31. #12... most Americans don't find Fox News to be credible in any way??? You obviously are not reading the same poll numbers the rest of us are. Bias really is blinding.
The debate was well run, and nailed the major points. Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee showed some serious muscle. Mitt Romney is stong, and Ron Paul showed his true colors...he is a fraud running as a Repulican.
Good job, FNC!

Marianne at 1:09PM on May 16th 2007

32. If you're still voting on the issue of abortion, then you have issues. We have more pressing problems and the dems are too weak to deal with them. This is no time for conspiracy theories.(Quick, change the subject to global warming!) Last night #1 Giuliani, #2 Romney. Great Job Fox, how refreshing.

T. Jourdan at 2:10PM on May 16th 2007

33. I'm a Democrat who started watching FOX NEWS for a good laugh, especially Bill O'Reilly, he is a hoot! Then I started hearing facts the other liberal networks didn't think were important. Some facts the networks put a "spin" on till I hardly recognized them. Now I watch FOX News first and foremost for the best accurate news. Watch the network & other cable channels for the "Hollywood" gossip news. Sidney

Sidney at 2:51PM on May 16th 2007

34. David Knowels,

Your blog reads like a 5th grade book report, constructed of some hollow tripe from the cover and the pictures. I can't believe you put your name on this crap. "Praise Fox" for what? Showing their ass last night? Please.

Ron Paul slapped Giuliani down with the facts. In the commentary and coverage from Fox they refused to show both Paul's initial comment and his response to Giuliani's typical blatent, ball-hogging, beligerent, baseless blathering. Fox's refusal to replay the entire exchange while repeating Guiliani's simplistic mischaracterization of Paul's comments and repeated statements of Giuliani winning that exchange all on the backdrop of "We Report, You Decide" boderlines on the sureal. Did you even watch the debate? It was clear to me and everyone I talked to that Fox was making deliberate attempt to marginalize Paul after his gaining so much support and notariaty in the first debate, which polls clearly said he won. They asked him less questions in this debate than any other candidate and he still came out ahead. That's the story you twit! Quit being an establishment schmuck, wake up and do some real reporting and make a real name for yourself while you still can. There may be hope for you yet!

Diaphanic1 at 1:59PM on May 17th 2007

35. Dear Diaphanic1,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. As to your charge of being an establishment schmuck, please click on my name on the blog above and read the breadth of my posts at The Stump. If you retain this opinion, let's talk.

david knowles at 4:17PM on May 16th 2007

36. I am a registered Democrat, but have voted Republican when I felt that candidate was the best candidate for "We the people". After listening to the Republican Debate, I must admit that Ron Paul made more sense than any candidate I had observed and listened to including Democrats. I was impressed with how he took a stand against the Bush and Cheney Foreign Policies, and their intervention in Iraq when our fight was in Aphganistan. I was mostly impressed with his direction of finding out why these people hate us and why they are attacking us. Maybe, just maybe our differences could have been ironed out with "Dialogue". Isn't "Dialogue" worth a try? Wouldn't it be nice if we could settle all our differences with "Dialogue" rather than war? Wouldn't it be wonderful if "Dialogue" took place and all those 34,000 plus young men and women were still alive? Wouldn't it be wonderful if all those hundred's of thousand Iraqis' (Men, Women, Children) were still alive? Thank you Ron Paul, for seeing the possibility of "Dialogue" even if it doesn't work, wouldn't it be worth the try? Just imagine all those people still being alive if "Dialogue did work"!
One more thing, after reading some of the comments on the Stump and other blogs, I have one question. Don't any of you on the extreme Right or Left have a mind of your own, Don't you think for yourselves? It seems that even if God was Republican, the Dems would condemn him, and if he were Democrat the Repubs would also condemn him. Shouldn't we place our support and loyalty to the best candidate and not a "Party"? Are you so blind you can't see the division and hate that produces. How can you hate all Democrats Or Republicans when you don't even know the people you hate? Sounds and reads rather childish and immature to say the least, and how people like Bush/Cheney and their "Mafia" got elected.
Richiemac

rrm12 at 5:36PM on May 16th 2007

37. Diaphanic1,

First off, you spelled David's last name wrong. That shows you don't pay attention to detail and you should not be taken seriously. More evidence of that is that you did not read what David writes on a daily basis. He hardly is an "establishment schmuck", I happen to hold that title around here and won't give it up easily.

Finally, hit the man on his points if you're smart enough (which evidently you aren't) but don't take personal shots at his writing. As he said, read the breadth of his work and you'll see that he's an excellent writer. There's not many pictures so you may have to sound the words out, but give it a whack.

Scott at 6:28PM on May 16th 2007

38. OK Mike, I guess you need to be a socialist who believes that God has no place in this country to be "smart"? As for Cheryl, what is this truth you speak of? Be careful what you ask for. The GOP bunch did a reasonable job for starters (with the exception of Paul). At least we have a chance of getting to know where the candidates stand on the issues of interest to Americans as this process progresses. Will the dems do the same??

