If our CQ Politics video didn't satisfy your appetite for libertarian politics, here's my writeup of the debate, with a few more details, including:

Gravel's appearance seemed especially out of place, with at least one observer describing him as a "socialist." Gravel's most recent attention-grabbing stunt was appearing in a dance video with the self-described Obama Girl, who has filmed several web videos supporting the Democratic frontrunner.

"She's very  . . .  dynamic," Gravel said with a wry grin. With his wife standing just a few feet behind him, he continued, "I may be old, but I'm not too old to appreciate that."

Over at New York Times campaign blog, David Brooks defends the questions in last night's debates, arguing that they may be stupid questions, but those are the kinds of questions candidates will face in the general election:

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

Andrew Sullivan:

I see no reason to excuse Obama's bad performance. But I cannot fathom why we should exonerate the execrable standards of ABC News at the same time.

Asking, "Which debate was David Brooks watching?" The Washington Independent's Holly Yeager asks:

[T]hose of us who watched on television should know that it was even worse to be inside the National Constitution Center. As someone who was inside the Kimmel Theatre told me, "At home, you can scream at your TV."

Liberal bloggers appear largely unimpressed with last night's Democratic debate hosted by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. The Huffington Post even went so far as to post video of the crowd heckling Gibson as he segued into a commercial break. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are focusing their criticism on Barack Obama, whom they say dodged answers on subjects like gun control and taxes. Whether or not Obama was dodging or giving evasive answers, it's clear this is the emerging attack line against Obama: "He's not who you think he is," whether it's discussing religion, elitism, or the actual issues.

The American Prospect's Sam Boyd:

Charlie Gibson says that questions about the flag are "all over the internet" -- along with Pamela Anderson's sex tape, cats with bad grammar, and Rick Astley. Journalism at it's finest.

Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment.

The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan says Obama is not coming clean about his views on gun control. 

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau reviews the exchange between Obama and Gibson on the Capital Gains Tax and asks for more clarification:

So which is it, Barack?  Is the purpose of taxation so that the government can collect money, or is it to impose some kind of collectivist notion of "fairness"?  We need some clarification, please.

While bloggers remain almost exclusively focused on John McCain and the New York Times, there was a Democratic debate last night on CNN between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Most bloggers and analysts came away feeling that both performed well, but Clinton did not land the necessary knock-out punch to put her back in serious contention.

Over at MyDD, Glenn Smith says few enough people were paying attention for Hillary's high points to matter:

The most striking thing about the debate in Austin last night:  it was barely news even in Texas, which hasn't hosted such an event in many, many years. Oh, everyone was ready for news. The crowd was keyed up as they entered the hall. They left kind of sagging, a little disappointed, happy enough to have seen the candidates, but not sensing they had witnessed a turning point in history.

Meanwhile, Tom Hayden of the Huffington Post says Clinton's final debate statement could boost her campaign or at least be a respectable and graceful campaign farewell:

I thought Clinton excelled with her wrap up, which led to a standing ovation...Her performance might re-ignite her campaign, but also could be a memorable farewell, a dignity in defeat, for which she will be well remembered and honored

Based on the reactions of bloggers, Barack Obama comes away the winner of last night's Democratic debate at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood. In particular, his focus on the war in Iraq won accolades from many in the netroots who have seen the issue diminish recently, with a heightened focus on the economy and the tactics focusing on race between the two remaining Democrats. The question is, how much will that assessment from the media and blogs actually help Obama before voters go to the polls next week?

Arianna Huffington:

It was the most effective sequence for Obama, and the most important for the country -- bringing Iraq off the backburner and placing it front and center

Over at Talking Points Memo, John Marshall adds:

In the context of the race, I think this [debate] helped Obama because it put the two of them on the same level, the same stature level. As I've said before, Obama in general has not been a good debater. But this was a good one for him.

Meanwhile, John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog seems to have warmed to Clinton even if Obama was seen as winning the debate. Could a thawing of Clinton's critics be the real victory, even if Obama is the perceived winner?

