The Republicans performed like Republicans always do, they lockstepped and agreed with each other for the most part...and then they continued to tap dance around W.'s Iraq disaster.

It's little wonder that not one of them can distinguish themselves as a standout candidate.

You know the Republican Party is in sad shape when they're salivating over the prospect of a career lobbyist who lives in Hollywood to run for them and it's also clear why Republicans are referred to as "Robots".

Winner of this 08 Republican Candidates Debate: The Democrats

Thanks FRank. Good report. You're a braver man than I to sit through the whole thing. Ugh.

When I heard 'null set' I was confused, but reminded of Admiral Whats-his-name (Perot's running mate) and the SNL sketch 'GRIDLOCK!!!' Ah, those were the days.

What an exciting debate! 10 tired, dry, uninspiring, dry, middle-aged members of the majority ethnic group exchanging convivialities. How nice! All "pro-lifers" who are pro-death in Iraq (Okay, Ron Paul excepted). They all talk as though the democrats have run the government for the last 6 years. And listen to Johnnie McCain pontificate about how the war has been mismanaged. DUH!! Where has he been for 5 years. And Rudy! Why wait til you become president to fight the terrorists. If you were'nt so busy making money pimping 911 you could lead a one man assault on it. Too bad there is no one at these debates to challenge these people.

Leave it to John E to provide his complete inabilty to conduct any kind of analysis.

John E., please tell me where any of the Democratic candidates differ on the issues? Are any pro-life? Who is pro-Iraq war or pro war on terror? Who among the Dems isn't for universal health care? Where do they differ on immigration, legal or illegal? Who among the Democrats is against tax increases and for tax cuts? Where exactly do any of the Dem candidates differ?

Now, let's look at the Republicans:
1. Guiliani is pro-choice. Most of the rest of pro-life with a few on the fence.
2. McCain, Guiliani seem to be pro-amnesty. Tancredo and Romney seem to be anti-amnesty and Tancredo in particular has a hard line on immigration.
3. In regard to the war, McCain has been critical, Frank James' favorite Republican, Ron Paul, blames the U.S. for everything and thinks if we just go away the terrorists will all turn into Mother Theresas.
4. Tax cuts. McCain has been against them in the past, but now sees that the Bush tax cuts have HELPED the economy. But not all the Republicans running are tax cuts disciples.
5. Health care. Many of them have very distinct opinions on what to do in that regard, and with different ways of accomplishing it.

There are more differences among the Republican candidates than the Democratic.

But then Barack Obama can't answer any questions about anything except for that day's script. IN regard to what's going on in Illinois, the state he was elected to serve just 2 years ago and Baracky says, "I have been too busy to keep up with what is happening in Illnois."

Ok, Baracky.

Of all the candidates for the GOP I could see myself considering was Giuliani until last night his vision is to push democracy around the world. That did it for me. Who gave us the right to dictate to the rest of the world at the end of a gun that we are better? It's that old neocon "we know better" theory. Who in this world gave you that right?

The Republican candidates don't seem to have strong convictions. Either they flipped or flopped or are not electable.
Until these candidates talk about Bush policy, Gonzales and the deficit I think I'll be watching the Dems with a bit more interest.

Good fair article,
RON PAUL 08

The high and low game.If you blog or have a webpage check out http://www.credit-card-gallery.com

Now that we've read how a liberal Democrat (Frank James) scored the debate, I'll interject "equal time" for how actual Republicans scored the debate.

The consensus of the right-wing blogosphere is that Rudi Giuliani had a big day. He looked presidential (as did McCain, Hunter and Romney) and had the best answers on national security. Quick witted.

McCain got high marks for passion and eloquence. But that passion and eloquence was used in part to defend the immigration bill most Republicans call "Shamnesty". He's not only out of step with 80% of GOP voters, he's resorted to playing the race card to denounce the Shamnesty opponents. Last night he elegantly torpedoed his own campaign.

Mitt Romney looked and sounded good. But he hit no home runs last night.

Cong. Duncan Hunter looks and sounds more presidential than any of the Dems.

Ron Paul is an idiot who says things Liberal Dems like to hear, and as such gets undue attention from the MSM.

The other candidates are good, but right now merely crowd the field. Some winnowing is needed.

Romneys comments regarding the Iraq war were actually very intelligent and valid. His position was that the decision itself was correct given the information at the time. I'm sure that most people were not intelligent enough to understand the logic he used and the fallacious answer being requested by Blitzer, but from a logical argument standpoint, Romney was dead on.

A well written piece, but as usual of big media, a little short on objective content.

