NORTH CHARLESTON — The night belonged to hard-hitting Newt Gingrich and underdog Rick Santorum during the last debate before the South Carolina primary, according to audience members leaving the event Thursday evening.
While all four candidates faired well, many debate-goers said Gingrich and Santorum stole the show
And then there was Ron Paul who surprised a few people like Tricia Boccabello of Charleston.
"I think Ron Paul did better than I expected him to," Boccabello said. "He actually came across as being pretty cogent."
Debbie Jones of Isle of Palms, a former supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's bid for president, also seemed swayed by Paul's debate performance.
"I'm surprised that I liked some of the things Dr. Ron Paul said," Jones said. "He seemed that he would take the country in the opposite direction."
She added that the other candidates seemed "middle of the road." She said she's currently undecided, but her vote will go to either Paul or Santorum.
Jones decided against Gingrich due to a compilation video on Youtube. In the video, Jones said the former Speaker praised Franklin D. Roosevelt. And, she decided against Romney because he's "too slick and not conservative enough."
Santorum's performance was strong enough to woo a few voters in the audience.
"Santorum … he really did improve in this one," said Chase Limehouse of Charleston, son of state Rep. Chip Limehouse. "I could see that he was a stronger speaker. In this one, he really stepped it up."
Two people in the anybody-but-Mitt camp were Mike and Abby Russo of Charleston, both undecided voters.
"I think he did pretty well, but I don't care to vote for him," Mike Russo said. "I was happy with all of them. I think better of all of them after hearing them tonight. I don't necessarily think there was a winner."
Russo said Gingrich had the highlight of the night.
"I like the way Gingrich put (CNN moderator John) King down. The beginning of the debate was just the first example," Russo said.
Danny Hyler of Florence liked how Gingrich handled the recent negative press.
"Newt came out, and he stated some positions and he clarified some positions that had been muddled in the news," Hyler said. "He talks about his experience, and that's what makes me more comfortable giving him my vote."
Ricky W Kracker a.k.a. Diggy Swagga
11:25 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
Ron Paul crushed. It was undeniable. He was courageous as always and exposed the hypocrisies and ignorance of the other three, but it was Santorum he really nailed to the wall. On Right to Work, on abortion, on everything. Paul is a brilliant debater and a master politician: he is smart to knock Santorum out of the running in South Carolina where Gingrich has the advantage. He's taking it to a 3-man race quickly. Then it will be two.
Ken Gagne
5:53 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
who cares about abortion -i dont one way or the other -also what does your sex life have to do with national defense ?------and most woman give head --so vote for a woman for president ---lol
sobisahn
11:33 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
The only reason why Santorum and Gingrich "stole the show" was because they were bickering and not saying a whole lot. They spent more time talking about the horrible job that Obama was doing instead of talking about issues.Romney tried to use catch phrases to woo the audience but that didn't work either.
Wayne Fazio
11:11 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Ron Paul was substantive. He knows what needs to be done. Gingrich postured, Romney talked in platitudes, similar to Obama, and Rick Santorum seemed desperate also I get the impression that he wants government to tell me how to live.
Tonto
11:39 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
Anyone but Oblamer :)
JasonfromChicago
11:52 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
Check this video, and this article, and you will not want to vote for Santorum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&feature=youtu.be
http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/
Ron Paul is the ONLY man up there who takes our problems seriously.
And the ONLY man up there who takes our freedom as citizens seriously.
Ron Paul for President - 2012!
Jonathan
12:22 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
That title is misleading IMO.
George Grace
1:15 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
SC conservatives and evangelicals - you've got a problem.
It's called serial hypocrisy.
I watched the debate tonight. You cheered and cgave standing ovations to Gingrich, a serial adulterer, financial "vulture" who took consulting money from healthcare companies and Freddy Mac.
I know y'all realize he's a phoney that will say anything to win primaries, even when he doesn't believe a word of it.
