Ron Paul is front runner! Ron Paul is FRONT RUNNER!

[silverhandorder]

Drowning dogs like Santorum do not attack nobodies. Ron is being viewed as front runner now by his opponents.

[Sentient Void]

He wtfpwnd Santorum big time on Iran, security, etc.

And I'm *really* liking this new thing RP is doing and how he's doing it - where he calmly but assertively communicates with his body language and says 'Excuse me. Let me finish.'

It's very commanding and everyone shuts up and lets him speak when he does it.

HEROIC.

[ItsTime]

Ron Paul killed it! Make a small donation tonight! http://ronpaul2012.com

then post it here!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?307997-Donate-Now!-Ron-Paul-Won-This-Debate!

[cindy25]

please don't insult dogs by comparing them to Santorum

[silverhandorder]

Yeah Ron killed it through out the entire debate. My comment made it on their website poll.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/silverhandorder/Mycommentonfoxnews.jpg

[thehungarian]

There needs to be a picture of RP giving the STFU Hand to Santorum. It must be my new wallpaper and seen by the multitudes.

[Romulus]

He killed it... no doubt.. he is a target.. they either aim for him or ignore his strong points. But I LOVE how he is being assertive with his answers!

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Santorum strangely didn't go after Romney, or even Bachmann whom he could have stripped some soc-con votes from.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

There needs to be a picture of RP giving the STFU Hand to Santorum. It must be my new wallpaper and seen by the multitudes.

LOL I loved that part. I replayed it twice. "Calm down little man, I'm talking here."

[sailingaway]

Santorum strangely didn't go after Romney, or even Bachmann whom he could have stripped some soc-con votes from.
a) he wants to be vp
b) going after the only female on the stage carries risks

Ron is in third place and doesn't have those risks

[freedoms-light]

He delivered that little slap to cry baby Santorum to wake him up to the real world.
After all, he's an Obstetrician.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Santorum got his clock cleaned by Dr. Paul on Iran. The audience clearly loved Dr. Paul and its clear this is going to come down to 2 people: Dr. Paul and Plasticman Mittens. Santorum self-destructed as did Bachmann. Huntsman was a joke. Pawlenty didn't say anything that didn't aggrandize himself. Cain didn't say a goddamn thing, essentially. Newt was the one left standing at the end of musical chairs.

[AlexAmore]

Cain didn't say a goddamn thing, essentially.

LOL I love when he tells the audience how he didn't know then but now he understands after looking into it.

[Dianne]

He wtfpwnd Santorum big time on Iran, security, etc.

And I'm *really* liking this new thing RP is doing and how he's doing it - where he calmly but assertively communicates with his body language and says 'Excuse me. Let me finish.'

It's very commanding and everyone shuts up and lets him speak when he does it.

HEROIC.

I was so proud of him !! He's come a long way since 2007. His passion and drive forced the faux hosts to include him, when we all know how they would have loveed to ignore him, lol.

He owned Santorum and made Romney look like a weak Richard Nixon. Paul definitely won the debate !!!!

[DamianTV]

What is getting on my nerves is they are copycatting the way he speaks because they've realized he is such a hit. Make a knockoff and steal their thunder, thats their motto. Ron should really get up there and ask how many of those copycats actually voted against raising the debt ceiling, and so many of the other political Hot Topics.

[CaptUSA]

I'm burying this in this thread because I don't want it to be its own.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think there was more damage done to Paul last night then we want to admit. I agree that they're starting to see his rise in the polls and want to knock him down, but I think they may have suceeded (with the help of FOX). I don't know that his unwillingness to compromise his principles came across as a good thing - it looked liked he'd never be able to get anything done. I also think the non-engaged GOP voter has been conditioned to believe we face all sorts of risks from every middle eastern country, and to them, I think Paul looked soft on those issues.

We are the choir he's preaching to, so we love it. I always try to view these things from the eyes of the typical neocon and I just didn't come away with a cozy feeling.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

[kahless]

Sounds like the message going on with all the Neocons before the debate is that they must do something about Paul once and for all. Foxnews and Ailes played a big part of that in last nights debate. Ensure only 2 questions the entire first hour and setup the 2nd hour for multiple candidates to take him down.

[CaptUSA]

Sounds like the message going on with all the Neocons before the debate is that they must do something about Paul once and for all. Foxnews and Ailes played a big part of that in last nights debate. Ensure only 2 questions the entire first hour and setup the 2nd hour for multiple candidates to take him down.

That's the way I saw it, too. I think they also wanted to push Newt out of the race, but that backfired.

