that Mr. Cain was shredded as he was by the media for “alleged” inappropriate behavior (no proof), and his family was put through this-yet Gingrich gets a free ride for proven affairs. I shouldn’t be surprised I know, because the hypocrisy that runs rampant in our society anymore fits Newt to a “T”. I wish him well, and pray that he and his family are able to go forward in life and put this behind them, and I sincerely hope that he endorses Mr. Paul-as he is the only one that expressed true regret in what has transpired.

    • Anonymous

      What can we do to bring Mr. Cain back? He is the one and only!!!
      God bless you for this article!

  • Anonymous
  • Still no mention in ANY of the debates about Fast and Furious, Solyndra, or any other scandals of the BHO administration. *sigh*

  • Small long story. Newt says don’t return illegals after 20/30. My uncle cotton farmer near border, tried the bracero program, and all he got were, lazy, or overnight vistors. they all had bribed Mex and US people. So, he drove to border, picked up about 30 illegals, and gave them choice, jail or work. They chose work. They were not allowed to leave farm, food and all was delivered,and deducted from a fair wage, plus shack to dwell in. At end of season, uncle drove them to same place and they went back to Mex. He said if you like, same place next year. He had some people come back for 30 years, they lived in Mexico. They had no intention of living in USA. Newt says make them citizens, Perry says go back,and stay back in your county, Mexicans. This is ignorance against experience. One of many differences between Perry, and Newt. Up to you, solve the problem, or just forgive everything. I am for Perry.

    • After Reagan amnesty, the US was invaded by ten to fifteen million Latinos from South of the Border. There is no practical war of getting rid of them all, or even the majority. Millions of employers did pretty much like your uncle did, pretty much took them because they worked cheaper than Americans.

  • Anonymous

    Romney looked like George Hamilton. he looked like he had a fake orange tan.

  • Anonymous

    SOOO glad I didn’t hear 999 tonight!

    • Anonymous

      Good for you, I guess you got to zero zero zero results from our administration…….

  • 4joachim

    #1 Newt Gingrich #2 Rick Santorum #3 Michele Bachmann

    Any of these Courageous Candidates would be Honorable, Dependable, Determined to Look out for each and every one of U.S.

    ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Trusted President Of The United States Of America ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    • Anonymous

      NEWT 84 ethics violations in 6 years….The only speaker of the house in HISTORY to be removed….Newt Gingrich is more unconstitutional Big Government Fashist at it best……….NOT TRUSTED he makes Mitt Romney look like a Saint…

    • Anonymous

      Gingrich is a self absorbed Pig and you are dreaming, if you think he would win the presidency making calista “The First Tramp”.

      • KenInMontana

        I have had enough of your constant acidic vitriol. Good bye.

  • Anonymous

    Romney looked so contrive. Can this guy just relax and not look guarded at all times? Perry needs more overtime debating tutorial, but overall an improvement. Gingrich ego and brilliance in manipulating words worry me. Santorum “I am the ONE and the only one” and self righteousness are so off putting. I do congratulate him on 30% (improvement) less whining this time around. For Ron Paul, I do agree in many of his criticisms toward past and present US governance, but he needs to be specific in what he is planning to do instead of just stating those he does not agree with. It is easier to criticize but difficult to formulate concrete plans and solutions, let alone make them happen. One cannot run on criticisms alone. Also he needs to stop squirming on his seat.

    He also needs to know the real motivation of why Muslims wanted to harm the Western World and the US. He is right, it is not due to “envy” of wealth and freedom (“Hate” should be the proper term, as they prefer total religious control over everybody), but he’s wrong in thinking that it is purely due to American foreign policy. He should ask the son (converted to Christian) of one of the Palestinian Hamas leaders and many more Muslims giving warnings of Islamic ideologists real intention. It is due to their holy duty, according to their Islamist ideology, in making Islam the world’s supreme religion. And because of that; they see America as the only capable force that could stop them from that dream. I am trying really hard to adopt Ron Paul, on economic and constitutional strength after Cain resigned, but it is getting more difficult to justify his national security and foreign policy. How old is Ron Paul by the way? If he becomes the Republican nominee, make sure he has a brilliant Vice President in the Wing ready to take over. Hopefully pressure from you the people, congress, and senate could neutralize his naiveté.

    Bachman with improvements (if she is going to show more strength, the courage to offend and stand up to those Misinformation Stream Media, OWS, and more) could be a possibility too. She needs to show more backbone, this is not a congeniality competition. She has to portray a Presidential demeanor by learning how to portray being relaxed and being comfortable in her own skin to show confidence and reassurance that she can handle the highest office of the land. Once she learns how to behave like a leader of the pack (Alpha Female), she might just become the first Female US President.

    Well, there are still enough time for candidates to make improvements and for people to vet them. Vet them really well… there is no need rushing in making your minds up yet.

  • Newt/Santorum?? even tho Im a Cainiac!!! 🙁 ..that would be one big Catholic ticket by the way hehe 😉 ..(for those of you who go crazy over the theology stuff)

  • Thank you for the full debate video, I appreciate it.

  • Anonymous

    I would have liked to have heard asked each candidate:
    What should a president do if an intractable congress failed to timely enact a bill important to our nations economy? What should he do to encourage mutual compromises? The answer would indicate leadership qualifications. It is unlikely going on an extensive campaign trail be a presidential option. OOOPs, later not a question, just an observation.

  • I’m just shocked that no candidate wants to take on the mantle of immigration restriction. It’s the perfect issue right now–immigrants, legal or illegal, are taking jobs when unemployment is already high, and they’re taking social services when budget deficits are at record highs. Yet, we’re still chasing the elusive Hispanic vote. Why not just expand our share of the working class white vote? But we have Mitt Romney saying “WE LOVE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS” while giving lip service against amnesty, Newt and Perry tripping over themselves for our new immigrant overlords, Bachmann and Santorum ignoring this issue.

