True, Dan. And I wonder what's next for the university; how should they best capitalize on the national exposure?

Then you know nothing about Ron Paul do you and as for the dems they took all we have allready so what are you talking about

soooo uninformed try reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Shales for a greater understanding of the economy. Try realizing that it was Repbulicans that brought us Abraham Lincoln, possibly the greatest President ever and the Rebublican party that ended segragation in the south. Try getting beyond the lamestream media once in awhile

Verna, the low income people will remain low income until they get the education and skills to raise them up the economic ladder. Handouts from the government will only serve to keep them in the Liberal voting block.

This is a response to John Hanus:
While I don't agree with "handouts", I do believe that low income people need assistance to help with the income disparities. Its very easy to say that they need education and skills, but can you explain how true low income people are to obtain said skills & education? There are always the stories of the few that are able to rise up & get the grants/scholarships, etc., but unless you have some remarkable talent or superior intellect, it is very difficult to rise up out of poverty.

And to Rick, the republican party has changed GREATLY since the days of Abraham Party. Many of the things that early republicans stood for and represented are no longer part of the Republican party.

Paul supporter response - What your asking is focusing on the finger, what you've missed has already passed. Dr Paul doesn't have to have a catch phrase or gesture to win a debate. Only when the individual understands the duality of his nature - his capacity for evil as well as for good - can he begin to understand and cope with the potential threat of those in power. Ron Paul lives righteously and through his words with conviction. It's what every human should strive for before leaving this world, making it better then when your entered it. "There's no stopping a idea which time has come" - Dr Paul 2012!

That is the worst non-answer I've ever heard.

"You can't really describe Ron Paul, because of all the intangibles!"

lol

Hi Chris. I'm a Paul supporter and I'll try to answer your question. Firstly, I'm only really interested in substantive, knowledgeable answers to questions. Someone like Herman Cain has almost nothing of a platform. He pretty much refuses to answer any question, instead swerving the point onto his 9-9-9 soundbite. Rick Perry comically forgot even the basis of his plan, and surely can't be expected to explain the intricacies of it.
Qualifying who you think won with "who actually explained their position in depth" pretty much limits the options at every debate to Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and John Hunstman.
Out of these three, I felt Paul was by far the most effective. His comparison between cell-phones (marketised, thus cheap and high quality) and student loans (nationalised, thus costly and worthless) was brilliant.
Do I think he could have improved? Definitely. The one thing that annoys me is he isn't more aggressive in exposing the other candidates. He is the only candidate who balances the budget. Why doesn't he slam Mitt Romney on his pro-debt plan which sends America even further down in the world economy? Why doesn't he slam Herman Cain on his support for the fed, and utter ignorance on foreign policy? Instead he calmly gives the best answers to questions about his plan, which only really attracts those of us willing to examine the ins and outs of every candidate's position.

Hope this explained why I personally think Paul won :) Others may have different reasons.

Your right Guy Fawkes. I don't have the patience for bullet-points and slide show's for a Ron Paul rebuttal when his message is clear. I guess you didn't pay attention in class or perhaps the original question Christofer asked may have helped you see that. I know with all those intangibles getting in the way it would have made things easier.

I think you need to look at how far the "mainstream" candidates - loaded up with their special interest PAC war chests, have veered towards Ron Paul's economic principles and analysis. This is not coincidental. They are 100% controlled by polling and focus group analysis. They have no convictions nor principles. They are chameleons, and Ron Paul is changing the environment through reason and courage, and they change because their pollsters are telling them that the PEOPLE agree with Ron Paul. That is the reason why 500 supporters greeted him at his arrival at OU, standing in the cold howling wind for over 1 hour. And, of course, he went to the Red Ox Tavern to greet visit his supported. There were no big donors with fat check books and agendas, only the hoi polloi who appreciate honesty. Not one dime changed hands there; only ideas. It is not in this man's character to look you in the eye and lie to you. Meanwhile, corporations are formed on Monday, donated $1 Million to Mitt Romney on Weds, and dissolve on Friday. There is no shame. I want to vote for a man I can respect and can be proud of, not a hyped up political prostitute that does the bidding of Big Finance, Big Insurance, and Big Government. I VOTE FOR RON PAUL because although I disagree with his on some issues, I can trust him to tell me the truth as he sees it.

