The debate today I notice has a long delay of asking Ron Paul anything at all. We find the coverage of this debate to be very biased without giving equal time to all the candidates. I am sorry you feel that Dr. Paul doesn't have the chance to fit your bill of credibility. AND STOP CUTTING DR. PAUL OFF BEFORE HE FINISHES HIS TALKING. HE IS THE ONLY ONE YOU HAVE DONE THAT TO CONSISTANTLY.

Rudy is as pro-choice as it gets

As always, the candidates did a very good job in displaying their direction and consultation. However, typical liberal media hosts cause the Republican candidates to have to answer from a slanted position majority of the time. When they make liberal remarks, there should be no recourse from the hosts whatsoever. This is a true sign that the hosts are liberal. Good job to all and it is a run between Thompson, Rudy, and Romney.

As a registered democrat I find it releiving to hear 8 presidential candidates who realize the challanges we as citizens and as a nation are facing. Sorry Ron Paul.

As a registered independent, and someone who knows the truth of the corrupt control infested at the highest levels of both major "parties", and the truth that almost all candidates are willingly beholden to those financial interests who exert said control, I am thankful and proud to know that there is one candidate who supports the truth, and who won't deflect/obfuscate with lies and BS about the fake "global war on terror" and what is REALLY going on in Iraq. Sorry to all the other candidates up there, including Fred Thompson who is not. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to the honorable Ron Paul, a true Statesman and hero, and one of the last true defenders of Constitutional principles of Liberty and Justice.

I am sure everybody appreciates how the 9 candidates recieved 'equal time' and were allowed to respond to each question. I suddenly remember why I do not believe what the media says or does. Ron Paul could galvanize this country, if he was allowed to participate that is...

As a Democrat, I'm not surprised at the blatant inaccuracies spouted by nearly ALL of the candidates-whith the one exception being Ron Paul. Fortunately Americans are smart enough to see through the usual "framing" tactics employed by the other candidates.

I like what Mike Huckabee stated in his debate on how to handle the Iraq fiasco concerning their government - we need to focus on rebuilding the United States - we need to focus on making the United States the government that everyone envies. The United States was formed to be independent of the English government. We cannot expect other countries, like Iraq, that are in turmoil to follow our leadership when our own country and government turns its back on its own people. We have a huge percentage of people out of jobs, needing healthcare that is affordable, not state insurance. We also have a huge percentage of our children who are illiterate - they are no longer taught what to expect in life, how to hold a job, what it means to be a free nation; they are instead taught how to pass a test that only benefits the schools not the children.

Ron Paul's comment about now trading with Vietnam because we left in 1975 totally misses the point. The Jihadists and other militant Islamists are against Western Civilization and modernity, not just Capitalism. If we left Iraq without finishing the job, it would just confirm Osama bin Laden's theory that we are a paper tiger and harden their resolve to resurrect and expand their caliphate. And you can bet that any trading with a Jihadist Iraq would not start anytime soon.

So we know Ron Paul's view on the war. That's it. Thank you, ABC, for giving ALL candidates equal time. *insert sarcasm* Healthcare? Taxes? Infrastructure repair? Possibility of nuclear war? Not one single time did Dr. Paul get the opportunity to respond to any of the above while other candidates got to put themselves on the pedestal. I'm infuriated at the lack of UNBIASED coverage. Don't like what Dr. Paul says? Fine. Not up to the media to decide for us. Let him talk and let it be fair. Let the PEOPLE decide if they want to dismiss him. Not the media. I can't believe the disrespect given to this honorable man who has served TEN terms as a legislator as well as 5 years in our armed services. Shame on you.

What does "jihadist" Iraq mean? We wouldn't trade with them? wtf? Can anyone think of any radical and/or militant states that we trade with, 'cause I can only think of about 30...

Oil doesn't do you much good, whether you're a democratic govt or a "jihadist" one, unless you can *sell it to someone.

Why didn't you let the only Dr. on the stage weigh in on the question about health care?

This is the second time this has happened in a debate. (The other was in SC on a different network.) Also, I see that Ron Paul is winning the online debate here, as well (despite the fact that the poll was reset part way through.

Proving yet again, that Dr. Paul is #1 with people who get to hear his message.