The article lists a rundown of how each candidate does, with a few notable exceptions, and their contributions to the debate are downplayed to the point of in reaction to how some of the more 'notable' candidates are doing.

It's not suprising that candidates with larger expense accounts do better, when the media is reflective of that in their reporting.

The democratic challengers don't seem any better. I used to be a stark democrat, but have been left angered by the lack of values. After reviewing the deomocratic debate it appears that most if not all canidates only say what the majority wants to hear to get elected. There seems to be no sense of standing on principal for whats best for the country. Furthermore, the democrats voted to support this war also, but seem to take no accountability for it. I was very against the invasion of Iraq, but that is a moot point now, because we are there. We have left there country in dismay, and now are trying to leave with an excuse that they are not reconsiling fast enough. How do you get people who were enemies for 1000's of years to reconsile over night? How are the Iraqi's accountable for there state now? Since it is convienent for Americans to leave do you propose we leave them to the wolves in a vacum that we created? As citizens we are all accountable for this fiasco, we elected all of these clowns, and I mean all, and this will be the second time in less then 50 years we abondoned what we say is an "ally," which will undoubtadly leave thousands if not millions dead, remember Vietnam? Give the Iraqi army time to strenghen itself at least, pulling out will negatively effect Iraqis most. I find that us Americans are the biggest hippocrates, we act all just, but are willing to abondon millions for convenience.

I am a life long Democrat. After the democrats debate I realized that there was no candidate I could vote for because of their stance on “Amnesty,” so I watched the God Nutz debate, Romney won it for me because of his stance on “Amnesty,” not to mention his views on health care and the future sat well with me.
CNN has decided that John McCain won… I thought he looked pathetic.
William Smith
Sebring, FL

Romneys comments regarding the Iraq war were actually very intelligent and valid. His position was that the decision itself was correct given the information at the time. I'm sure that most people were not intelligent enough to understand the logic he used and the fallacious answer being requested by Blitzer, but from a logical argument standpoint, Romney was dead on.

..... NO AMENSITY...!!!!!!

Hay Jojn E...the Dems were in lockstep fo amnesty! Only Romney is for inforceing the law with NO amnesty... and he will get my vote because of it... William...

Hay Jojn E...the Dems were in lockstep fo amnesty! Only Romney is for inforceing the law with NO amnesty... and he will get my vote because of it... William...

weinerdog - I'm not sure where you've been, but McCain has been a critic of the way the war has been handled since before the invasion actually began. And Rudy should go rambo on the terrorists? Come on.

Nevertheless, only Ron Paul speaks honestly of personal liberty, constitutional government, and limited executive power. Everyone else is blathering on about preemptive nuclear strikes. Ugh.

Go Ron.

Listening to Republicans with no plan or agenda to address the real issues of healthcare, debt, deficit, competition with China/India etc - almost seems like a throw back to not a few decades ago but a few centuries ago. Their obsessions with subjects relating entirely to Evolution/Design, Preemptive War, Isolationalism, Immigration would put them in the first two rungs on Maslow’s hierarchy. Interestingly enough, if you do the same to the general topics of democrats where they are talking more progressively about Education, Healthcare, Debt/Deficit, Immigration they seem to have a much higher level of discourse. Not as much as needed but our so called leadership needs to start living in the 21st century otherwise we’ll become victim to a fall of another great civilization much like Rome, Spain, Mongols, Muslim Empire(s), Mugals, British etc. The history is ripe with over extended civilizations where discource/leadership de-evolved and led to their collapse.

I find it appalling that members of the United States Government are even debating evolution.

A Republican victory in the next election would curtail scientific research indefinitely.

If only genetic engineering could knock an ICBM out of the sky, or perhaps I should say LRBM, 747?

Ron Paul clearly won the debate. He was the only one who was willing to express the common sense thought that invading Iraq was a mistake from the start, and we should leave immediately.

There are many other things about him to like (such as truly limiting or repealing awful things like the "PATRIOT" Act, or the "War on Drugs"), but his willingness to speak the truth about the most important issue facing us right now, foreign policy, when none of the others were is telling.

He gets my vote.

yea, don't forget that mexico is aparently a "third world country" according to one of the runners.

Weinerdog43 - Admiral "whats-his-name" was in fact Vice Admiral James Stockdale. He was one of the most highly decorated Naval Officers in US history. Please don't diminish what he did for you and I for our country.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that is saying anything worth listening to. He is honest about the War and Scooter Libby. He is a defender of the Constitution and all for resetting the US how it was intended to run. I am not a Republican by party affiliation, but I would vote for Ron Paul.