To Dr. Paul's supporters — Thanks for sharing your views on him … But I do have to ask — while he's doing well in this poll, why has Dr. Paul not been able to gather enough support to win a primary or caucus and/or lead in a poll (He's won a straw poll before, hasn't he)? … Also, you mention his "different" way of looking at things … can you speak about specifics? … Take for instance, he said he was in favor of eliminating the student loan program last night on the basis that program isn't something the government should be involved in … That's certainly a radical idea and to be fair he suggested tax cuts could help provide students enough resources to attend college, but I'm sure many of those who receive the loans and grants think that's not a good idea (They also might not have many taxes to be cut to begin with so his alternative might be helpful) … Can you explain how these specific ideas are better than the status quo?

"Take for instance, .. eliminating the student loan program last night on the basis that program isn't something the government should be involved in … That's certainly a radical idea"

Actually, what he said is the enormous debt students are graduating with is proof the student loan program is a a failure, and that's why the government should get out of it.

What he pointed out was that in every area of the economy the government involves itself in it inflates prices. He pointed out healthcare, housing, student loans, and a couple others.

Chris, I'm fairly confident that everyone that gets money from the government, whether its Goldman Sachs, someone buying a home they can't afford to maintain, or getting a student loan, would be reluctant to lose those benefits. But in the meantime, the price goes up for everyone else and now the nation's youth are servicing $1 trillion in debt, college costs have outpaced the rate of inflation, and fewer graduates will be able to afford college.

You don't think what's already happening is radical? Dr. Paul's advice is rational, not radical, by comparison.

I'm liking Ron Paul more and more every election.

"I'm liking Ron Paul more and more every election."

Actually, Ron Paul's electability is increasing because other politicians' are decreasing.

Their mistake was making the ridiculous assumption that not one of them could beat Barack Obama. So their serious contenders all took a pass and decided to sit it out. I would consider moving to Canada if any of them ever became president, but lets be honest the country has already shown its comulsive, stupid streak.

GW Bush's kid brother, Chris Krispy Kreme, Mike Huckleberry Hound ... these are all republic candidates that would have had every opportunity to make their case and run.

When they decided to sit it out, they immediately create a black hole in a campaign year that nothing else could escape ... not even stupidity. So what you had was a vaccum that was instantly filled with every nutcase, kook, passer by that wanted to stick their book sale poster up or get their name in the paper for a few months.

Now the republic party has guaranteed for themselves that none of them can win against BO. And the media acts like it's some kind of bizarre anomaly that there are so many rightist, fringe nutcases running on the republic ticket. And really, it's no phenomenon. It's just what happens when there's an open seat and a serious candidate doesn't claim it. You snooze? We all lose.

i noticed my errors but hit send to quickly. I was embarrassed sorry about that

try on conservatism instead of rebub or dem. It has changed my life I was always leading MY life that way, I just started preaching it and pointing out the obvious flaws in leftist logic. Most of us live conservatively, just need the govt to do so

We've seen sooooo much improvment in the last 3 years. The unemployment rate has dropped... a half a percent. Woot!

lol Conservatism has "changed your life"?!

Anyone who "preaches" a political ideology is an example of what is wrong with our political system when it is mismanaged by republics.

Politics isn't a religion you preach. It's a process by which you create policy. Policies created with a religious system are policies created by an evil Church State.

Dogma has no place in politics. Like Ron Paul's house full of puppies, it should be burned to a cinder.

GF: It wasn't Ron Paul and there is no actual burning house of puppies, you realize. Just an irreverent SNL sketch.

