Republican Debate

They all pretty much suck, but I think Romney looked solid tonight.

Also, why is Bachmann still there?

Remember it's not about how the man behaves during the debate, it's about how he behaved during his political career!

I still love Rick Perry (no homo). No matter what you say, he was the only one to come out and say what many know already- SS is gonna collapse. Ponzi Scheme...I agree. And that question directed at him about one scientist that disbelieves in global warming...I've heard of ones, but can't remember their names. Can Brain Williams name a global warming scientist? (Al Gore doesn't count)

Michelle Bachmann actually sounded coherent, but the Romney-Perry stuff was the center of attention all night. If you just took tonight's answers, Bachmann would look like a viable candidate. Well, except that she mentioned $2 gas... Ron Paul didn't do too well IMHO. And the question that Americans are gonna ask tomorrow is..."there are other people running?"

Newt fucked up running this year. If he ran last time he might have won or at least come close. Even with the Obama-fanaticism that went on, remember...he almost lost. To a pretty liberal McCain. I think McCain would have been a far better President than Obama in retrospect, because Obama has painted himself into an ideological box where Keynes is the only way out. Laffer and Hayek need not apply. I hate McCain but he could probably have played both sides.

Now the viability of a Tea Party candidate is cemented because the Keynesian stuff has pretty much been exhausted...and failed. If a Tea Party candidate ran against Obama the first time around it might have been different (because we didn't know 100% that the stimuli would fail). Now we need supply side reforms to revitalize the economy- something Obambi is not willing to do.

Gingrich keeps saying "we're in this together" because he has so much shit in his closet. Namely his ex-wife. If any candidate took him seriously he would be there throwing invective right back at him.

I wish Christie would get off his fat ass and run already, so I wouldn't feel like I'm wasting my vote by voting republican in 2012. And am I the only one that thinks Bachmann ain't half bad for an older broad? (yes I know I'm odd)

I like Romney personally, I think huntsman and Romney would make a good pairing on the business and international relations side but a double Mormon team wouldn't get the heavy evangelical vote . Does anyone think Romney and perry would team up?

If Romney wins it's gonna be him and Marco Rubio. Slight chance of Perry.

If Perry wins it could be anyone. It could be Huntsman- he'll need an inroad into the North and someone who's slightly more liberal. Chris Christie (if he runs) or Herman Cain (because he's black) or Bobbie Jindal (because he's more liberal) are other prospects.

MMBin: Even though he probably doesn't have a chance, Ron Paul has been saying all of that since before Perry hit the juice on his first electric chair

If you don't live in Texas then you really don't know Rick Perry. He's a POS. He is courting the Tea Party, but his record speaks for itself. He's your typical big government deceiver.

Romney? Ha, he might as well run as a Republicrat.

Looks like I'll be writing in my choice again.

im happy with taking a moderate republicrat :P

I want a Tea Party dupe. I love Ron Paul, but he has less than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. If he does it will be Barry Goldwater all over again. A great candidate, but one that's gonna get steamrolled in the general election. I see Perry as Reagan in this situation. Similar, but slightly more moderate. Better looking, an OK speaker (Reagan was better) and has massive support. People say Reagan ran up all these deficits, but the fact is he ran them up because of defense, otherwise he did what he said he would. If Perry at least tries to do what he says (which is strictly anti-deficit and really nothing that could run up massive deficits like Reagan) he will be a fantastic President.

Imagine how much more it would have cost us if the Soviet Union had not collapsed. No matter what liberals say about the long term effects of Truman policies and other Presidents, no one can say that Reagan's spending did not put the short term pressure on the USSR that expedited its collapse. Gorbachev repeatedly pleaded with Reagan to abandon SDI, and tried to make a similar program. They spent tons of money trying to get a missile defense, because without one the US could just nuke them without fear of retribution (in theory). Even though SDI never worked too well, that "crazy idea", among others, destroyed the USSR.

Somehting I'd like to point out that is a major problem with voters today. Some of you guys keep saying Ron Paul has not chance. While that may be true, why not vote for someone who shares your beliefs? Why keep voting for the status quo? All you'll get in the long run is what we have today.

I am not sure how you do it, but I vote based on what I believe. If you keep voting based on who you think is gonna win, nothing will ever change. We'll continue to have lifelong worthless politicians.

Ron Paul > everybody else

Do some research on your own rather than watching that load of BS on extreme-lefty media channels. They didn't ask Paul questions on purpose. This dude has a massive underground following and raped the last 3 debates (according to polls on msnbc, CNN) with over a 75% vote. The media are scared of him cause he represents REAL CHANGE.

C'mon guys, we're better than the status quo.

My point is not to push who I am voting for, rather for you guys to vote based on who is aligned with your beliefs, not who's gonna win.