    If I was in this race as an underdog, I’d use it. Why the hell not?

    “Immigration is good–when America has a labor deficit. Right now, we have a giant labor surplus–it’s called a 9% unemployment rate. If elected President, I would secure the border. I would cut off almost all social services to illegal immigrants and enact other measures to encourage self-deportation. But I wouldn’t stop there. I would press the Congress to adopt immigration reform that tied the quotas of immigrants we let in to the unemployment rate and other economic criteria, so that when we let in immigrants, we do so in a way that doesn’t cost Americans their jobs. I would also prioritize the immigration of those with the most potential to contribute economically, like our neighbor Canada has done for decades with great success. This will save American jobs, it will save us money, and it will restore respect for American law among the people of the world.”

    Saying this would cause one’s primary numbers to skyrocket. They would eat into Obama’s remaining white working class voters. But we have no candidate able or willing to say this.

    A man can dream, I suppose.

    • Anonymous

      They should watch how the Conservatives in Canada, in the recent Federal election, tackled the Anti illegal Immigration issue head on and won. They were attacked as anti immigrants by the other party due to that, but many immigrants instead flocked to their cause and helped them win the election. Studying the Canadian Federal Conservatives might help and teach these candidates how to tackle those very difficult issue. Shying away from those contentious issues will only make them look evasive. They should not forget to use economic, drain on entitlement resources, national security, and most importantly integration (to society) issues when discussing immigration illegal or otherwise.

      • Well, the thing is that the Liberal governments before Harper also had decent immigration policies where they supported the immigration of high-potential Asians over third-world peasants.

  • Newt is finally showing his true colors. I’m staying home, except for Bachmann.

    • Anonymous

      Every time I see a comment that says I’m staying home it makes think dumb ass! What are you? Five years old? Think about what that means. Obama as president. That means he doesn’t have to worry about reelection and REALLY not give a damn. Think about it. Put down your Gerbers smashed peas would ya?

      • Anonymous

        Exactly! It comes down to ABO!! Even if you have to hold your nose and vote, bottom line, these guys are ALL pro-America.

      • Anonymous

        Hey it is okay for all of you ABR people to say, they won’t vote for Romney if nominated so why isn’t it okay for someone who refuses to vote for an immoral pig like Gingrich who only looks out for Gingrich not be allowed to vote for a 3rd party candidate? People like me are sick and tired of voting for life long career politicians who thrive on BIG government and line their pockets with special interest money.

        If Gingrich is the nominee this election could make history if someone like Huntsman runs as a 3rd party candidate. Huntsman would win the Reagan Democrats,the Independents,and the women’s votes.It would be close but someone like Huntsman could actually win as a 3rd party candidate.

    • Anonymous

      Then you are voting for Obama.

    • wodiej

      So you like Obama then?

      • Anonymous

        Here we go again. This is 2008 all over again. Another RINO being rammed down our throats and Obama would slaughter Newt in 2012, just as he did McRINO in 2008…

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for posting this RS. I was not able to watch the forum yesterday. I’ll try to catch it today sometime!

  • Anonymous

    Newt/Rubio 2012

    • Anonymous

      I suggest you look into Newt’s being a Third Wave disciple, and his voting record. BTW, why on earth would you want Rubio when he voted against the Udall amendment??

  • Anonymous

    The candidates don’t understand that “the right to life” is not simply the right to exist, but is actually the source of all rights, since it covers the entire sphere of human existence.

    I know all you pro-life people are going to get annoyed at this, but what you and candidates are actually advocating is the violation of the right to life – The right to life of the woman, who is a fully-formed actual human being.

    I on the other hand am for the right to life, by being pro-abortion, because the right to life only applies to actual human beings, since the right is inferred from actual human beings and NOT potential human beings. There is no right to life of potential human beings. There is only the right to life of actual human beings.

    Go ahead and rage at me for telling the truth, but that is what the right to life is and how it is sourced.

    By trying to extend “the right to life” to potential human beings, you end up violating the right to life of actual human beings. If you’re pro-life, that is anti-abortion, you are actually advocating the violation of the right to life.

    This is a philosophical issue at its core.

    • Anonymous

      I, too, am pro-abortion and you’re full of crap.

      You can’t have a philosophical argument with someone who refuses to understand the basis of the other sides position. You also don’t need to be religious to admit that life begins at conception. If you can’t accept that you’re not intellectually capable of arguing the issue at all.

      • wodiej

        How do you know when life begins? Are you telling me a fertilized egg has a soul?

        • Anonymous

          Huh? What’s a “soul” and what does that have to do with a baby?

      • Anonymous

        So then, you are well versed in the Bible and the constitution and you still deny the tenets of both?

        As far as intellectuals go, our government is full of them and what a f’n mess they’ve made of the country. But I guess to you they are the only ones capable.

        With your thinking, we’re screwed.

    • The only reason for the murder of the “potential” child in the mother’s womb is because the mom knows that a human is growing inside not an orange or an apple/otherwise why bother-destroying a developing baby is not protecting the mother-you are incredibly blind!

      If it isn’t a baby, then you aren’t pregnant, so what are you aborting? ~Author Unknown

    • Dan

      What crime did the just conceived commit that they should have their lives ended…your justice would be like hanging a person because he was a bystander near the scene of a murder…it wasn’t the act of the unborn that brought about the conception but the act of the persons and now the baby is sentenced to death….

      • wodiej

        I don’t think men should have a say. You aren’t the one who gets pregnant.

        • Dan

          then maybe you should get it sewed up and then men would leave you a lone….you don’t become pregnant on your own….well unless you go to a paternity Doctor.

      • Anonymous

        If you can tell me why animals and trees don’t have a “right to life”, then maybe you will begin to understand why potential human beings don’t have a “right to life” as well.

        Go think about it and get back to me.

        • There are more animals which are protected, but with abortion, no human is.

          Besides the Declaration of Independance says every human has a right to life. Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not possible.