And the evangelicals, shame on you. You tout "reconciliation" when you really mean "I don't want Obama in the White House any longer. You will ignore and rationalize anything to get rid of Obama.
It reeked of hypocrisy.
And can you picture Clarista Gingrich as first Lady of the US. The "stone" lady, who was the third mistress to the second wife.
Shame on you evangelicals..
stanley seigler
10:43 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
@George Grace: "...Clarista Gingrich [CG] as first Lady of the US. The "stone" lady, who was the third mistress to the second wife."
COMMENT
CG should get the "swinger" vote for newt...she believes in open marriage according to newts's 2nd wife, NEWT SAID: ."clarista doesn't care what i do"
but guess if many say "anybody but bo"...anybody but a beautiful, wonderful mother, compassion, black lady in the white house also is reason to vote for newt.
BTW as mentioned i grew up in my beloved South (SC) and i know racism when i see it...
an example of racism taught me as a child: i was chastised for calling a black female a lady...was told to call them women, not ladies...
we have come a long way..."but miles to go before we rest".
George Grace
1:19 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
SC evangelicals.
Why not be honest and admit you don't want a black man or Mormon in the White House?
SvSC
9:09 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
So you're not voting for Ron Paul, huh? Why not be honest and admit you don't want a doctor in the White House. Sound pretty ignorant? Yeah, thought so....
Quit playing the race card, George! What your post is saying is that YOU are voting for race, not for issues. Last time i checked Obama was black when he won the election! Sounds like you'll do anything to keep a black man in office, regardless of the proven disparity between what he SAID and what he DID.
Look, i voted Obama, i campaigned for Obama, i defended him and his decisions for 3 years, and i'm (gasp!) white. What i campaigned for is not what i received. Fact check him. Change? No he didn't. Guantanamo? Still there. Keystone Pipeline? Just extended till AFTER the election. Why? Because environmentalist groups threatened to pull out their votes if he passed the law. That's 20,000 immediate jobs. He says he vetoed the bill because they haven't had enough time to digest the info. They have been digesting since the bill was introduced in 2008. How long does it take? It only had one piece of paper left to pass. Does this sound like change in Washington?!? This guy could be an old white lady with a fresh apple pie at my doorstep and i'd have to tell her to get-to-steppin. Don't play the race card, George, you just expose your ignorance - and im so sick of that defense!
nwk
5:38 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
hey george! can we focus on substantial stuff and not play intolerance cards. Lets talk about RP staying in the race and giving us all something 2chew on. If he is still a viable option, why do our moderators ignore him a bit? Doesn't anyone like what he says bout our military waste? we do seem 2waste a lot of $s setting up command posts in other countries and allowing other countries 2have a pass on defending themselves. we pay 4their defense....should we?
George Grace
3:28 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
SC evangelicals playing the race card is "substantial." Only a pure hypocrite would cite "reconciliation" to support Newt Gingrich's serial adultery - it's a sham. Obama's has to function in a political world and SvSC criticisms are valid. But I think if Obama gets 4 more years with a Demo Congress he'll come through on all the promises.
Remember the Health Care bill all the Repub's criticise.
There was a story on last night's news. A family in Columbia has a 3 year old boy with cancer. $500,000 in medical bills so far. If they had affordable health insurance, and Obama's bill prohibits an insurance company from turning down an existing pre-condition, and if the bill went into effect right away on passage instead of waiting for three years, that family would have had health insurance.
As it is they are auctioning off his drawings for $. That could happen to any one of us.
Maybe in Obama's second term we will get single payer health insurance, Medicare for all, voluntarily, to compete with the health insurance companies.