Al Wunsch at 7:48PM on May 16th 2007

39. After carefully watching and actually listening I have to conclude that Gilmore, Hunter and Romney are the only ones worthy. Giuliani and McCain are done. Hunter is the one who answered his questions directly and without dancing around.

brakshere at 8:42PM on May 16th 2007

40. Democrats do not vote for Republicans. You lost all credibility with that statement.

brakshere at 8:44PM on May 16th 2007

41. Fox channel was conducting this debate like a fox,kind a try to promote some candidates and not the others.Am I the only one noticing this I hope not.Clearly Mitt romney continue to show his leadeership skills and abilities in tackling difficult issues.He handle every question intelligently and well.I don't get this negative response from some correspondents,it's sad when they don't know what is real and what is not real.

Realistic at 3:57AM on May 17th 2007

42. Mr. Knowles,

Please forgive my over-exuberance. I, of course do not know you personally, nor am I familiar with your other blog entries. Therefore, my personal attacks are completely unwarranted, and most certainly not constructive. I am afraid you were on the receiving end of my built up frustration over the coverage last night. Seeing your praise of Fox’s handling of the debate coverage was, for me, the last straw in triggering my urge to vent. Normally I stay completely out of the blogosphere, as I have little time for the hairsplitting one can get into out here. However, since Ron Paul has come out on the scene, I have been fascinated by the treatment he and his ideas receive in both the established and alternative media, a candidate and ideas I admittedly find refreshingly forthright and rational in a world I find full of convoluted political insanity. But again, I did step into your world here, in a most obnoxious manner, including the misspelling of your honorable name, for which I humbly apologize.


Scott,

Thank you for pointing out my transposition of the “l” and “e” in David’s last name, for you truly have an eye for detail and therefore must be taken extremely seriously. As I mentioned above, you are also correct in your assessment that I have not read what David writes on a daily basis. And, you are certainly entitled to be a schmuck, as we all are from time to time.

I do obliged to offer some explanation. Our little three-way exchange here can loosely illustrates (remember I like pictures) my motivation as a microcosm of my initial outburst. Bear with me.

First let me say my diatribe was emotionally charged and though I knew where I was coming from, it was much to complicated to explain at the time, because it was based on the culmination of events in the debate (mainly the exchange between Giuliani and Paul) and the coverage there of by Fox (as discussed by David), and subsequent coverage by other news outlets from TV to blogs. David’s commenting on both Fox’s coverage and the sited exchange in a manner, so contrary to my estimation, elicited my rant as a general condemnation of the events and coverage as a whole. Since David was a single person he became the unwitting target of my frustrations and unwarranted personal shots.

As for David’s points with which I take issue, first, that the exchange between Giuliani and Paul “was clearly Rudy’s best moment” was in my opinion both his and Fox’s worst moment for a couple of reasons. Giuliani was being disingenuous and opportunistic in trying to pounce on a sound bite which he knew could and would be taken out of context by deliberately pretending to misunderstand Paul as saying that simply our bombing of Iraq over ten years was the reason behind 9/11, which was taken completely out of context. Paul was clear in that just being one example of our Middle East foreign policy over the past thirty years or so contributing to the “blowback” we have experienced in the attacks of 9/11 as sited by our own intelligence agencies in the 9/11 Commission report. For the most part these are intelligent men, moderators included. You could bet that had Chris Matthews been there, he would have intervened on Giuliani’s posturing and said something like “to be fair Mayor I don’t believe that was what the congressman was implying,” so that the issue could be more fairly addressed which would have made for more real and lively debate. Instead they let it go. To be fair they did give Paul more time for rebuttal, but in their replaying coverage, they never showed the congressman’s initial statement in it’s entirety and certainly never showed any of his rebuttal, all the while showing Giuliani’s unfounded posturing over and over. Fox commentators went on repeatedly to say Paul was “slapped down” by Giuliani.

By the way, I think Giuliani’s best moments are when he’s honest and genuine explaining his views on abortion. I happen to agree with him. You don’t hear the Fox moderators flat out asking him if he is seeking the nomination of the wrong party. What gives? It’s acceptable for Republicans to be allowed differing views on social issues, but not foreign policy?

On a couple more issues with Fox’s coverage, after trying to say that Paul had completely taken himself out of the race with his mischaracterized statements only for them to have to announce that he was winning the cell phone text poll, Fox immediately commented that his supporters must be more organized than the other candidates. I took offense to that because I voted for him, and I’m not involved with any Ron Paul organizations. That’s a blatant attempt to marginalize my vote as best I can tell, and I am offended. What’s funny though is that in the Post interview with Romney, before the early voting came out, he claimed to know of over 1000 Romney supporter debate watching parties across the US. That combined with the fact that he had raised more money than any other Republican candidate, and Ron Paul apparently has better organization than Romney. Why couldn’t be that when Ron Paul opens his mouth, the voice of reason comes out comes out with congenial tone that resonates with American viewers? Give the man some credit, Fox, and give the American people some credit. Their post debate coverage was like an infomercial gone bad as they had to contend with the fact that all their talking points aimed at thinning out the field and marginalizing the “second tier” candidates, were interrupted as they had to announce had their own poll results with Ron Paul in the lead, on top of saying how dismal Paul’s performance was. I laughed so hard I almost choked on a pretzel.