Four things stood out to me.
1. Romney in his "null set, non sequitur" reply was either mistaken or lied. He said Hussein did not let in weapons inspectors, when anyone who looks up the weapons inspection reports on the UN website can see Iraq did allow inspectors in. A Presidential candidate should be more informed than to make such an obvious mistake.

2. Giuliani repeatedly brought up nation building. We're 9 Trillion in debt, do we really need to build up more nations?

3. Ron Paul is a doctor, an OBGYN, and was not allowed to answer a healthcare question. That would be like asking a question on POW treatment and skipping McCain. Made no sense.

4. Several candidates apparently have no qualms using nuclear weapons on Iran, a nation who is no threat at all to us. That is insane in my opinion. To this day, there are Japanese with deformities caused by the radioactive bombs dropped in 1945. Nukes should be the absolute LAST option in any conflict, and we don't even have a conflict with Iran yet.

Ron Paul is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat worth listening to. It's refreshing to hear the truth for a change.

Ron Paul once again showed himself to be the only reasonable candidate in the race. While the other candidates pondered nuking a nation that has no nukes and poses no credible threat to America, Ron Paul pointed out the absurdity.

He once again distinguished himself from Republicans and Democrats as the ONLY supporter of the Constitution. Decisions on issues like abortion, healthcare and education are NOT the responsibility of the federal government. Such issues are to be left to states and local communities. Congressman Paul pointed that out by stating the folly and unconstitutionality of having the federal government make way too many decisions for a diverse population of 300 million people.

No other candidate has displayed such common sense.

Same old song and dance. Absolutely nothing new here...blah, blah, blah. A non story. No leadership skills, no new ideas. None of these men are qualified to be president.

I'm votin' for the old white guy that doesn't like brown people.

I think they said they all believed in God, that should keep them honest.
Its all mainstream rhetoric, there will not be much change.

ron paul makes sense, i don't think there will be much of a republican party left if he's not elected. it will just turn into the exxon party, or the merck party, or the raytheon party

bottom line i would love to vote republican but i might be forced to vote democrat if that happens just shoot me

After watching almost the entire debate last night I can understand why so many people are upset with the Republican Party. Every single one of them, except for Ron Paul, spun their answers so that they didn't answer the question asked of them and ended up on whatever topic they wanted to talk about or they talked about absolutely nothing. In the end I think the only one of them with any common sense is Ron Paul.

According to this article, by Frank James, it sounds like the bright spot and winner was Dr. Ron Paul. I cannot remember a more consistent, articulate, and intelligent politician, ever. Dr. Paul leads while the others fumble and fidget.

Riverdog, thank you. I honestly could not remember Stockdale's name. No slur intended. My apologies.

jeff, I think you have me confused with someone else. I was referring to Willard in my 1st post.

Premptive nuclear attacks are illegal under about 10 treaties. I'm glad 9 of them got exposed as the criminals they are. Unbelievable that 9 presidential canididates endorse criminal actions and it falls by the wayside in the media...

Cameron:
"Several candidates apparently have no qualms using nuclear weapons on Iran, a nation who is no threat at all to us. That is insane in my opinion. Nukes should be an absolute LAST option in any conflict, and we don't even have a conflict with Iran yet."

Cameron, where have you been in the past 30 years? The Jimmy Carter School of Ostrichism?

Iran, no threat at all? No conflict with Iran?

No wonder the majority of the country turns its nose to the Loony Left.

I am not a republican, never have never will be with the way the party is going, unless, tehy get some sense and nominate Ron Paul, boy talk about someone who has some common sense and real sense of what the issue's in this country and world are. Not this made up lock and step tow the line crap that is typical of all republicans and democrats. Instead we get force fed the retards of the bunch and all they talk about is reagan, religion, how to make themselves more weathly and keeping slavery alive. WAKE UP this country needs a real leader not another corporate puppet.

America is waking up to see how the news is controlled and manipulated. When a rational, clear thinking, constitutional abiding politician like Dr. Ron Paul is considered a wacko and the three stooges, Rudy, Mitt and John McCain are called republicans then we know the insane are running the asylum. RW

What you failed to write in the article is that the debate was so centered on three candidates, McCain, Guiliani, and Romney. I would have liked to have heard more from the candidates of Thompson, Brownback and Hunter. The questions that were asked were lame, and did not cover red meat issues that are traditionally Republican stamped. Shame on WMUR you stacked the debate and not only do I feel that I watched a three candidate debate but I don't think that I am closer to knowing where each candidate stands on issues without going to their campaign website and doing some serious reading.