You thought correctly...the GOP is the party of racism, homophobia, sexism and xenophobia.

I can point to example after example after example after example example after example after example after example example after example after example after example example after example after example after example example after example after example after example if you'd like.

I do think that Rep. Paul's wins in the straw polls work as evidence of his campaign's organization & skill at winning such polls, but it is disappointing that his national public polling figures (when those being polled are picked at random) do not correlate to those victories.

I disagree with Rep. Paul on many economic issues, but I do respect his consistency and even agree with him on many civil liberty and some foreign policy issues. I do not want him to become President Ron Paul, as I support President Obama, but I would like to see Rep. Paul have a bigger influence on the Republican party.

I also think the Republicans would be wise to pay more attention to Gov. Roemer, as his campaign's message should resonate with the public, rather than the powerful. I think the Tea Party Republicans' persistent efforts to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the county is an unsustainable position.

There's also Rep. Paul's ACTUAL response regarding FEMA and hurricane relief...that the federal government's role should be like it was for the great Galveston hurricane of 1900. What did they do then, you ask? They delivered gasoline to burn the estimated 8,000(!) bodies in vast funeral pyres, and free whiskey to get the survivors drunk enough to endure the stench and temporarily blot out the calamity that cost them their homes, businesses and family members. Nice.

"Reading my neighbors ..."

Tamara, if you makes you feel any better, not all the posters here are your "close" neighbors. This article was posted on multiple Patches, including Rochester Hills and Ferndale. So depending on your definition of neighbor you might feel better.

I suspect there have always been rude, argumentative, vulgar, and ignorant people in society. The web has given them an audience larger than they've ever had.

Unfortunately, the Patch doesn't moderate discussions, but may remove posts when flagged as inappropriate.

I feel the way you do about Newt. He's the one who seems to know how to handle the media the best. Newt is a smart, seasoned debater. In terms of thinking on his feet, he has no equal in the race, including our much-vaunted president.

Newt is hitting his stride.

I liked Cain's flat tax, but then I read his book. Not much depth. I read Romney's book, and agreed with much of the contents. But at times his public statements and actions appear to be hedging, rather than demonstrating strong commitment to the principals outlined in the book. There was something I didn't like about Perry, but can't remember what it is right now! :-)

Newt, on the other hand, has written tons of stuff, which is not only inspiring, but seems to be largely in sync with his words and his actions.

What he needs is more public support, in order to dispel this "he can't get the nomination" myth.

@Mike

Not sure Newt's words - scolding Clinton for Monica Lewinsky and talking family values - are consistent with being a serial adulterer.

No, @T... that's "the baggage". Which saint are you supporting?

Sure. Send us Newt. Please.

lol

@Mike: So NOW moral character and integrity are not so important, eh? When it's been a Democrat who's been naughty - they're attacked as the Second Coming of Lucifer. Turn the tables, and all of a sudden it's no big deal. T.Scott was pointing out the most glaring issue... unmitigated hypocrisy. I don't think we should spend much time on the foibles of these politicians - they're human like the rest of us (believe it or not!). We should be concentrating on skill, experience and honesty. But, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the blatant hypocrisy, especially of the right-wing, is ludicrous.

Newt: "I'm very open about the fact that I've had moments in my life that I regret. I've indicated that I had to go to God to ask forgiveness and seek reconciliation. Anybody who looks at me as a 68-year-old grandfather and says, "All right, has he grown wiser, has he learned from his experiences, is he somebody that I would trust to lead the American people?" -- they've got to come to their own judgment about that."

Clinton: "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false."

Frank, will you elaborate on, ".. the vast majority of [Ron Paul's] positions are really sophomoric?"

If dumb down means a smaller government to promote a bigger citizen, then yes count me in for dumbing down America. Why all the rhetoric always from the left. Yes Huntsman has good ideas but he is not the only good person up there. Current POTUS is as far left as you can get on many key issues and that is ok with me because he was elected, my goal as a far right dumbing don American is to bring things back to where this country is RIGHT CENTER.