        • Dan

          plants are not alive in the way we are… they are a self replicating food source…no were in the Bible does it indicate plants are alive…plants dry up.. wither…animals are also a source of food…it was after the flood we were told to kill and eat animals and wear their fur or skin for clothes …per the Bible….Humans are unique in that God places the breath of live into us and we became a living soul…..

    • Anonymous

      With adoption, both humans “live”. If you insinuating that a woman who aborts her child can then only be free to live her life is nonsense. There are options that will allow this type of woman to “live it up” according to your ideology.

      • wodiej

        What if the woman/girl is a victim of rape, child molestation or her health is threatened? Still think she should be forced to go full term w a pregnancy? Put yourself in someone else’s shoes and then tell me you wouldn’t want the option.

        • You either believe the baby is alive or you don’t. If you believe it is alive, then what difference is it if the baby is a product of rape/incest? Is it not still alive? Did THE BABY do anything wrong? Can it not feel fear? Is adoption no longer available? Does the church no longer assist people? When a man kills a pregnant woman, is he not charged with TWO murders? Is LOVE the factor that determines if the baby is alive? Who are you to judge the QUALITY of someone’s life, much less determine if that life meets YOUR Life-Quality Threshold? It isn’t her choice…she isn’t God.

          If the woman’s life is in danger, very few people would blame her for having an abortion. No one would expect a person to sacrifice their life for her baby’s, although I do believe MANY women would take the risk.

          As well, how do you define the line where there is NO life, and when there IS life? Is it 3 months, 5 days, 24 minutes, 16 seconds…or is it 3 months, 5 days, 24 minutes, and 22 seconds? Or maybe 1 month, 28 days, 16 hours, 1 minute, and 49 seconds?

          My point being you cannot accurately provide a time-line separation between non-living and living. Thus, we need to remove ANY gray area, and just ban the whole damn thing altogether. After all, IF YOU DO NOTHING, it WILL become a living child! So even if the embryo wasn’t alive (which it was), by destroying it you did, in fact, remove a human life from this world.

        • Anonymous

          We’ve all been through tough tribulations. Adoption is always an option even after rape and health risks. Remember Tim Tebow’s mother’s testimony? I know women who have been raped and molested. We can’t change the offenses that has happened to us. We can determine, however, our own destinies and decisions going forward.

        • Roe. v. Wade struck down a Texas law that had just those exceptions. It was the strictest abortion law of all. The Court just wanted abortion on demand.

      • Anonymous

        Abortion is a freedom of action which is guaranteed by “the right to life”.

        That is the most simple way that I can put this.

        • Anonymous

          I was staying out of this, but that statement is totally absurd. Killing and “the right to life” are NOT synonymous.

        • Anonymous

          (eyeroll)

        • That is the most incredulously disturbing statement I’ve ever heard. Our right to life as written in the Declaration gives us the right to murder babies?! How in the world can you twist those words to fit that idea?!

    • Anonymous

      Last I checked (with the exception of life-risk), the woman’s right to life isn’t in question.

      • Anonymous

        But it is, because as I explained, the “right to life” is much more than just the right to exist; it is “the entire sphere of human existence” which is why the right to life is the source of all rights. By extending the “right to life” (which is inferred from actual human beings, not potential ones) to foetuses and cells, you end up violating the right to life of actual human beings – Women.

        For instance, the “right to life” gives me the freedom of action to eat a burger, or drink some beer. But according to pro-life advocates, the “right to life” ONLY means the right to exist, thus violating the overwhelming vast majority of the sphere of human existence.

        You and other pro-life advocates just don’t understand what “the right to life” is, and THAT is the problem. If you did understand it, then there is NO way that you could take a pro-life position – You would have to renounce the declaration of independence!

        • The Court used the term “potential life,” to cover its dishonest regard of scientific fact, which is that the origin of the of each individual life begins with the fertilization of a human egg. No accident that the Texas law overturned by the Court was enacted at the insistence of the Texas Medical Association about ten years after scientists firsT observed under a microscope the union of a rabbit sperm and a rabbit egg to cause a chain reaction that eventually ends in a mature rabbit. Of course, in a way, an infant at his mother’s breast is only potentially a “human being,” if you set up a standard of a rational person as the norm.

        • Anonymous

          With your argument, you are treading in a very dangerous ground. It could result in many abuses and killing of babies and children. As they are not fully developed as the adults, the mother or the fathers’ rights supersedes theirs. Where will that end?

          There was an incident in Canada where a nincompoop leftist judge find the mother not guilty for throwing her baby in the garbage bin using your argument that the mother had rights while the baby did not (and yes, the baby died). The judge equated a throwing of a born baby to that of an abortion procedure.

        • Anonymous

          It’s pathetic that you have come down to distort a famous pro-life terminology thereby confusing the whole issue of abortion.

          You obviously think of yourself as a “right to life” human being and that based on your parents’ choice to keep you and not abort you. Obviously, you are not a product of a rape, since you are taking the high road of explaining how human beings are separated into two categories: the wanted and the unwanted!
          When you were just a speck in your mother’s wound, your life hinged on her decision to keep you or abort you. In the equation, you totally disregarded that human beings are a consequence of a God-given order “to procreate and multiply” and that God gives life – and that’s the order of things. An apple seed produces and apple tree etc. But it is up to a mother’s conscience to abort or deliver her baby. Your mother has had obviously the right instinct and delivered you. Now why don’t you let others do what your mother’s did – in her own free will -and uphold life that you are so defiantly and ungratefully holding yourself against!

        • Anonymous

          Kordane, you are insane. Having a child does not infringe on anyone’s right to life. As a matter of fact, it just might enhance their life. Your argument is one of the most bizarre I’ve heard.

  • Anonymous

    So Newt would take down a Judge with a Potus and Congress what a Statement…..!!!! SO Obama can do the same thing Yea vote for NEWT get more of the same!My Question to the people is do you trust your congress????