Ron Paul is the only one I would vote for. But its a shame that most people probably don't see the light. They all said (except Paul) that pre-emptively nuking Iran is not off the table. Isn't that crazy? Has anyone else heard of mutually assured descruction?

In 5 years when this country really starts to suck, we'll know why, we didn't elect a rational, uncoruptable president. But not enough people care, or are intelligent enough to realize this. We know for a fact that 30% of the population wouldn't change their minds no matter what problems happen (Bush's approval rating hovers around 30%).

I am so sick of candidates having to profess their faith, as if a belief in God will magically erase our huge trade deficit and national debt. You cannot pray that away. As for the big man in the sky:

"If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good- and CARES about any of it- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working. "

-Frank Zappa, American musician

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

"At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world."

- George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright (1856-1950).

"Man is a marvelous curiosity . . . he thinks he is the Creator's pet . . . he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea." [Letters from the Earth]
Mr. Clemens was once asked whether he feared death. He said that he did not, in view of the fact that he had been dead for billions and billions of years before he was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

- Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist (1835-1910).

"Religion is all bunk."

"I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end."

- Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).

"Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever. "

"Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis."

"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."

-Sigmund Freud, Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst (1856-1939).

Kevin Quail,

Thanks for your post. It's one the more interesting things I've read in awhile.

My Kiwi (New Zealand) friend put it a little more bluntly. "If you don't believe my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend, I'll kill you."

In relevant part, Javed wrote the following (above):

"Their [i.e. The Republicans’] obsessions with subjects relating entirely to Evolution/Design, Preemptive War, Isolationalism, Immigration would put them in the first two rungs on Maslow’s hierarchy. Interestingly enough, if you do the same to the general topics of democrats where they are talking more progressively about Education, Healthcare, Debt/Deficit, Immigration they seem to have a much higher level of discourse." (Bracketed words added from context.)

Dear Javed,

I respond to your comment as follows:

1. How is it, as you claim, that Republicans discussing Immigration puts them “in the first two rungs on Maslow’s hierarchy," but when Democrats discuss Immigration, it is part of “a much higher level of discourse”? Is this bias, a double standard or an oversight on your part?

2. Republicans do not often discuss, much less obsess over, Evolution/Design, Preemptive War, or Isolationism. I do hear them discussing the Global Economy, Education, the National Debt and National Defense. Where do you get your list of false Republican talking points, and how do you account for the omissions in your list?

3. Did it ever dawn on you that what you call a “more progressive” discourse results from a non-traditional view that doesn’t square with the Constitution’s limitations on government? The Constitution tells us the federal government has limited powers. (U.S. Const., Amends. 9 &10.) That means laws that do not directly fall within a the scope of a power enumerated in the Constitution, or do not provide a “necessary and proper” means of effectuating an enumerated power, are “unconstitutional.”

A national, federal health care system, like the one your Democratic friends have proposed, would fall wide of the mark for this reason. The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to implement or regulate a health care system, much less to regulate the medical profession or the insurance industry. Indeed, the amount of micromanagement of American lives needed to effectuate a federal, national health care system would violate all of our rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as our rights to conscience, freedom of religion, personal autonomy, free association and all other “penumbral” “privacy” rights that formed the basis of the decision in Roe v. Wade.

Many of the same flaws exist with regard to the topic of education: there is no enumerated power in the Constitution concerning Education, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that Education is not a constitutional right. Thus, to either regulate or fund Education in such broad strokes – as proposed – simply isn’t constitutional.

The Constitution is a law. It is THE prime law of the land. Thus, unconstitutional plans evince a spirit of lawlessness.

On the subject of Immigration, the “more progressive” attitude seems to be to flaunt the federal immigration laws – at least until they are amended. Cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco – both of which are run by so-called “progressive” Democrats – have explicit policies hostile toward enforcement of our current immigration laws.

So, you might be right that, on the subjects of Health Care, Education and Immigration, the Democrats are “more progressive” – but only if you mean “more progressively lawless.” Is that the kind of evolution you think we need?

Dear Kevin Quail,

We could have gotten the idea after the first two lines. The rest was unintersting and unhelpful. Besides, I like what Zappa's said when someone pointed out his was a minority position on a given topic. He said something to the effect of, "The fact that a million people disagree with me doesn't make them right or make me wrong. Ten million Germans thought Hitler was right." The same can be said with your views on religion, as well as the view of those you have quoted.