Joe and I are sometimes prone of late to harp on Hillary more than Obama, not that we don't think she deserves it, but still, after watching tonight's debate, I can honestly say that I'd be pleased with either Hillary or Obama as our candidate. It has been years since there's been an election in which I really liked our candidate, let alone liked both of the last two standing.

The Politico's coverage of the Republican debate they co-sponsored last night leads with this Jonathan Martin headline, "Romney falls into McCain trap on Iraq," and Martin declaring of McCain's showing:

It was a dull, boredom-inspring performance. But for the undisputed frontrunner, boring isn’t a bad thing.

Matthew Yglesias, who has taken to "supporting" Mitt Romney because of his belief that Romney presents a weaker GOP general election candidate responds by saying that the voters and media have given McCain a pass on his shaky accusation that Romney previously favored a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq:

One interesting thing about politics is that you might think that when a politician develops a reputation for honesty, the way Saint John of Arizona has, that from that day forward he needs to be super-scrupulous about telling the truth. Otherwise, voters who might dismiss a small fib from a "regular" politician will suddenly be outraged. In truth, the reverse is the case.

But in fact McCain has been piled on with criticism for his attacks. This NRO piece notes McCain’s attack was “being dissected unfavorably on Fox News and CNN,” and that McCain had to clarify himself during his recent “Meet the Press,” appearance. A number of mainstream newspapers and pundit-types, normally friendly to McCain, have also called him out on the issue. And during last night's debate, Romney won applause on more than one occasion while refuting McCain's Iraq claims.

UPDATE: I also meant to note that I'm pretty sure Martin's headline is pointing out that McCain's Iraq focus in the deate pulled Romney off-message and was therefore successful regardless of the actual merits of McCain's attack.

My recap and analysis here. 

During last night's debate, Mitt Romney was asked if he would emulate Ronald Reagan's 1983 Social Security reforms. As the question was being asked, viewers could hear an unidentified voice whispering, "raise taxes." Was it a MSNBC producer accidentally speaking over the air? A Romney surrogate tipping the candidate toward his answer? Seems a bit paranoid, but that hasn't stopped bloggers from discussing. Maybe it was the box on President Bush's back from the 2004 debate? Listen and watch for yourself:

You can read my take from last night's GOP Florida debate here. 

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett offers a different take on last night's Republican debate, suggesting that Mike Huckabee was in fact the winner, both for sounding presidential and because he "deftly parried" Fred Thompson's zingers:

For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.

Conservative bloggers have been the biggest boosters of Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign. And why not? His so-called “different kind of campaign” has had most of its few highlights targeted at the Internet, his charisma charms the righty bloggers, and he has a solidly conservative background. They also like Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter, but if conservative bloggers controlled the vote, Fred Thompson would be our next president.

Some conservative blogger reactions to last night's debate:

Erik at Red State declares:

Fred Thompson owned this debate. He owned it. He dominated.

Powerline says the battles were a) Thompson vs. Huckabee, b) McCain vs. Romney and c. Giuliani vs. irrelevance:

Thompson came out swinging at Huckabee, and he landed some good blows -- notably on Huckabee's "blame America first" foreign policy, his stance on taxes, and his immigration policy as governor. Huckabee responded as he often does, with charm and evasion. This approach has worked for him in the past, and it may have worked tonight. But if the voters were paying attention, then an awful lot of traditional South Carolina conservatives had to be much more impressed by Thompson than by Huckabee.

Hot Air posts video of the Luntz polling group I mentioned last night.

Finally, Michelle Malkin agrees that Thompson won the debate but thinks it’s probably too late to matter:

The Luntz focus group on Fox (no sign of that repeat dude) weighed in on Thompson. The majority said he won the debate, but wondered how much it would matter. He has a few diehard supporters, but several more expressed doubts about his viability. He’s entertaining, said one member, but lacks consistency in his performances. Several agreed: “He’s late.”