    • Dan

      really….did you even listen to Newt and what he said….this is recorded so please listen again……

  • Anonymous

    So Newt would take out a judge with a POTUS and the Congress..Question do the American people trust your Congress???? So he is saying O bama can do the same thing???? WHAT !!! Newt is Big Government at it’s worst and has a long record to prove it period…..He has stomped on the Constitution and will do it again…and he lies all of the time………

    • Dan

      The Founding Fathers and early legal authorities were clear about the ground for impeachment:
      o 1. James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: “[I]mpeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.26
      o 2. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “The offenses to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy. . . . are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.27
      o 3. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: “[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.28
      o 4. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “attempts to subvert the Constitution.29
      o 5. Alexander Hamilton: “the abuse or violation of some public trust. . . . [or for] injuries done immediately to the society itself.30
      o 6. George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights,” and Elbridge, signer of the Declaration and Framer of the Bill of Rights: “mal-administration.31
      o 7. William Rawle, legal authority and author of early constitutional commentary: “the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice32 as well as attempts to “infringe the rights of the people.33
      o 8. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.34
      • F. Federalist #65: “[T]he practice of impeachments [is] a bridle in the hands of the Legislative body.35
      • G. Justice James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution, placed on the Supreme Court by President Washington: “Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.36

      from the article:Five Judicial Myths

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=1464#R5#R5

    • Dan

      you were saying?????????

    • KenInMontana

      You really need to lay off the over use of copy & paste. One, it makes you little more than a spammer. Two, your repeated use of the misspelling “Fashist” makes you appear an idiot, the correct spelling is “Fascist”.

    • Do you know that in 1802, Congress and the President abolished many of the federal judgeships that had been created by previous Congresses? As for the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice is the only office created by the Constitution and the President.. All other seats on the Court were created by Congress, All other federal judges and magistrates and the Office of Attorney-general were also created by Congress and the President. , and could be abolished.

  • Did Romney really quote David Brooks? Wow, Romney’s working hard to secure that RINO vote away from Huntsman.

    Ron Paul again channels Mr. Magoo.

    • Anonymous

      “Ron Paul again channels Mr. Magoo.”

      That made me laugh out loud. So true.

      • True. Even Paul could wipe the floor with Obama if the audience would listen to him, but Nixon won his first debate with Kennedy on substance and lost on image. Looks matter.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for posting the full debate. The Fox feeds were miserable! YOU ARE THE BOMB Rightscoop!

  • Anonymous

    Santorum’s end statement was most profound. I still prefer the sound of Bachman however.

    • wodiej

      all Santorum talked about was kids and family. Well we know he knows all about that since he has 7. What else does he know?

      • Anonymous

        Like I said, ‘most profound’. Move on. -_-

  • If we want to save this country we have got to stop spending

    • Anonymous

      The next election is going to be about: Obama vs Not Obama.

      Why would the GOP want to commit Romnicide and make it: Obama vs Obama-lite.

      The GOP always loses those elections and Kerry vs Bush 2004 is a good example of how an incumbent wins reelection portraying his opponent as a flip flopper. Romney doesn’t defend himself well either. Newt is the best player on the bench to beat Obama at this point. Newt can play offense and defense very well and he has that line about the debt more than doubling in absence as Speaker. That line alone is a huge positive in this political environment and R-Care is a huge albatross that mitigates O-Care. Newt defended his past position on the mandate succinctly and put it to rest last night in the debate.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum was sharp in this one.

    • Santorum knows…

      I like Rick Santorum and his faith, family, freedom core values as he articulated them in this short segment, they remind me of Sarah Palin.

      About States rights, at 16min. 38sec. –

      Santorum –
      A –
      “So, the role for the states is to get back it’s proper role and taking care of the health and welfare of it’s citizens, if you will, it’s not a federal government role, and we should do what we did with welfare, we should cut the program, cap it, freeze it, and give that money back to the states with the flexibility to be able to manage those programs.”

      About DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, at 22min. 28sec, –

      Q –
      “If a court did find it unconstitutional and you were the President, would you stand by that ruling?”

      Santorulm –
      A –
      “No.

      “I would actually try to do whatever I could, both from the standpoint of passing a new law –

      “And I did this, in the partial birth abortion case, where the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska statute on partial birth.

      “I worked with the House of Representatives, we passed a new law, told the Court they were wrong; in the law, we actually laid out the reasoning why the Court was wrong, we repassed the bill, President Bush signed it, and the Court, five years after they found it unconstitutional, found almost an identical bill constitutional.

      “I think it’s important, when the President thinks, we are an equal and co-equal branch of government, we have as much right as the Congress and the President to say what is constitutional as the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court got it wrong I would push back and fight to have another case brought before them and let them know they are not the final word.”

      – – – – – – – –

      RIGHT ON Mr. Santorum!

      Santorum “knows”…

      …that “we the people” are the “FINAL WORD” as laid out in the 9th and 10th amendments AND in the co-EQUAL branches of government.

      SCOTUS is NOT the “final word” among equals.

      So, WHO has the “final word” among equals?

      It is “we the people” by the election process who have the “final word” among equals.

      At the founding of our Republic, the representatives of “we the people” did NOT set up an “Animal Farm” type of government where one branch is MORE equal than the others.

      Whoever in the past said that the SCOTUS has the “final word” about ANY thing, DOMA or whatever, does not know, uh, WHO decides what “equal” means.

      Art

  • Anonymous

    Newt: I wish more of his reasoning was based on founding principles and not on what he says will work/won’t work/might work. He seems to use hindsight as a base for all his arguments. There doesn’t seem to be any conviction to principle.

    Santorum: I read a blog that said he came across as “angry”. I would use the word “frantic”. The poor guy appears to be suffering from I-know-I’m-right-if-I-can-just-get-it-out syndrome. Ugh. He stutters and stammers and talks too fast and just ends up coming across as an inarticulate mess.

