Unfair and Unbalanced - It doesn't matter, many of us are already awake and can smell the "BALONEY" frying. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who understands that the United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. This country is supposed to be founded on the rule of law with the United States Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land. But Congress and the Executive branch have been playing footsie with each other for so long that the system of checks and balances the Founders strove to insure has been decimated. Whatever happened to the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

How about a fact check for Giuliani saying he supports the Second Amendment, when he took actions in NY to restrict gun ownership, and is on the record for saying that cities and states should make their own laws on guns?

Could a candidate say he supports the First Amendment, when he had a record of shutting down newspapers, or is on the record for saying that cities and states could eliminate freedom of the press?

ABC News is running a story on this website that claims that Mitt somebody has pulled ahead of his rivals. Yet when I check the total to this minute, RON PAUL has SIX times as many votes as Mitt Romney. It's so obvious that ABC News is trying to brainwash the American public into ignoring this FIRST TIER candidate. How can the American public ever trust any of the main stream media after this happening in all the debates so far this year? Ron Paul was voted the winner in two of the past three debates, and came in second in the third debate. This is the time to put out the truth in large headlines that RON PAUL won the on-line poll and is now America's favorite Republican presidental canidate!

Cut George Stephanopoulos some slack guys - he's only doing what his masters at the Council on Foreign Relations order him to do...

It's time to face the facts, the MSM is in cahoots with the Republican establishment - truth be damned.

"Those who tell the stories rule society."
-- Plato

Look, I agree that Ron Paul would be a good candidate if he got some face time, though I am a Mitt Romney supporter first. However, I think it's ridiculous to read all these posts insisting that "Ron Paul was voted the winner in two of the past three debates" and that he's the clear winner.

Learn some basic statistics. This is not a "scientific study", as the ABC disclaimer points out, and the key reason for this is that there is no way to gauge who is voting. If the only people voting are the large internet-population of Ron Paul supporters, then of COURSE he's going to win .. ONLINE. That doesn't mean that the same holds true for those who actually attended the debate (a wider cross-section of "voters") or all those who viewed the debate on television, but are not rushing to the internet to cast their vote.

If you support Ron Paul, and want him to get face time, start campaigning for him somewhere besides the internet-- it's clear that he's got plenty of internet support. If you want him to get ahead in this race, he'll need some real-life support which will get his name out there, and then the MSM will be forced to cover him because the "public" will demand it.

Simple logic, people. It's just like the straw polls.. just because you can get all your friends to come and vote for you, doesn't mean that you're really the top pick across a wider margin of people.

Since I don't watch TV any more, I would love to have the unexpurgated "debate" online.

What I'd really like however, is what others have alluded to: Real debate.

Unscripted, and long enough to really start defining the different Candidates personnally. I want this for all Candidates of all parties--and available online.

I want it to be mediated by a real debate coach--you know, one of those people who judge debate teams for events?
It would educate the public as to what a debate actually IS. Plus, it would be fun to watch politicians getting busted for "straw man arguments" and the like.

Remember how you were assigned to debate views opposite to your own? That was to prove that you could do research, and could actually think.

Real debate doesn't have to be boring. In fact, when the people who are debating are bright and think well on their feet, they are far less boring than what we have now. (Especially if they have a sense of humor, and the moderator is strict on the rules and has a buzzer.)

With an informed audience, it is a hoot; a lot of: "OOs", "Ahs", "Busted!", laughing and carrying on. (It's like a good tennis match.) Yes, you have to "cherry pick" the audience to eliminate those who are too stupid to appreciate the interaction of ideas, and whose main purpose is to attract attention to themselves. So? Those people are boring witless retards anyway, regardless of which extreme position they take.

It would be a wondrous thing--to return to the debate of ideas, to return to a discussion of the problems--to define them, and to actually discuss the different strategies to solve well-defined problems. Fantasy. I know that. I can dream; can't I?

Where is the full transcript of the debate? Why isn't there a prominent link to it on this web page? CNN had the decency to post a full transcript when they hosted the YouTube debate.

You call that a fact-check on Romney?

Here's the text of Brownback's ad that Romney objected to, as replayed in the debate (in response to Mark, ):

"As late as 2005, Mitt Romney pledged to support and uphold pro- abortion policies and pass taxpayer funding of abortions in Massachusetts."

From the Boston Globe article you cite as proving the accuracy of the ad:

"On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, ''Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?" Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, Rowland said."

2002, not 2005. It's really pretty simple. Candidate Romney (2002): pro-choice. Governor Romney (including 2005): pro-life, but honored his pledge to maintain the status quo (which included opposing every anti-life measure presented to him).

Brownback can call that untimely or opportunistic if he wants, but he shouldn't be allowed to lie about it, and you shouldn't be giving him false cover when he does.

Yes, Eric, my "dream," too, and one all of us should be pushing to make a reality for the sake of our democracy, and help us restore our form of government to the representative republic the Constitution was designed to function within. I think we are at that crisis point, in this 217-year-old experimental form of government, that George Mason warned his fellow framer's about, and the experiment can still fail. Not informing or mis-informing the voters, or confusing them to the point they feel utterly powerless is an effort to discourage their participation in their own government. It is a subtle and subversive form of tyranny, and as Mason fought for the inclusion of what we have come to know as the Bill of Rights (the almost simultaneous amending to a Constitution that was much contested and narrowly ratified), you must protect the people's right to be informed and guard their right to speak out against those who will always seek to impose their advantage of position and power over them. "Live Free or Die" was not just a slogan hurled at King George's men, but at those in Philadelphia as well.

The purpose of DEBATE is to "debunk" the opponent; it's a classical form, as is rhetoric, and true debate and rhetoric attempt to persuade you through reason to see a new perspective on truth. It most certainly is not just another photo op or venue for self-promotion through uncontested sophisms and carnival hawkings. Perhaps all self-respecting journalists will at least have the commercial interests that sponsor them entertain the possibility that they are facilitating and contributing to the "dumbing down" of America every time they refer to these presentations as DEBATES. Embrace the form as it was intended, making the issue the argument, not the candidate or would-be arguer. Arguments that descend into the fallaciousness of "ad hominem" have already lost their point.