The Republican nomination

Are alimony payments tax-exempt?

Thanks again to the live-bloggers for keeping this marathon moving at a snappy pace

Politicians, no matter which party they're from, as well as the media will never want a truth-telling man in office. Does integrity count for anything in an American election race?

Only one candidate predicted a decade ago that the housing market bubble would burst and that the US Dollar would continue to lose spending power. Only one candidate wants to start the painful process of fixing our national deficit, returning to the principles of the Constitution.

Only one candidate voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the very beginning and plans to return all foreign-based troops back to the United States, wishing to protect OUR borders instead of policing the world and causing more blowback.

It's time for the American people to stop electing the same type of politician to our country's highest office. If you want truth, integrity, and character, try supporting a candidate that answers directly and doesn't change his views (including the way he votes) with the change in popular opinion.

America needs to wake up. Our empire is in a bad state. Will you elect a man who wants to face our problems with practical solutions, or will you elect another smooth talker that only talks about intangible ideals such as 'freedom, democracy, and this great country' without mentioning anything of substance?

Reader, I believe you understand who this one candidate I speak of is. Will you listen to him or will you vote for a man that will allow the Federal Reserve to print more money, decreasing the value of your hard-earned dollars?

As for me, don't mess with my money, don't let anymore of our troops die in an immoral war, and don't feed me lies. I'm ready to face the pain of dealing with the truth.

I was surprised at the way Anderson Cooper dealt with Ron Paul, just as if the latter barely had a place in the show. Does anyone share this feeling ?

So the Republicans admire the French after all; a man's mistresses are immaterial to politics.

Good, glad we have that straightened out; the Republicans seemed a bit confused about that precept when a Democrat was President. But it does seem churlish of Newt not to acknowledge the influence of the French. You're a PhD, Newt. Cite your source please.

The death of the Evangelical lobby could be the outgrowth of the boisterous support that Newt is recieving in South Carolina. While presenting an image of protecting American family life many Evangelicals are supporting a man who had a mistress for several years, and now sports a third marriage. That saga has been confirmed by his second spouse Marianne. Many Evangelicals are refusing to support Romney for a variety of reasons that are not hard to discern. All of this opposition to a father with a great wife and noble sons who has honored his marriage vow made years ago.

I am an Evangelical and as a Christian cannot understand support for Gingrich and non support for Mitt Romney. If this support results in Newt's S.C. win and getting the eventual nomination, I can no longer see any Evangelical credibility left in the electorate.

Alan Phillips, Sr

Perhaps Wilkinson was referring to that exchange with his "Santorum made a strong pitch. But he's competing for votes more with Gingrich than Romney. Since Gingrich is tied with Romney for the lead in South Carolina, this probably helps Romney, ironically." Who knows?

But if he is, he completely discounts the possibility that effective attacks on Romney from Santorum do not have to send undecided voters away from Romney *and toward Santorum*. Chris Dodd led the attack on Hillary Clinton for her dissembling on Spitzer's policy on driver licenses for undocumented immigrants, but someone else ended up the primary beneficiary of the effectiveness of that attack.

What in the hell is with the complete lack of mention of Santorum's sustained attack on Romney over RomneyCare. I realize it's old news, but Santorum was as animated about that as about anything he said about Gingrich. And the criticisms were totally substantive, totally accurate, and totally germane to Romney's ability to contrast himself with Obama in the way the party needs to do in the fall - exactly the way Santorum framed his presentation. In short, it was a tightly reasoned, tightly argued brief against an opponent, using the substance of his record to undercut his case for fundamental political strength and value to the party. And this is a party primary! What could merit mention in a debate summary (or real time notetaking session) more than that? And Romney had no effective rebuttal (that I can currently recall in any case).

I realize that the nomination is Romney's, but if that is the case, and a piece of substantive rhetorical combat such as this is not even worth mentioning, then why are you going to the trouble of making close notes on the course of these affairs at all?

As a fairly non-passionate (Canadian) observer, I would say that Mitt Romney wins every debate in which he does not completely scupper his campaign.