    Perry: Oh, gosh. He says all the right things but he just has so much trouble spitting any of it out. Watching Perry try to form a sentence is almost painful.

    Bachmann: She did very, very well. She had a conversational tone of voice which was a big departure from her interviews where she tends to speak in a pleading tone. I was really impressed and I’m not a big fan of hers. I read a blog that said she was tossed softballs in this forum but I completely disagree. I think she was asked pretty complicated questions and I think she handled them all well. If she can just shut up about the 23 foster kids from now I might be persuaded to give her a second chance. I’m actually cringing a little bit as I write this, but after watching that video of her with the high school student the other day and then watching this, I really, really, really, want to give her another chance.

    Ron Paul: An angry, inarticulate crank. And an old crank at that. Could he really not hear the question about the amendments or did he not want to answer it? What a hateful, ignorant man.

    Mitt Romney: He’s a liar. The mandate in Massachusetts effected 100% of the residents. That 8% is a lie he keeps telling and it will never become true no matter how many times he repeats it. What that law did was make everybody conform to an intrusive law that requires proving to the state that you paid for health insurance for you and all of your dependents and there was no way to get around it without breaking the law and being subject to prosecution for perjury. The Massachusetts mandate is a deduction on your state tax return and you can only take that deduction if you have a 1099HC form that proves you paid for insurance for all of the months, for all of your dependents, for the entire year. The religious exemption is a farce because the only way you can qualify for that is if you did NOT pay for any medical care, including dental care, in the year of the return. If you did pay out of pocket you have to go before a state board to have your exclusion approved. No conservative in their right mind should support Mitt Romney for president.

    For me, I’m down to Newt or Michele.

    • Anonymous

      I’m down to Michele and Santorum, in that order right now. If it were a vote today, Michele. What I like about Santorum are two things:

      1. Family. If anyone has any doubt how we preserve this country, it starts there. Santorum knows that and defends it. I have the utmost respect for his position on this.

      2. Foreign Policy. Santorum deeply knows the trouble we face abroad, and he is unequivocal about how to approach it. Very refreshing.

      Michele and Rick score about even with me on both of these fronts. I just happen to like the fact that she has articulated and promised without any doubt that she plans to unwind the crazy regulatory policy that has been installed as well as Obamacare. I think she knows exactly where the knots are in the ball of yarn, and is equipped with the know-how of Washington to unwind it. Mix that with her values and stances, and she is #1 for me.

      • Anonymous

        If you have contacts with Santorum advise him on the following:

        1) Stop self aggrandizement and self promotion (I ,I, I and Only I..)

        2) Modulate his voice and tone. Stop whining. If he could only learn how to imagine talking to a best friend when answering questions (relax, natural, and comfortable in his own skin), he will reach heights.

        3) He must also learn how to acknowledge the good points and ideas of the other Candidates, instead of diminishing them altogether while raising his own petard. Focus communicating his own ideas and visions, stop focusing on destroying the ideas of others. By doing this, makes him look boorish (no matter how unintentional).

        4) We have already heard often how good a family man he is, please move on.

        If he can do this, he will be a force to contend with in this nomination. What he is doing to his own campaign is a waste of his talent and ability. He could have done a lot better.

  • Anonymous

    Newt is awesome!

    • deo heerai

      Newt is anything he wants you to believe he is which means he is a two faced very dangerous PROGRESSIVE. just remember he spoke just as authoratativly for cap and trade and individual mandate and about the Ryan plan being RIGHT WING SOCIAL ENGINEERING . Neuter Newt !!!

    • Newt is…

      After Newt gave a verbal pat on the back to President George Washington as his favorite founding father, he sounded like Glenn Beck who has started a read more about President Washington movement, so to speak.

      Baggage, what baggage?

      – – – – – – – –

      But seriously, some of his comments –

      – rule of law
      – controlling the border
      – American Express, VISA, Master Card
      – cards to avoid fraud as with “the federal government”
      – responds to a question about jury trials and
      – friends and neighbors in the position of judging “their friends”
      – “That is what we do in a jury trial.
      – “That’s the whole point of it.”
      – the founders “distrusted judges insisted on juries”
      – “in a free society,
      – “the citizens have to bear responsibility for their own culture”
      – his response about 1st principles and smaller government and
      – support of individual mandate for health insurance
      – joined Pelosi re climate change
      – advocated for a significant of federal gov. role in education
      – close ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
      – why would limited gov. conservatives trust that Pres. Gingrich will NOT advance these sorts of big gov approaches
      – in 1993 Heritage Foundation initiated individual mandate to block Hillarycare
      – dumb to sit on the couch with Pelosi
      – testified against Can & Trade
      – his TOTAL record
      – the only Speaker with 4 balanced budgets
      – developed welfare reform
      – advocated for a balanced budget constitutional amendment
      – 21st Century Contract with America at Newt.org
      – it “calls for a very vigorous 10th Amendment enforcement”
      – response to a question about defending his “conservative part of your record” vs. his “non-conservative part of your record”
      – how would Newt as President “filter out” non-conservative non-limited gov ideas
      – to limit and shrink the fed gov
      – in his “active” role in Congress he helped Reagan in the 80s
      – as Speaker he helped to shrink fed gov
      – since he has “actually done this before”
      – we can believe he can get to a balanced budget again
      – since he has “controlled spending”
      – we can believe he can control spending again
      – a training program at Newt.org for appointing Presidential appointees
      – a question about some national problems that do NOT require national solutions
      – 1 is education should be returned to the state
      – most of the Washington bureaucracy should be dismantled
      – states need to adopt reforms themselves
      – Medicaid should be block granted back to the states
      – fed gov has “failed to manage that”
      – develop and Environmental Solutions Agency (ESA) to replace the EPA
      – it must have “economic rationality”
      – it must collaborate WITH not dictate TO state and local government
      – education to be returned to the states AND the citizens
      – the 10th amendment is about the states AND the citizens
      – if Washington bureaucracy SHRINKS local citizenship must GROW
      – would advocate for state PELL grant for K – 12
      – parents would have the right to choose where their grant goes
      – power is returned to the parents
      – a question about impeaching judges and abolishing entire federal appeals courts
      – if Pres. Obama eliminated a judgeship if the judge ruled against the individual mandate, would THAT be “an appropriate application of your plan?”
      – 1st the Pres. could not do it
      – need support of House and Senate to do it
      – a judge in San Antonio, TX issue a ruling that students
      >> could NOT pray at their graduation
      >> could NOT use the word “benediction:
      >> could NOT use the word “invocation”
      >> could NOT use the word “God”
      >> could NOT ask people to stand
      >> could NOT have a moment of silence
      – judge would put the Superintendent if jail if order not carried out
      – “As far as I am concerned, he is essentially anti-American”
      – to eliminate that federal court is
      – “the Jeffersonian solution from the Judicial Reform Act of 1802, but you can only do it if you have the House and the Senate and the President.”
      – a question – support of Obama Race to the Top to promote charter schools
      – and his website calls for states adopting strong education standards
      – “… Yes, or no, is it wrong for the federal government to intrude on the states’ authority over education?”
      – “It’s wrong.”
      – a President is both a leader of the people and a head of the government
      – a President can urge the states to adopt PELL Grant program
      – a President can urge the states to adopt Charter Schools
      – nothing wrong with “a President being a leader of the country”
      – different from say
      – and the federal gov will administer it
      – and the federal gov will set the rules
      – the President is not to dictate
      – the President can advocate change
      – a question about appearing with Nancy Pelosi about climate change
      – since Gingrich has said it was “dumb” to do
      – “Was it dumb because it was bad politics or dumb because it was bad policy?”
      – he was “trying to make a case about conservative environmentalism”
      – George Washington is his favorite founding father
      – “all of us stand on his shoulders”
      – “without George Washington there would have been no America
      – “without his dignity, his honor, his patriotism and his endurance
      – “he was in the field for eight years
      – “he returned to Mt. Vernon for 1 week in 8 years
      – “that’s what he thought freedom was worth
      – “that’s the standard for us.