You have a decade of republic party policies resulting in the America you have today. Bigger Citizen? lol

How's that workin' for ya?

Ba-a-a-a-a.

@GF - a hell of alot better then the current communist rule :)

lol Communist.

Sean Hannity called. He wants your brain back.

I am appalled at the stupidity and/or the arrogance of most of the prominent Republicans, including most of the presidential candidates. Do they think we Americans are unable to see through their lies, corruption and undisciplined messages which they present in the form of talking points and platitudes? John Huntsman is the kind of politician who could bring respect back to the Republican party, but he does not appeal, for some reason, to the majority of Republicans today. Romney has flip-flopped one too many times to be viable in the general election.

@John: You're talking W, right? Sure fits the description...

I agree with you that the media in general don't take woman politicians seriously. I think Michelle B. had months of media exposure when she was leading the Tea Party. In my opinion she went a bit extreme too early and stumbled a few too many times with her lack of knowledge of the facts. American history is really one of her weak areas. As far as her Christian views, I think pushing one's religion while running for president of the U.S. is a big mistake whatever the religion and whether a man or a woman. As far as Jon Huntsman goes, could it be that he served as ambassador to China under Obama that Republicans don't like him or maybe the media think he is just another Romney and not outlandish enough like some of the others on the stage?

The number of people who have abandoned the republic party has left it bereft with throngs of illogical, uneducated teabagging, gun toting nuts: Just the kinds of people that would identify with morons like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin who can look into a camera, say absolutely nothing of interest, consequence or relevance and think they should be taken seriously.

That's why no one is paying attention to Jon Hunstman. The republic party is dead. Its a cariacture of its former self. Serious people began fleeing the party and pretending to be "independants" when GW Bush made it obvious to the world what the party and its policies was about. So all that's left are the most die hard nut cases that can look at 2008, and the devastation that their party has reaped on us, and can still convince themselves those policies are not to blame for where we are now.

Just ask around. If the person blames Obama, an inept and incapable president, for the condition our country is in now, he or she is such an idiot. Any fool can see that Obama, while a completely useless politician, had nothing to do with the Great Recession of 2008, the effects of which will be with us for decades. Those are repubican policies. And frankly, everything that's making it through congress even now are republican policies. There hasn't been an actual Progressive policy passed since 6 months into his presidency.

The people fawning after the leaders in the republic party race ... are just idiots.

Democrats are brilliant? Giving Obama a pass?

If calling him an inept and incapable president is "giving him a pass" then I suggest you have an ulterior motive, that is to try and pin something on him that he did not cause. The only thing he can be blamed for is not fixing what republic party policies have done to us.

As far as currently elected Democrats, I have no intention on voting for a single one of them. I vote for policies. Not the people who promise and then fail to enact them. Currently every policy passed, including the Health Care package is a republic party design. They begin as a progressive approach to controlling costs, government, and corporate greed and an attempt to protect the middle class ... and they end up GOP junk governance that digs us deeper and deeper into the garbage pile of Oligarchy (which republic party policies are designed to do). It's through Obama's backing down to Wall Street lobbyists and GOP house members he seems obsessed with having as his Facebook friend. In that sense I can cast blame. But as to how we got to where we were when the whole world went "OMG WTF" in 2008 ... that began at Reagan, and it ended at GW Bush. Electing more of them will do nothing but make it worse.

They set the house on fire. And you want to blame the person who spilled the only bucket of water for the arson. Ok. Your right.

Have you noticed you opened two comments without offering a single solution the whole time your pie hole was opened?

But I don't care, you're not running for anything. So it doesn't matter to me. It's a COMMENTS section. Not a SUGGESTION BOX.

You put the name "Guy Fawkes" to shame. Who uses the term "pie hole" in an intelligent debate?
And don't try to explain your non-poetic use of English with the excuse that "this is not an intelligent debate."