[lucky_bg]

I'm burying this in this thread because I don't want it to be its own.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think there was more damage done to Paul last night then we want to admit. I agree that they're starting to see his rise in the polls and want to knock him down, but I think they may have suceeded (with the help of FOX). I don't know that his unwillingness to compromise his principles came across as a good thing - it looked liked he'd never be able to get anything done. I also think the non-engaged GOP voter has been conditioned to believe we face all sorts of risks from every middle eastern country, and to them, I think Paul looked soft on those issues.

We are the choir he's preaching to, so we love it. I always try to view these things from the eyes of the typical neocon and I just didn't come away with a cozy feeling.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, I have the same fears as you :-(

[HOLLYWOOD]

Put on C-SPAN's Washington Journal and call in... because, the callers just don't get it. They have a separate phone number for Iowans to call-in too.

Besides the foolish socialists calling in, pretty ignorant consensus on the GOP candidates.

[SimpleName]

I'm burying this in this thread because I don't want it to be its own.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think there was more damage done to Paul last night then we want to admit. I agree that they're starting to see his rise in the polls and want to knock him down, but I think they may have suceeded (with the help of FOX). I don't know that his unwillingness to compromise his principles came across as a good thing - it looked liked he'd never be able to get anything done. I also think the non-engaged GOP voter has been conditioned to believe we face all sorts of risks from every middle eastern country, and to them, I think Paul looked soft on those issues.

We are the choir he's preaching to, so we love it. I always try to view these things from the eyes of the typical neocon and I just didn't come away with a cozy feeling.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

I share your fears. We are all excited, but Paul did pretty much insult Santorum's views and those views are shared by many generic Republican types. Its always a chess game of how hard and how far you push. I fear that Paul pushed a bit too hard at times. He needed to bring the audience back by insisting we spend more time fixing domestic problems.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I'm not worried, because the GOP has begun questioning whether we can continue to maintain all these wars in the Middle East. They see our mounting debt and are looking for an alternative philosophy. Going back to the paleocon position of non-intervention is the logical step. Some may reflexively object, but it will begin to dawn on most of them that we have to change our approach to national defense.

Our policy of preemptive war will end one way or another. Will it end responsibly, with the U.S. realizing its mistakes, or will it end in the chaos of economic collapse? That's what we're facing right now.

[johnrocks]

There needs to be a picture of RP giving the STFU Hand to Santorum. It must be my new wallpaper and seen by the multitudes.

ROFLMAO, I think that was my favorite part of the entire debate.:p

[AGRP]

I'm not worried, because the GOP has begun questioning whether we can continue to maintain all these wars in the Middle East. They see our mounting debt and are looking for an alternative philosophy. Going back to the paleocon position of non-intervention is the logical step. Some may reflexively object, but it will begin to dawn on most of them that we have to change our approach to national defense.

Our policy of preemptive war will end one way or another. Will it end responsibly, with the U.S. realizing its mistakes, or will it end in the chaos of economic collapse? That's what we're facing right now.

lol.

The GOP, just as the DNC, is going for broke.

Both of them will kill to have Obama over Ron Paul.

[torchbearer]

Santorum strangely didn't go after Romney, or even Bachmann whom he could have stripped some soc-con votes from.

that is very interesting.
though I was thinking Santorum is polar opposite of Paul. So by attacking Paul he was stating his views.
Santorum's blood boils listening to ideas of liberty.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

lol.

The GOP, just as the DNC, is going for broke.

Both of them will kill to have Obama over Ron Paul.Yes, I believe some of them are that stupid. But I still think there are plenty who are coming around. Compare the reaction during this debate to Ron Paul's position vs. 2007-2008 debates. Fox News even made an effort to tamp down on what they called a "streak of isolationism" in the GOP.


BRET BAIER, ANCHOR: Mitt Romney talking about Afghanistan in the debate on Monday. Before the break, we asked you if you agree with Mitt Romney's statement that the U.S. should bring its troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible? 84 percent of you agree, 16 percent of you do not in our unscientific poll.

...

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Look, I think that there is an isolationist trend in the Republican Party. It's not just Ron Paul anymore. It's Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich who talked about how Obama never should have gone into Libya. And the fact is that what he actually stated was the Obama position, that he's going to try to bring the troops home as soon as possible based on what the generals tell him.

But this was not a national greatness, kind of aggressive American action abroad in defense of freedom. Those were not the ringing statements that you used to hear from John McCain and George W. Bush.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST:...

I think he riding away, Mara is right, there is a streak of isolationism among Republicans. In fact, isolationism historically, was more on the right than on the left, in between the wars, before the Second World War. It was a conservative movement with ya know Norman Thomas, the socialist, as the token -- the guy on the left. But Charles Lindberg was not exactly a lefty. So historically it has been. It went into retreat after the Second World War and the Cold War, and now the Cold War is over and it's back.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2011/06/16/mitt-romney-withdraw-troops-soon-possible