Al Sesona
7:10 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
No matter if Dr. Ron Paul scores himself into 1st Place during the S.C. debate contest, his appearances at Iowa and NH has brought his message to the fore, loud, clear and never once wavering in comparison to the other imposters claiming to have YOU-S-A interests at heart, recitng the same old sane old garbage. Past Presidents and most all holders of Congressional Office should habg theri heads in shame for allowing this once great nation to succumb to hidden money and power having crippled all that was once pure and glorious. It is heartening to see Ron Paul gaining more and more traction with "thinking" voters, especially the younger crowd who are bright enough to comprehend the Ron Paul logic, magnetize to it, wanting much to begin and become a vital part of a new beginning.
xxixpines
8:28 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Ron Paul won the debate in spite of attempts to pass him by. If you noticed the other candidates pretty much left him alone and when they did not. Ron Paul ate them for breakfast.
Ron Paul and Willard Romney are the only two candidates on all of the ballots.
It really a two man Race and Willard is hurting.
"A skunk is killed by the plubicity it brings to itself"
Abraham Lincoln
conservativetradition
8:52 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Ron Paul is dangerous, he supports a nuclear Iran, a country who has made clear on multiple occasions that it will and wishes to sell technology to countries in Africa that supporl Al Qaeda such as Somalia. If this were to be the case and a bomb were to go off in, god forbid, New York or anywhere on American soil it would be disastrous. Death tolls would be in the millions. Is this the type of President you really want?
SvSC
9:20 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
i'm sure he supports Al Qaeda and bombing America, too. Seems like a logical assumption to tie together. I think he hates America! Beware, people, beware!!! Ron Paul will allow us all to die! You and George should go get a cup of coffee together. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.....
since we can just write off someone for one assumption, how about this:
Ron Paul - since you so eloquently and accurately handled that one, i'll move right along to the others....
Mitt Romney - isn't he mormon? don't they have a lot of wives? i don't want my kids seeing him running around with all those women. soon, all of america will have multiple wives - births will be in the millions. is this the type of President you really want?
Newt Gingrich - didn't he cheat on his wife? man, if we vote him in, that's saying cheating is ok. everyone will do it. people will get depressed and suicides will be in the millions. is this the type of President you really want?
Rick Santorum - didn't he openly admit that he's a direct descendant of an immigrant? he's totally soft on the issue! if we vote for him, immigrants will take over america - lost jobs will be in the millions! is this the type of President you really want?
How ignorant have we become as a nation? You don't have to look much further than a local community blog to find out....
Joe Smith
10:50 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
@ conservativetradition....yes be scared, be really scared. aren't you tired of all the scare tactics yet? if we don't fight them there, they'll attack us here! war=freedom! this is all propaganda man! learn to think for yourself! while we do live in a dangerous world we only make it more so by constantly poking our noses into places we don't need to be. plus we can't afford it. if you really listen to ron paul (check out youtube videos online), you'll understand he's been right all along. bin laden was our friend and ally in the 1980's, supported by the US. then bin laden got mad because of our policy in the middle east and he turned evil. ron pauls point is that if we had not engaged that part of the world (militarily speaking) then all of this would have never happened. so keep drinking the neocon, military industrial complex koolaid and they'll keep sending your friends and relatives to off to fight foreign wars. funny how the biggest (chicken) hawks are the three who never served; the one who served is the only voice of sanity. ron paul thinks we should have the best defense in the world, but not spread thin in 130 countries.
Al Sesona
11:29 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Hi there 'conservativetradition"... Yes, I agree that Ron Paul is dangerous but not in the way you profess. #1 - As was the phony case of "weapons of mass destruction" claimed about Iraq, there is no solid evidence that Iran intends to create a nuclear bomb. #2 - Were Main Stream PRESS fair and honest, Ron Paul would not be all but blacked-out and restricted to embarassing omission. #3 - Main Stream PRESS has proven time and time again of its biase. #4 - The fact is this. There are untold amounts of nuclear warheads stretching from India to Iran with far more "existing" destructive power that is given little or no exposure and serious talk about dis-arming and making New York and America a much safer place. Lastly, hypothetical lopsided ramblings, your best shot, speaks volumes of itself.