Paul was WRONG on the war he seems out of touch with the war at hand.Thompson made a great point- Ihope the democrats really heard when he talked of sending our soldiers in with one arm tied behind their backs HOW TRUE, I iked a lot of what Romney says but -he's just too smooth, is he honest? I want to hear more from Hunter, Huckabee and Tomacero-Idon't have their names spelled correct but I hope to know them better-I like what they say about the war -our soldiers -and our southern boarder.I hope to get a better understanding of the tax solutions they discussed too.Too bad the media distorts most the info -it is confusing enough with out their bias representaion.

hi Patricia, you're a bit off base in what you say about Paul. the factual record shows that he has blamed the american government's foreign policy, which (a) 70-80% of americans also are at odds with the same foreign policy (therefore, he is actually in step with the war situation and the people here, i think you're a bit out of step - which is fine - you are an American and absolutely entitled to your views and opinions, and I respect that as your Constitutional right, but please don't confuse that by skewing facts ), and (b) Paul's statements on the war has been backed up as factually accurate by one Michael Scheuer, the senior intelligence analyst (22 year career) who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996. Paul's statements are also derived from a factual historical record of what is known as "blowback". Read Kinzer's book "All the Shah's Men" as just one example of this.

noooo one was asked about the outrageous prices we pay for fuel which are higher than they should be because of the political and religious problems of the Middle East. Nobody except Huckabee, who did say we were too dependent on the region for our petroleum needs. Next time the political candidates of either party meets to debate, the issue of our dependence on oil imports from the Persian/Arabian Gulf Countries who are all members of the price-fixing Oil Cartel called OPEC. OPEC was formed in the 1970's and the US Gov't has done nothing to end their price-fixing activities.

Impression of ABC's Republican "Debate/Presidential Auditions" Sunday: "..and cut, print, let's go to commercial!" Conclusion: "Blah, more blah, bland blah, blah!"

Debate? What debate? You mean the nationally televised, commercially interrupted [though it all felt like one very long commercial], scripted Q & A Session I just watched? It was if ABC had put out a "casting call" and these actors showed up, and asked poor George S. to make the best of it he could.

Note to Romney (definitely a Spielbergesque shoo-in for a small wooden Indian Presidential role): Handed the same inherited choices, I'd sooner trust a Willard than a Mitt, even if my mother's name was Catchers, and since you're first concern is image, maybe you should change that, too.

Are there nine Republicans because there are nine Democrats? Good strategy, if anyone says a sound bite worth remembering, you can't remember which one said it, and if it polls well, can take credit for it without any ripples of conscience.

My head shaking thought is--here we go AGAIN down this same old tired totally unreasoned path to still more wars being fought for all the wrong reasons and more bridges between us collapsing in the middle. I don't know anymore now about these candidates/roleplaying-hopefuls than I did several hours ago. And if we just keep on truckin' to keep on truckin', I'm not likely to know anymore come election day. Maybe that's the way THEY want it, but I sure don't.

Why can't we get these guys to really debate each with the other, two at a time, one on one, with up to 5 minutes (no interruptions)of continuous answer time on national TV? Even if it's run at two in the morning, it's got to be more important than Texas Hold 'Em. Don't tell me none of them has enough to say to fill up five minutes, even if they persist in giving the same answer to all the different questions as they do now, that much for us is at least learning something we need to know.

I don't want to learn they have a speech impediment or a thinking impediment AFTER they are elected as was the case with Bush.

And ABC, I know there are rules written somewhere about what you present being fair to all the candidates, OK, necessary, but nine at once? And what about being fair to us out here? If the objective is to serve the viewer with a better understanding of where the candidates are on the issues that concern us, and how each one's individual thinking process, along the documented facts they considered, has brought them to their individual conclusions, no one's done that yet. I know the messes we're in, and we are in for more, I want to know how the next President is going to respond, what and who will be considered to resolve these yet unseen dilemmas, what is the advocated planning process? Prayer in some form is universal, I don't expect my President just to hope and pray for the answers. God may move in mysterious ways, but I need to know how the person I'm voting for gets from Point A to Point B.

I cannot wait until the "mainstream media" is something children learn about in history books. Specifically, how they help define and limit the debates to keep corporate interests above the peoples interest.

Thanks God for the internet - slicing right through that power structure.

Go Ron Paul!!!!