Intrade thinks Newt won the debate. The rumored Klansman got a huge boost. I hope the ex-wife #2 interview goes well and it's looped on all the networks tomorrow. I have a feeling it's too late though. We need something bigger. So I hear Newt takes solo trips to Thailand for some unknown reason. I don't know if it's true but I think the media has a duty to press him hard on it!

On the issue of tax returns... why do people care? I'm defending Romney all the way unless it's proven he did something illegal. Obama supporters have been making an issue of Romney's ~15% effective tax rate because they don't understand taxes and it drives me insane. If we have a corporate tax, capital gains should be ideally taxed at 0% to create tax neutrality. It's the one case where Republicans would actually be right about lower taxes increasing revenue. It's why Clinton lowered it while simultaneously raising the income tax. I really hope Romney or someone can explain that to Americans once and for all. This isn't a disagreement over values. This is a disagreement over facts. The uninformed "tax cap gains as ordinary income!" crowd is plain wrong.

CNN chose to address a topic of yellow journalism as it's post coverage as its lead topic of the S.C. Republican Presidential candidates debates. Shame on CNN for using a tabloid approach to their post coverage of the debate. There are more vitally important issues that need to be addressed by this news net work than their reality T V coverage of the Newt Gingrich EX-WIFE charges.
Is it any wonder why more people don't got to the poles on election day, with this kind of rumor mongering editorializing.
The news media needs to report the facts not the rumors as they interpret them. From two senior citizens that have never failed to
vote in any election and we will continue to make our on decision on the best man or woman who is right for the job. Hope you get the point, you didn't help.

Paul wiped the floor with the wanna be Economist in Chief(s) when he observed that Apple's 400,000 China jobs help Americans buying those product save a good deal of money and hence buy more American stuff and thus create jobs in US.

Paul preaches to turtles - the national debt will ever raise and no one cares... until it'll be to late.

Gingrich has posted his tax fillings on the web and therefore can defeat Obama; Romney did not... and therefore can defeat Obama.

Santorum might quake and waddle like a duck... but like a US President looks not.

To Orange: Ron Paul was an Air Force flight surgeon. That means his job was to operate on the wounded. Probably why he hates war and wants better medical care for veterans.

Winners: Santorum
Losers: Romney

Perry got replaced by commercials and it managed to elevate the debate. These four were up there for a reason. The vetting process works.

Santorum did well except when he fell into that trap that he always falls into. He tries to insert nuance when it's completely unnecessary. He did it on the issue of SOPA. He's right on the issue. SOPA is bad law but we do need to protect IP even on the internet. But a political campaign is not the place to say that! You win zero votes saying that and lose lots. Say "SOPA must go!" get your applause and move on!

I'm glad Romney finally stood up and defended capitalism. I think he thought he'd get laughs when he said he wasn't going to listen to his father and release all his tax returns. Instead, they booed him. All he had to say was "Yes, I'll release multiple years." A rare mistake from Romney.

I hate Newt the rumored Klansman with the lunch lady body and giant Lego head. I stopped counting how many times he said "dramatically." At one point he was using it twice a sentence. His shots at the media are cheap applause lines. I want to see every journalist and cameraman that covers Newt to stand in solidarity with their brutally savaged brother John King and wear a T-shirt that says something like "I have a wife and two kids and I am media" until Newt drops out. Portray his attacks on the media as un-American.

Like John King, I almost forgot about Paul. Paul defended free trade for the first time ever. Once in a while he says "I'm for trade" but this is the first time he elaborated. So he's for free trade and no income tax. Where's the revenue supposed to come from? Santorum's attack on Paul's pro-life record fell flat. You can attack Paul's stated positions but you his sincerity is impeccable. He really is pro-life.

Nate Silver tweets: "Can we make Elizabeth Warren vs Scott Brown be the presidential race and let these dudes and Obama run for senate?"

I think Newt had the best performance. He actually answered the questions and actually offered ideas.

The acts of other candidates, who often reiterate their pre-recorded speeches, are getting tiresome. Note how the crowd greeted Gingrich.

lol at this picture. Trying to say something about Ron Paul, Economist?

Mischaracterizations and exagerations of the President's agenda will backfire on the middle 10% of the electorate.