10: 38 No doubt Fred Thompson won tonight's debate. It was the first time he's appeared fully animated since first hinting at his candidacy last March. "We've been waiting a long time to see Fred do very well," GOP pollster Frank Luntz just said on Fox News. And sure enough, the crowed agrees. When Luntz asked them how many thought Thompson won the debate, nearly every hand went up.

10:34 When immigration comes up, Romney takes a shot at Ron Paul suggesting the Texas congressman does not support border enforcement. However, people often overlook that Paul is actually pretty much on point with the most conservative Republicans when it comes to border policy. “I do think we should enforce the law,” he says, “and the law says that we shouldn’t have illegals here and we shouldn’t have amnesty. Paul gets even harsher, blaming the government, “We encourage it by promising free education and amnesty,” he says, then taking a shot at society at large, “Some of our people won’t work because of the welfare state.”

10:22 Huckabee jokes that he is the candidate who gets asked about religion. After a question from co-moderator Carl Cameron, Huckabee defends his religious faith and gets applause. “I certainly am going to practice it, unashamedly, whether I am president or I’m not president,” he said.

10:16 Giuliani has another zinger on the constant use of the word "change" over the past week. On the Dems, "The kind of change they want is the change in your pocket." He then repeats his line from the last debate, noting there is both "good" and "bad" change.

10:13 That was strange. McCain was asked if he was "part of the problem, or part of the solution," because of his long tenure in Washington. He then launched into an answer that detailed his role in promoting the Iraq surge strategy, his role in the Senate as a fiscal conservative, "they called me the sheriff," and finally, an anecdote on how he saved the taxpayers billions by blocking funding for an unnecessary U.S. tanker. What is strange is that his answer oddly mirrored another answer he had given earlier. McCain seemed to realize this midway through and stumbled over his words a bit before finishing on a note about his opposition to congressional earmarks.

10:04 Romney again stresses bringing “modernity” to the Middle East to improve our international relations there. But more striking are his comments on Islam. Romney has rejected inquires into the specifics of his own faith, but nonetheless says, “We’re going to have to move the world of Islam. They’re going to have to reject the extreme.”

Paul says that by re-arming former Saddam loyalists in Iraq's Sunni community, the U.S. is setting itself up for future war with Iraq.

9:55 Across the cable networks in as many debates, one of the favorite camera shots has to be a split-screen of McCain watching Ron Paul answer foreign policy questions.

9:40 Their have been four applause lines so far, two by Fred Thompson. Asked about the recent Gulf diplomatic dustup between Iranian and U.S. naval forces, he says to long applause, “I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they are looking for.” Smartly, he followed it with a more substantive line, “Iran was clearly testing us. They took British soldiers under similar circumstances.”


9:34 Rudy Giuliani's answer on the Reagan coalition won't earn him any points with Republican voters or conservative critics, but he hits an interesting point. While all the other responses have focused on base conservative principles. Rudy notes, “It was a broad outreach, an inclusive one. Not one that kept people away.” Obviously he's saying it to buffer himself on his weaker issues, but it's at least accurate, which is more than you can say about some of his past deflections.

9:29 That was by far the most animated moment of Fred Thompson’s entire campaign, attacking Mike Huckabee’s economic record, he says, “That doesn’t sound like the model of the Reagan coalition, that sounds like the model of the Democratic Party.”

9:24 Mike Huckabee was asked about the Reagan coalition and if he thinks it's gone. Huckabee, who has been accused by critics, of not being able to hold that coalition together, responded, "Some people think one part of that coalition is more important than others. I think they're all important."

9:15 Very little differences from the candidates on tax cuts, with the exception of Huckabee, who is blending his economic populism with discussion of his "fair tax" proposal.

Exit polls out of Iowa and New Hampshire show the economy being the top issue for Republican primary voters. Not coincidentally, how the candidates would steer the economy is tonight's first question.

Mitt Romney uses his first answer to attack John McCain on the economy. McCain earlier told MI voters that "some jobs have left and they're not coming back." "I disagree," Romney said in response.

McCain zings right back saying, "One of the reasons I won in New Hampshire is because I was telling the truth."