I think Romney is the best.
Hewill be our next president.

He can make :

McCain:Defense secretary
Tacredo: Immigration Chief
Bush: UN Secretary
Guiliani: Chief of family values Department
Huckabee: Chief of separation of Church and State
Hunter: Forgiveness Cabinet Chief

and there goes Republican bandwagon for another 4 years !
(only after Karl Rove and his ex-convict buddies rig Ohio and Florida electronic voting machine results again)

In response to John W.:

You have th gist of Zappa's quote backwards. When he says that "ten million Germans thought Hitler was right" he's stating that the majority view, ie. in this case those who had the mind control of religion driven into their brains while impressionable children, doesn't necessarily make that view correct. And furthermore:

Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life -- except religion.... Why are we praised by godly men for surrendering our "godly gift" of reason when we cross their mental thresholds? ... Atheism strikes me as morally superior, as well as intellectually superior, to religion. Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong. Does this leave us shorn of hope? Not a bit of it. Atheism. and the related conviction that we have just one life to live, is the only sure way to regard all our fellow creatures as brothers and sisters.... Even the compromise of agnosticism is better than faith. It minimizes the totalitarian temptation, the witless worship of the absolute and the surrender of reason.
-- Christopher Hitchens, "The Lord and the Intellectuals," Harper's July 1982, p. 60, from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God.
-- Baron d'Holbach, defending the "weak" definition for the word atheist, in Good Sense (1772), quoted from George H Smith, "Defining Atheism," in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies

Despite the solace of hypocritical religiosity and its seductive promise of an after-life of heavenly bliss, most of us will do anything to thwart the inevitable victory of biological death.
-- Jack Kevorkian, describing his painting, "Nearer My God To Thee," quoted from Cliff Walker, "I Can Think of Life, and Nothing Else"

Dear Kevin Quail,

You are going off topic with your harangue on religion.

And no, I didn't get Zappa wrong. His point was that the sheer number of people who side with, or oppose, a given point of view doesn't determine whether that point is right or wrong. One person can be correct, even if many other people are wrong. To simply point to a number of people who side with your viewpoint, or even a number of historical luminaries, as you have, doesn't make you correct. It is called the fallacy of "appeal to authority." Look it up.

The correctness of my viewpoint and of those I cite, atheism, is based on facts. For example, billions of people on this planet have been born and died yet not one has come back to tell the rest of us about an afterlife or what happens after physical death. A belief in a supreme being is based entirely on faith and it is up to those who believe this without any proof to prove the existence of such a supernatural creature. It isn't up to me to prove there is no imaginary friend for adults.

The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don’t believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it -- I don’t need to believe it.
-- Carl Jung, quoted from Laird Wilcox, ed., "The Degeneration of Belief"

Dear Kevin Quail,

You are way off topic with your evangelical fervor for atheism. The subject here is the Republican New Hampshire debate. If you want to continue writing about atheism, then, fine, continue - but continue elsewhere. Newsgroups would be good for you. Try alt.atheism or alt.atheism.evangelism or even alt.I-am-an-obnoxious-atheist-who-preaches-atheism-even-when-its-off-topic. If you can't figure out you're in the wrong place to express these views, or your ego is too big to let you figure out you're in the wrong place, then you may just turn out to be a poster boy for what really is wrong with atheists. So just stop. Please!

Hey, pal, it's a free country and that was a big part of the debate, whether the candidates believed creation science should be taught alongside evolution or whether they even believed in evolution. Someone needs to give the sheep in this country a different perspective. And I think whether my posts are included here is up to the moderator. Just remember- every time you turn on a light you are using the invention of an atheist. And just for the hell of it, here's one more: "Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends."
(Woody Allen / born in 1935 / New Yorker, 'My Philosophy')

Dear Kevin Quail,

You're right. It's a free country. You have the right to speak your mind, just like I have the right to object when I think you are dragging a red herring across the path of the discussion.

I concede the questions posed to the candidates had something to do with their religious belief systems, if any, with particular regard to evolution, science and so forth. But what you have done goes beyond the issue of the utility, or lack thereof, in having a theist outlook while in government office.

Instead of being happy with favoring us with your words on the subject, you have pelted us with quote after quote of the sayings of **other people** on the topic of atheism in general. All of it now has nothing to do with theism and government. That is why I see your posts as off topic and no longer germane to the discussion of the debate.

By the way, don't you have any genuine ideas of your own?

Gee, you believers take it hard when someone challenges your belief system. Let me reiterate- someone moderates this board and decides what is posted. I guess they also thought it was relevant.