LiveFree1776
4:00 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
I am a middle aged Republican who believes in a strong national defense. I come from a military family (my ancestors fought in the revolutionary war.) I was in New York on 9/11 and worked to aid first responders. I supported the effort to capture/kill Bin Laden/Al Qaeda.
That being said, I have come to realize that our foreign policy is DEEPLY flawed for many reasons. I implore you to do some research and see what a few experts who agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy have to say, specifically:
Michael Scheuer - Former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit
Christopher Preble - Vice President defense & foreign policy studies - CATO Institute
Harvey Sapolsky - Director of department of Political Science MIT
Col. Douglas Macgregor - Foreign policy consultant, Squadron Operations Officer
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson - Former Chief of Staff
Lt. Col Michael Shaffer - CIA Intelligence officer
General Anthony Zinni - former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command
Tamir Pardo - Chief of Mossad - Israeli Intelligence Agency
Bruce Fein - Assistant Deputy Attorney General for President Reagan
Chalmers Johnson - Central Intelligence Agency, 1967-1973
Ray McGovern - 27-Year Central Intelligence Agency Analyst
Robert Pape - Suicide Terrorism Expert, Author "Dying to Win"
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson (Inaugural Address,1801)
Roggie
9:16 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
@conservativetradition: why do you purposely mis-state Ron Paul's position on Iran? It is so typical neo-con. RP doesn't want an Iran with nukes any more than anyone else. However, maybe if the US and Israel weren't always threatening to bomb them they wouldn't feel so compelled to build a nuclear weapon for defense.
It's like you getting pounded on constantly by a bully and decide to take lessons in martial arts to defend yourself. Then the bully waits ouside the studio and beats you up, never letting you get the training needed to defend yourself.
Pat Testa
9:22 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Ron Paul does NOT support a nuclear Iran, that is a media twist. Ron Paul only supports war with a declaration of war, and he would leave the decision as to whether to respond to the threat of Iran with war to the Congress as mandated by the Constitution. Currently, Paul is not stepping forward pushing for war because Secretary of State Panetta has said there is no evidence they are building or planning to build a bomb, and we need to wait on more information before overreacting like we did with Iraq, when there actually were no nukes. It is the only sane foreign policy when he can hardly take care of our business at home. Our debt is 100% of GDP and wars are costly, so we must be cautious and only take military action if it is absolutely necessary and declared by the Congress.
Believe it or not, Ron Paul is not an isolationist, but the opposite. His military budget starts at 2006 levels and grows from there, still well about the historical average and second to none in the world. He believes we must have more resources here to DEFEND ourselves, as opposed to, as Sen. DeMint put it, spreading ourselves too thin around the world. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense in the American tradition, one deserving of respect and that only meddles in the affairs of others with a proper declaration. Please do not buy the media's spin on his foreign policy position. It borders on outright lies.
SvSC
9:30 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
nice to hear from some informed individuals
CommonSense
9:37 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
@conservativetradition First, Ron Paul does not support a nuclear Iran. He does believe sanctions and threatening them militarily is not the solution but part of the problem.
You say imagine a bomb hitting US soil? That might happen if we continue our current policy. How can we defend our soil if all our troops are overseas?
Are you suggesting that defending Israel, putting sanctions on Iran, defending Pakistans borders, bombing Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan is helpful to prevent an attack on US soil? We've been in Iran since 1953 when we overthrew their democratic government and installe the Shah, a pro American dictatorship.
You are concerned about death tolls in an attack on America as you should be. Do you know the death tolls on Middle Eastern innocent civilians? That is directly related from America flexing its muscle? It probably is in the millions.
Diplomacy not democracy and peace not war. The current policy is obviously flawed and not working. You protest mere propaganda and fear which is why we are in this debacle to begin with. The golden rule should be applied here.