Also, as for really letting the Candidates loose and sparing with each other for “exciting viewing”, containing Paul by intentionally not letting him participate on issues such as the “tamper-proof” biometric immigration/national ID card/database from hell, Fox certainly constrained the fireworks. He was only given something like five opportunities to speak in this whole debate, though was a viewer favorite in it the first debate. On that national ID issue in the first debate especially, after he answered that question, half the candidates had to go back and change their answers to completely indiscernible stances.

I could go into more detail and site more examples, Scott, but there is a bigger picture, I am getting at here. Speaking as someone who used to be a staunch Republican, until the party got hijacked by Fox, and everyone started believing their own hype, Ron Paul makes me want to go back now that there is a voice of reason screaming, “Don’t drink the cool-aid!”

I like many Americans understand what Paul is about and what he is trying to do, even if it’s only to get those issues out there for discussion and not actually win the nomination, though he might be the only Republican who could win the general election. He has a record that reflects his unwavering commitment to his values which may be just what our government needs now. When I see him maligned, mischaracterized and marginalized by Giuliani and Fox news, I am going defend him and certainly his right to get his message across and attack those who unfairly attack him, just as you attacked me, and rightly so for my unfair attacks on David.

So, now we’re back to the microcosm, my initial comment/attacks on David - Fox’s and Giuliani’s treatment of Ron Paul, David’s calm cool response to my attacks - Ron Paul’s cool responses to their attacks, my attacks on David’s comments/Fox, Giuliani, and others in defense of Paul - your attacks on me in defense David. And so on…

I know I went about this poorly which is why I felt obligated to attempt to explain myself and apologize. I certainly should not have used this one blog entry to pass judgment on Mr. Knowles, nor considered this space my personal area to inexplicably blow off steam. I was unsurprisingly not impressed with Fox and felt David’s account came across much like Fox’s own account and pat on the back. So, primarily for the reasons I sited, I still strongly disagree with David’s assessment of Fox’s handling of the debate.

Fox is unfair and unbalanced, and has apparently, to me anyway, was blatantly trying to stifle our democratic process and they act like they alone are the voice of the Republican party. I’d like to see other lost Republicans come back and stand up to the Party’s hijacking.

-Anti-Establishment Schmuck

Diaphanic1 at 8:28AM on May 17th 2007

43. Diaphanic1,

Apology accepted. Really, I wasn't so very offended in the first place. The blogosphere is a funny place, and I've suffered far more turgid attacks than yours.

Clearly, you were engaging with that debate and its media narrative on a very sophisticated level, and I understand how reading my flippant remarks would frustrate you. I posted a piece on the first GOP debate in which I lambasted Chris Matthews for what I found to be a lacking performance, and was trying to contrast that with what I saw as a much more entertaining, and substantive job by the Fox boys. Unlike you, however, I did not stick around for the Hannity post mortem spin. I've just grown too tired of that kind of thing. Mind you, I've also written many posts taking issue with Fox's unrelenting bias. You have a valid point about the way they marginalized Paul in the way they asked some of their questions, "Are you seeking the nomination for the wrong party?" But, to be fair, Wallace also did put it pretty much the very same way when confronting Giuliani on his views on abortion, gun Control, and gay marriage.

As to the specific dust-up between Giuliani and Paul, I do think that Giuliani was grandstanding, and it was quite effective. I also think Paul has a point, but put it rather poorly. "Blowback" is a slippery slope. Though I don't think Paul meant that 9/11 occurred because we'd bombed Iraq for 10 years, he was arguing that our general policies and presence in the region had helped inflame the hatred neccessary to motivate such actions. True enough, but where then, does one draw the line. Should we abandon all business ventures that take place on foreign soil whenever a religious faction deems it unholy? This is a tricky question. Paul is clearly a smart guy, and I'm sure we'll hear him expand on his views in the coming days. I'd personally love to interview him on the matter.

As for Rudy, he succeeded in pouncing at the right moment. I lived in New York for his entire reign of office. I have mixed feelings about him. Probably more negative than positive. He has always struck me as a bully (to put it mildlly), and I've had enough of bullies in the White House.

Hey, chime in anytime to The Stump. Your insight is welcome here.

Best,
David

david knowles at 8:46AM on May 17th 2007

44. If I hear the word "ilk" one more time.....I'm going to "ilk"!! Enough already. And, I agree with David that this was a debate fairly and objectively hosted by Fox News. I got a better idea of the differences between the candidates this time than with MSNBC.

Jean at 4:23PM on May 17th 2007

45. Just as Mike Gravel was the most interesting among the Democrats and offered a refreshing perspective, Ron Paul was the most sensible of the Republicans; yet, neither has a chance of ascendancy.

Dr. Know at 8:46AM on May 18th 2007