      – – – – – – –

      What to do… what to do… what to do…

      I really like Santorum and Gingrich.

      What to do?

      I’ve asked before, could the current #1 non-romney candidate, Gingrich become the #2 and the current #8 non-romney candidate, Santorum become the #1?

      Could the first become last?
      Could the last become first?

      Who knows, in the mysterious ways in which Yahweh works in human affairs.

      But at this point, I’m leaning for either

      POTUS Santorum
      V-POTUS Gingrich

      or

      POTUS Gingrich
      V-POTUS Santorum

      Art

      • Anonymous

        You certainly have a way words. I have always like Santorum and if I vote my conscience my vote will be cast for him.

        • A way with words…

          Thanks toongoon, I’ve been told that before.

          But, all I do is something very simple to learn and do… over and over and over and over.

          I’m not a professional copywriter (… i.e., I don’t get paid for writing copy for others or for myself), but I literally “craft” the text, edited and re-edited until it says exactly what I want it to say…

          … with as few words as possible to make the point AND with a lot of “white” space.

          That’s it.
          That’s all.

          – – – – – – – – –

          PS.

          For anybody interested in copywriting, EarlyToRise.com has an an excellent copywriting course that they sell at American Writers and Artists Inc. (AWAI)

          >> (… and no, it is NOT an affiliate link and I do NOT get payment for the referral)…

          … I recommend it because it is substantive and worth EVERY dollar.

          >> ETR – http://earlytorise.com/
          >> AWAI – http://www.awaionline.com/

          For example, consider this creative check list by Drayton Bird –

          “How to Evaluate Creative:
          “A Checklist to Help You Produce Breakthrough Sales Copy”
          >> How to – http://www.earlytorise.com/2010/07/01/did-i-terrify-people/

          – – – – – – – – – –

          After studying the AWAI copywriting course, I came up with a useful memory aid that I call “The Copywriter’s 7Cs” for informing, persuading, convincing from header to PS.

          – 1 Content
          – 2 Context
          – 3 Continuity
          – 4 Clarity
          – 5 Credibility
          – 6 Conviction
          – 7 Conclusion

          That is the subconscious writing process… from header to PS.

          Persuasion with credible content presented with clear continuity in context results in credibility and… hopefully… a convincing conclusion… buy my product… or buy my idea.

          Art

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for the links, I’ll check them. I have way with (forgetting) words. I try to reread before I post, but, darn. I am not an wordsmith, I repair and build things as a vocation. That is the talent that God gave me. I enjoy reading the comments here but don’t add a lot to the discussion unless I feel called upon.
            So…I will try become better at following through with entering comments if you don’t mind filling in the blanks for me once in a while. 🙂

            • I don’t know toon, you seem to do pretty well to this duck 😉

              • Anonymous

                Thanks Ducky. I think I express myself fairly well at times but I need to scour what I’ve typed thoroughly for mistakes, and sometimes I just get lazy… or is it dslxeyia?

                • if you’re anything like me- it’s ADHD 😉 Your mind works faster than your fingers and you get mixed up. I do it ALL the time!

                • Anonymous

                  Probably what all those psychologists were testing me for in grade school. They just couldn’t figure it out. Was it my loss or theirs? Hmmm. 😉

                • definitely theirs 😉 We have more fun when we get older, but it is a pain in the butt when we’re young. If I could have a dollar for every teacher throughout my schooling who told me to pay attention, I’d be a multi millionaire by now lol. But now that I am constantly telling my son that- boy do I feel for those teachers back then. Now, teachers have the label for them, make the parent take the kid to the doctor to go on ritalin or some such nonsense.

    • Anonymous

      Newt is a brilliant chameleon; that is what makes him scary!

