The Official Fox News/Google Debate Discussion Thread

[Smash255]

Folks here seem to be missing that Perry is allowing Mitt to appear to move to the right of him, especially on immigration.

After watching tonight, Perry is done, long-term, which leaves Mitt as the only announced candidate with a chance at the nomination.  Watch.

Rick Perry is a Bush 3.0 if elected in 2012. We don't need 4 terms of Bush (16 years).  I'd like to see a Romney vs Paul debate!

Perry's performance doesn't even have the benefit of the support of the pundits this time. Romney's performance was better, which means Perry's chances of winning the nomination are rapidly going down the drain.

However, Romney just isn't a strong frontrunner, as shown by how every two-bit newcomer with media support overtakes him each month before collapsing. The only one who could enter at this point and take Perry's "flavour of the month" position would be Palin, and she doesn't seem very serious. So it looks like Paul is going to be taking that spot.

I doubt Paul will, he doesn't appeal to the evangelical crazy crowd.

[Smash255]

Folks here seem to be missing that Perry is allowing Mitt to appear to move to the right of him, especially on immigration.

After watching tonight, Perry is done, long-term, which leaves Mitt as the only announced candidate with a chance at the nomination.  Watch.

Rick Perry is a Bush 3.0 if elected in 2012. We don't need 4 terms of Bush (16 years).  I'd like to see a Romney vs Paul debate!

Perry's performance doesn't even have the benefit of the support of the pundits this time. Romney's performance was better, which means Perry's chances of winning the nomination are rapidly going down the drain.

However, Romney just isn't a strong frontrunner, as shown by how every two-bit newcomer with media support overtakes him each month before collapsing. The only one who could enter at this point and take Perry's "flavour of the month" position would be Palin, and she doesn't seem very serious. So it looks like Paul is going to be taking that spot.

I doubt Paul will, he doesn't appeal to the evangelical crazy crowd.

Romney appeals to them even less, and the rest of the field is, either in terms of support or in terms of campaign infrastructure/finance, dead in the water. Unless Perry proves himself to be the Black Knight, someone will be sliding into his current spot. If that someone isn't Palin (and even if it is Palin, I doubt she'd last that long for the same reasons as Perry), it will probably be Paul.

Of course they don't like Romney.  That is the reason they flock to the flavor of the month (as long as that flavor hates gays), but I don't see the Evangelical hate crowd going to Paul.

[Smash255]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

This is also a good response clip whenever J.J. and lesser Republicans around here comment about how Reagan was not considered Presidential material in 1979 and comparing Bachmann/Perry/whatever to them.  Reagan may or may not have been considered Presidential in 1979, but he could complete a sentence without tearing up basic grammar or dropping an attack ad soundbite in 1979.  That's more than two-thirds of the 2012 GOP field's capabilities.

The standards for "presidential material" have sunk much farther in the past 30 years.  The level of policy detail covered in these debates used to be much greater.  Here's another clip from that same Bush vs. Reagan debate, on taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g

The Reagan from that era would have destroyed any of the current 2012 Republican candidates in a debate.

In reality he would have, but in tea party la la land Reagan would have be some evil liberal pinko commie.  It really shows how insane the GOP has become when the actual Reagan (and not tea party fake Reagan) wouldn't be allowed in the party.