Jeremy
10:19 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
People need to turn their brains ON when listing to the answers from these candidates, rather than judge them based on how passionate their response is or make their judgments on how good of a speaker the candidates are. If you really listened to Ron Paul's response vs. Santorum’s response when discussing our economic issues, Ron Paul hits the nail on the head. It sounds good to lower the corporate tax rate to 0% for companies that bring manufacturing jobs back to America (Santorum’s response), but that is a simple minded answer. This issue is much more complicated than that, and Ron Paul tried to explain this in minutes, but if given the chance could talk about this for an hour. Santorum and Paul are right when they talk about regulations, and tax rates, but only Ron Paul see's the real elephant in the room, and that it our monetary policy. And investors understand this as well. There is little incentive for them to invest huge sums of capitol into the U.S. when the dollar is this weak. And the dollar is this weak because we are printing too many of them, our debt is this high, and the interest rates are set this low. In order to attract investment capitol back into the U.S. we are going to need to change course and reduce the debt, allow the interest rate to be set by the market, and strengthen the dollar. Ron Paul won that argument HANDS DOWN!
sickofit
10:30 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
What do you expect when Dana Bash's husband is running the debate?
Debe Powers-Kniss
4:09 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
I got a email last night from the Ron Paul campaign saying he has the support from four Senators in SC. Is this in the news? Pa;\lin supported Newt and she is not even able to vote in SC and that makes news? Lets face it folks four senators is a big deal to me and shows awesome support for Ron Paul. Does the media have to take a pay cut if they report the good things about Ron Paul? Isn't it ironic that Ron Paul supporters are up to date with his platform and why he is doing things were other supporters of thee others has to see which way their caniadate is going that day to respond? Ron Paul platform is drastic but logical and should be the concern of all running he has a way for us to be a better country and enjoy more freedom and does this scare the ones who are corrupt so much? It must however Paul really is the change and hope we need to RESTORE AMERICA we can not do another four years of Obamas leadership and lets face it Mitt has nothing to offer America except the same game plan that got us in this mess. I want to get America back to the constitution and bring hope and freedom to all on her soil. Paul is the only one who can do it. I will write his name in if need be and to the Republican party if you fail to support him then you will confirm your party is nothing but a scam Paul is a perfect for the party message and shame on you for not addressing this reality many of us know it when will you? Ron Paul 2012 Restore America NOW
Shawn Drury
4:24 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
Debe,
Patch did cover the endorsement of Dr. Paul from Sen. Tom Davis here: http://patch.com/A-qkjQ
While Dr. Paul is no doubt proud to receive the endorsements of four state senators, there are 46 senators across the state, so they represent only a fraction of the entire body.
Also, write-in ballots are not counted in South Carolina. But Dr. Paul is on the ballot so no such measures will be needed.
Thanks,
Shawn
stanley seigler
4:50 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
@LiveFree1776: "...see what a few experts who agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy have to say"
COMMENT
good suggestion...
what's sad/stupid is you dont need experts...just a little common (well not so common) sense...IKE warned us re the military industrial complex (MIC)...it has/is driving our foreign policy...
why oh why didnt/havent we listened...dont listen.
sure that MCI is driving policy is an oversimplification...but it is major factor...defense contractors have powerful lobbys and PR consultants.
Kaye Fox
6:10 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
Is't the real reason for the mess we are in is because of the do nothing congress.
Throw the bums out.
I'm all for term limits for congress AND the supreme court.
dan
3:23 am on Saturday, January 21, 2012
The poster common sense is right on as is so many of the other Ron Paul supporters on the internet. Thank God for the internet and for alternative news outlets. I always laughed at conspiracy theorists but the concerted effort to black out Ron Paul and his supporters by the MSM is undeniable! The new York times and cnn are the worst. In the New York times they try to avoid even printing his name and over the last couple of weeks they will no longer publish a pro paul comment from a reader! Talk about disenfranchising voters and the youth! Something has to be done to expose this charade to americans who are not internet savvy or who get all their news from the MSM! I mean this is outrageous!