  • Anonymous

    Remember, folks we have to nominate someone who is electable nationally. Sorry, there are plenty of politicians that hold office at the state level, who never move on to the federal, or federal level politicians who never become President because they lack that “little something extra”: charisma.

    Like it or not, that matters.

    • Anonymous

      Obama has “charisma,” but I will not vote for him.

      • Anonymous

        You’re missing the point.

        Bachman, Huntsman, Santorum will never be President.

        Paul should be in a nuthouse.

  • Anonymous

    Never understood how an Attorney General be so overtly political and partisan. They appear on all sorts of news shows and if you didn’t know their title they would be indistinguishable from political pundits. They are supposed to enforce the law you would think.

    • Anonymous

      All laws need to be interpreted before they can be enforced. Politics has always had a hand in law enforcement.

      The most powerful political positions in this country have always been held by those who interpret the laws. And that’s not cops or judges. A cop might arrest you, and a judge might determine your guilt and sentence you, but it’s the prosecutors who have the power to decide whether you are charged with a crime and what crime you are charged with.

      They have absolute power and it’s almost always politically motivated.

  • Anonymous

    Oh man how I missed Mr. Cain!
    How could anyone say that the attacks against Mr. Cain were a distraction and that this was the reason why he should stop his campaign. The biggest distraction to me is the stupidity of Mr. Paul. Too bad that the Prophet Muhammad is dead, because he would give him some history lessons. The jihad started long long time ago before the U.S. even existed. The World History starts for Mr. Paul 200+ years ago and this is why his intellectual horizon is so narrow. The Muslims always wanted to conquer the World and they lost against the Christian Crusaders who took all the invaded countries and regions back including what is today Israel. One of the very last fights took place on September 11th (what a coincidence!) in the year 1683 against the Ottoman Empire at the gates of Vienna. This battle stopped the expansion of Islam. The Muslims could never accept this defeat and this is why they are coming back again and why they don’t want any peace treaty with Israel, because they don’t want Israel to exist at all. Have a look at the flag from Palestine which perfectly displays the non existence of Israel. Yes Mr. Paul, you are blind and you don’t want to see that we have really a war, maybe not against terrorists (which is the modern term) but against jihadists which is as for the final fatal results exactly the same. Mr. Paul get out of the race as you are a nasty distraction with all your ignorant comments and grumpy old man attitude.
    Bring the light of freedom back, bring Mr. Herman Cain back!

  • Ron Paul…

    On regulations at 54min. 43sec. –

    “It wasn’t the lack of regulations that caused the Enron scandal, but it was the market that took care of it.

    “The free market and property rights cans solve just about all these problems, much better than more bureaucrats in Washington.”

    Ken Cuccinelli at 58min. 15sec. –

    “Which comes first in your mind,
    – the sovereignty of the people
    – the sovereignty of the states or
    – the sovereignty of the federal government?”

    “And please put them in order.”

    Ron Paul –

    “Well, the people and the states, and then the federal government.

    “And, very little for the federal government.

    “And none for international governments like the UN and NATO to get authority for the things that we do around the world.”

    In his conclusion, one book to read is “The Law” by Frederick Bastiat –
    >> http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
    >> PDF 1 – http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
    >> PDF 2 – http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf

    – – – – – – – –

    If.

    If ONLY domestic issues were being considered.

    As long as Mr. Paul retains as islamic advisers people who influence him to think that America is hated because America is not responsive to Islam the way the islamists think, his pro-Arab and anti-Israel sentiments will be more than a mere bump in the road to the White House.

    The constitution, the FED, monetary policy, etc….

    … RIGHT ON Mr. Paul

    Art

  • Will someone explain to me-and I am serious here-why the narrative has been set among many of the tweeps and faceplanters that Santorum is too angry? I’ve seen several posts already in response to this forum, and many other comments after other debates and interviews that say “like him, but he’s TOOO angry!”

    Hells bells, I’m friggin livid….I want someone who’s pretty damned angry about the current state of this country and willing to fight like cat in a burlap sack.

  • 1 minute conclusion…

    – – – – – – – – –

    >> Romney at 73min. 33sec. – a verbal pat on the back to David Brooks –

    “Historically, this has been what David Brooks has called “a merit based society.”

    [- He certainly “sounds” conservative.

    [ -So, with whom is Romney associating himself?
    [David Brooks, a member of the so-called “establishment” Republicans.

    [ -David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan and et al. have associated themselves with the “establishment” that does NOT agree with the “common sense conservatism” of Sarah Palin and Herman Cain, to name only 2 of many.

    – – – – – – – – –

    >> Rick Perry at 74min. 49sec. –
    “… my plan that cuts taxes … gets America working again … overhauls Washington.

    “And one of the ways that it does that, is we’ll put a part time Congress in place.”

    [- How… will that be done?
    [- How… by Executive Order?

    >> Rick Perry at 75min. 04sec. – a verbal pat on the back to Pastor Rick Warren –

    “You know, I’ve lived a purpose driven life, and my purpose was never to be President of the United States, but our country’s in trouble.”

    [- So, with whom is Perry associating himself?
    [- A Christian thought leader… who is soft on islamic jihad.

    [- That does NOT make Perry or Warren baddies, simply a recognition of current mindset.

    [- With more informin’ and educatin’, mindsets can be, uh, corrected about islamic jihad ’cause…

    [- … “our country’s in trouble.”

    [- Mr. Perry and Mr. Warren…

    [- … David Horowitz at FrontPageMag, Pamela Geller at AtlasShrugs, Robert Spencer at JihadWatch are VERY informed and responsive and are available for informin’ and educatin’…

    [- … call them.

    – – – – – – – – –

    >> Ron Paul at 76min. 13sec. – a verbal pat on the back to our Founders –

    “One issue that I think we have to revisit, because the Founders understood it, but we have forgotten about it.

    “And that is the principle of nullification.

    “If the federal government won’t respond … I would respond in a favorable way of reinstituting the principle of nullification.

    “The states have to be able to nullify this.

