Doug, I'm interested in your answer. Are you a Mormon? And if so, from what do you need to be saved? I'm always honestly curious to know what Mormons believe.

Who cares about the debates? There's not a lot of evidence that winning a debate is going to first of all be noticeable, and secondly that important. Say he wins the debate, even managed to win, and then spends 4 years accomplishing nothing, so we continue to have Obamacare. We'll see a massive overturning of Republicans in the House and Senate by Democrats. Do we need to re-live this nightmare?

Oh, they same mantra as usual. Support Ron Paul or you're a leftist. If you want to sound like an intelligent person, drop these canned responses.

The rating from the ACU doesn't mean much, IMHO. It's a rating based on votes on specific legislation. However, if you look at Gingrich's inaugural speech as House Speaker, he already back-pedaled and stooped over to praise FDR. I've got the entire speech on my hard drive, so I know what I'm saying. He made, as Speaker, the decision of what legislation to bring up for vote, or when to table something. His continually brought up irrelevant issues, such as Puerto Rican statehood, and failed to push hard on the Contract with America. So, perhaps he has not many "wrong" votes, but that's not a measure of the many sins of omission. We needed a conservative leader, he won that spot, and then, plain and simple, he FAILED to lead.

Totally agree!

Bravo, Ann, you nail it once again. Newt had his chance in the 1990s. He is the single biggest reason that the GOP revolution in 1994 failed to accomplish the Contract with America. He is a wordsmith, a hot head, a loose cannon, and we don't have time in this nation to experiment with people like this. We blew the last election by nominating McCain. Must we shoot ourselves in the foot yet again? Will the GOP voters never learn?

Okay, when you resort to the potty-mouth, you've lost the argument, and demonstrated your failure to be a serious debater.

And you are an idiot.

I'm sick of hearing kooky Ron Paul described as a "Constitutionalist". He has many times made his own use of the Constitution for principles way beyond its boundaries. For example, Paul said that the Constitution requires us to have brought Bin Laden back here to stand trial in the U.S. in a civil court. Really!!!!jQuery15209024828648436133_1324408641382? Excuse me, but I thought that the Constitution protects American citizens, not foreign enemies living abroad. Paul is in love with himself, and has no scruples about playing fast and loose with the truth if it will help his campaign. I see no integrity here. National polling does show Ron Paul as unelectable in a national election against Obama.

That's not true at all. The fact that we have elected Republicans who are not conservatives is that conservatives usually are not running in the general election. Unless CONSERVATIVE Republicans are in the majority in House and Senate, assisted by a conservative President, we will not have conservative policies prevail. Conservatives have NOT been in the majority even within the GOP, so we have not yet seen what actual conservatives would do had they been put in the majority. The big confusion is that Americans don't make a verbal distinction between conservatives and Republicans. Conservatism is an ideology, or a worldview. Republican simply is the name of a political party. We would help this nation by using words with clarity.