A vote for a Pro-War candidate in the primaries is a vote FOR Hillary. Hillary is own her knees BEGGING you to nominate a Pro-War Candidate. Once one is picked out, she can start measuring for drapes at the Whitehouse! I NEVER thought I'd see the day that Republicans put Hillary in power, but it's drawing closer!

GEORGE:

GREAT DEBATE AMONGST ALL RHE CANDIDATES! BUT WAIT, 90 MINUTES OF PROGAMMING AND ONLY 11 MINUTES COMMERCIAL BREAKS, WHAT, SOMETHING WRONG AT ABC ?
DEBATE: 10:00 TO 10:55 CST.
COMMERCIAL 10:55 TO 11:OO CST.
DEBATE : 11:00 TO 11:24 CST.
COMMERCIAL 11:24 TO 11:30 CST.

ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE TELEVISION !
SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN SEEN FOR A LONG, LONG TIME !

GEORGE, HAVE YOU AND YOUR BIG SHOT CRONIES FINALLY COME TO YOUR SENSES,AND REALIZED THAT ALL THESE 9 AND 10 MINUTE SEGMENTS ARE JUST ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
YOU CAN NEVER FINISH A TRAIN OF THOUGHT WITH YOUR GUESTS.

YES, OF COURSE THE BILLS NEED TO BE PAID AND YOU GUYS NEED TO HAVE YOUR COMMERCIALS, MAYBE RENAMED " HUGE PROFIT BREAKS "

IN YOUR NORMAL SUNDAY THIS WEEK PROGRAM YOU HAVE THESE CONSTANT AGGRAVATING, ANNOYING PROFIT BREAKS,WHERE YOU ONLY HAVE 44 MINUTES OF ACTUAL PROGAMMING AT THE MOST, IF ANY.

BY THE THE WAY, YOUR USUAL HYPE OF THIS WEEK'S VOICES SEGMENT, CAN BE A LITTLE LONGER THAN JUST 30 SECONDS TO MAKE IT MORE INTERESTING. MAYBE IN THE FUTURE YOU CAN MAKE IT AT LEAST 2 MINUTES IF YOU AND THE POWERS TO BE CAN SPARE THAT.

MAYBE WITH THIS INTERESTING EXPERIMENT TODAY YOU CAN SUGGEST TO THE POWERS TO BE IN THEIR IVORY CASTLE IN THE BIG APPLE TO KEEP ALL YOUR SO-CALLED PROFIT BREAKS AT THE END OF YOUR THIS WEEK PROGRAM RIGHT AFTER THE FUNNIES.

I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR MANY TV WATCHERS OUT THERE IN TV LAND WHO WILL AGREE WITH ME ON THIS ANNOYING SUBJECT.

THIS IS JUST MY OBSERVATION TODAY WITH A WELL ORGANIZED AND INFORMATIVE DEBATE BY ALL THE CANDIDATES AND YOU AS THE USUAL INTERRUPTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SENTENCES MODERATOR.

YOU HAVE A KNACK GEORGE, JUST TO INTERRUPT A CANDIDATE AT THE MOST CRUCIAL AND INTERESTING PART OF HIS RESPONSE AND NOT TO LET THEM FINISH, AND THEN GO ON TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE ALTOGETHER.

SHAME ON YOU GEORGE, IF YOU DO NOT CORRECT THIS ANNOYING TACTIC, BUT..... THAT MUST BE A TELEVISION TACTIC, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE INTERVIEWING TV BUSINESS DOES IT ALSO, IN ADDITION TO CUTTING PEOPLE OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSTING CONVERSATION LIKE YOUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE ELIZABETH "QUICKLY NOW" VARGAS.

I'VE WATCHED YOUR PROGRAM NOW PRETTY MUCH EACH WEEK, EVER SINCE YOU TOOK OVER FROM COKIE AND SAM, THAT IS TO SAY IF I AM HOME, AND I AM CONSTANTLY AMAZED !

AND I WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP WATCHING, BUT PLEASE INSTITUTE SOME CHANGES ! WHICH WILL BE WELL RECEIVED BY ALL AND THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC I THINK.

HAVE A PROFITABLE WEEK.

Why doesn't ABC News post the complete debate video on-line? Instead, we get your editor's favorite half-dozen snippets.
You're supposed to *inform*, not edit and parse political news.