    “This would reverse the trend, and this would stop the usurpation of all the powers and privileges from the states to the federal government.”

    [- Sounds very, VERY good to me.

    – – – – – – – –

    >> Newt Gingrich at 77min. – a verbal pat on the back to history –

    “This may be the most important election since 1860.

    “Eight years of Barack Obama would be a disaster.

    “And if he get reelected with this economy, this deficit, these problems, he’s going to think it vindicates his Saul Alinsky radicalism, and his commitment to fundamentally change America.”

    “… I’m not going to ask you to be FOR me.
    “… I am going to ask you to be WITH me.

    [- Sounds very, VERY good to me.

    – – – – – – – –

    >> Michele Bachmann at 78min. 19sec. – a verbal pat on the back to 2012 –

    “As President of the United States, I’m going to unite our country.
    “I’m going to grow the economy.
    “I know how to do that as a tax attorney and also as a business owner.

    “We can do it if we stand together.

    [- Sounds good to me.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    >> Rick Santorum at 79min. 31sec. – a verbal pat on the back to faith and family –

    “… a truce … America is a moral enterprise, and we are sick from the inside, when it comes to the state of our family and the state of this moral enterprise that is America.

    “When we have thousands of children being aborted still every day, and we see marriage being attacked and falling apart.

    “A truce is really not a truce in this case.

    “It’s a surrender.

    “And ladies and gentlemen, I will not surrender the values of this country.

    “I will stand and defend America.

    [- Sound very, VERY good to me.

    – – – – – – – –

    Dittos to all of the Republican candidates.

    And, the debate continues…

    … NO white flag
    … NO truce

    Santorum is RIGHT ON!!! about the moral core of our Republic.

    THAT is why I have asked previously about Gingrich as #1 non-romney and Santorum as #8 non-romney –

    Could the first non-romney be 2nd if not last?
    Could the last non-romney be first?

    POTUS Santorum and V-POTUS Gingrich
    or
    POTUS Gingrich and V-POTUS Santorum

    Who knows, in the mysterious ways in which Yahweh works in the affairs of men on HIS earth.

    Art

  • Why did Romney cite David Brooks in his closing? Does he want to lose? Is bad campaigning in the Romney genes (his father was an even worse campaigner–maybe one of Mitt’s five sons will be better adept at it)?

  • Anonymous

    This is a better format than previous debates.

  • October Baby – the movie…

    Rick Santorum at 79min. 31sec. –

    “… a truce …
    “America is a moral enterprise,
    “and we are sick from the inside,
    “when it comes to the state of our family
    “and the state of this moral enterprise that is America.”

    “When we have thousands of children being aborted still every day,
    “and we see marriage being attacked and falling apart.”

    “A truce is really not a truce in this case.
    “It’s a surrender.
    “And ladies and gentlemen,
    “I will not surrender the values of this country.
    “I will stand and defend America.”

    – – – – – – – –

    … NO truce

    Santorum is RIGHT ON!!! about the moral core of our Republic.

    THAT moral faith-family-freedom core of that Rich Santorus exhibits with humility is why I have asked previously about the possibility of the trading of places between Gingrich as #1 non-romney and Santorum as #8 non-romney –

    Could the first non-romney be 2nd if not last?
    Could the last non-romney be first?

    – POTUS Santorum and V-POTUS Gingrich
    or
    – POTUS Gingrich and V-POTUS Santorum

    Who knows about the mysterious ways in which Yahweh works in the affairs of men on HIS big blue marble, our adamah, our earth?

    Here are some video promos about a “moral” serendipity, “October Baby” –

    1 – October Baby Stories 01: Shari – 5 minutes
    >> http://youtu.be/dVSqS-Fx3PI

    2 – October Baby Stories 02: Recruited By Brothers – 5 minutes
    >> http://youtu.be/FISxPHM8YL0

    3 – October Baby Stories 03: Gianna – 5 minutes – abortion survivor Gianna Jessen –
    >> http://youtu.be/NosdFph2JgI

    – Gianna Jessen websites –
    >> her site – http://www.giannajessen.com/main/index.html
    >> October Baby – http://www.giannajessen.com/main/octoberbaby.html

    4 – October Baby Stories 04: Casting Crowns – 4 minutes –
    >> http://youtu.be/Cmhq_lm9XAM

    5 – October Baby Stories 05: Finding Hannah – 5 minutes –
    >> http://youtu.be/fyO373DwR_w

    Art

  • Perry was outstanding. The true conservative outsider with the jobs record that will crush Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Newt Gingrich Explains American Exceptionalism
    http://tinyurl.com/3rps9l2

  • Anonymous

    Who among us doesn’t want to see Newt Gingrich and his grasp on the Constitution, history, policies and issues debate the Constitutional lawyer/speechifier Barrack Obama and his teleprompter?

    Newt will *literally rhetorically “Newter” Obama out there on the campaign trail and in debate.

    *see Mika Brezinski for context 🙂

  • Anonymous

    I think Rick Perry did very well. He was strong and on message. He was consistent in all of his answers and clear on his commitment to the 10th amendment. He is genuine person and his record as Governor in Texas is outstanding. His experience, his leadership abilities and strength of character are outstanding attributes. He is a true conservative and loves America. I have confidence in a man like Govenor Perry and hope he will be our next President.

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • One problem that many people overlook about school choice is that it essentially usurps buying a home in a certain school district because it is good. For those who pay higher property taxes because they want access to a better school end up looking at lower property values once students from lower tax districts come in and lower overall school statistics. It happens all the time. How can a local gov’t with good schools justify higher property taxes and why should property owners look at lower home values to cover school choice?

  • Anonymous

    I LIKE this kind of forum. It gives me a chance to learn more about the candidate. The Attorneys General were asking excellent questions and they were NOT looking for 30 second sound bites that the drive-by media is always trying to generate. Good job Mr. Huckabee. Good job team of Attorneys General and Good Job, Candidates.