I'll be back a little later this evening (9pm EST) to live blog tonight's Fox News Channel/Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Please stop by throughout the evening for regular updates, blogger reactions and my own instant analysis. Hope to see you then.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

Retreating from their earlier decision to bar Ron Paul from the last Fox News Channel sponsored Republican forum, the cable news network has decided to include him in tomorrow's debate in Myrtle Beach:

To be invited, candidates must have placed in the top 5 positions in the New Hampshire poll -- McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul -- or be polling at least 5 percent nationally, such as Thompson.

UPDATE: My CQ Politics colleagues remind me that Paul was invited to this debate all along. Which makes his earlier exclusion all the more interesting.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

My take on last night's Fox News Channel/GOP forum:

• Most Unusual Use of the Name of Former President Ronald Reagan: Two of the six references to the revered Reagan came when McCain and Giuliani both pointed out that Reagan supported amnesty for illegal immigrants in the 1980s. Meanwhile, Huckabee responded: “We all love Ronald Reagan, we want to be like him. But even Ronald Reagan made mistakes.”

Read the rest here.

The initial blogger reaction to the debate indicates that Obama and Edwards performed best amongst the top-tier candidates, with Bill Richardson scoring points well, as I noted in my live blogging analysis. And Obama gets the debate's highlight for his joke about looking forward to having Hillary advise him on foreign policy.

It’s still early, but more than 3k respondents at Daily Kos agree that Obama and Edwards won the debate, garnering 37 percent and 26 percent, respectively. Clinton is a distant third with 13th percent, but that’s not all bad for her camp, considering how she usually scores amongst progressive bloggers.

Meanwhile, the Marc Ambinder writes that Clinton and Edwards were the winners:

Why them, and not Obama? Because Clinton and Edwards repeatedly wove their answers into a larger argument, and Obama generally kept his answers to his answers. He did well though. No calls, Chicago. No calls.

And from Chuck Todd:

Perhaps no one benefited more from this subdued format than Obama since he's the guy with the momentum. Clinton, oddly, didn't get as much time in this debate (or forum) than she has in previous ones which may lead some to believe she was not at her best.

MyDD’s Todd Beeton was disappointed in Obama but liked that Richardson brought up Iraq:

I was surprised that Barack Obama didn't step up his debate performance today I have to say; while he looked more relaxed than he usually does at these things, his answers did not project the confidence of someone with all the mo' and unlike on the stump, he still hasn't found his debate voice (although he did score with the invitation to Hillary to advise him.)

I thought Richardson was particularly good when he used his 2 minute statement to bring up Iraq, which as he reminded us, has been neglected at the last couple of debates.

Finally, as I previously mentioned, conservative bloggers aren’t likely to appreciate the warmer reception DMR editor and debate moderator Carolyn Washburn, whom many have dubbed “schoolmarm,” appeared give the Democrats.

From Michelle Malkin:

Note: Just a few minutes into this debate, it’s clear how much more deferential Schoolmarm is to the Dems than she was to the Republicans. Deathly dull. This is not a debate. It’s a wake. Note II: Schoolmarm is all giggles. She seems to have a particular soft spot for Bill Richardson.

I’ll be providing regular updates over the next two hours as I live blog today’s Des Moines Register sponsored Democratic debate in Iowa.

Bloggers and beltway reporters are falling over themselves today to formulate the conventional wisdom that yesterday’s debate was boring. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that incredible bit of insight, but I would ask, as opposed to which debate, exactly?

Today’s DC collective-thought thread also seems to agree with my quick analysis that Mitt Romney performed well yesterday, Huckabee didn’t do anything to really hurt his new front-runner status, and that it was annoying to have Alan Keyes on stage. But I think we’re all a little curious to see how DMR editor Carolyn Washburn handles, or mishandles, things today.

• Hmm… this isn’t a good sign for those upset about the lack of diversity in yesterday’s questions (no immigration, no Iraq).

Washburn, on today’s topics: ‘The issues not getting a lot of attention,” and those “most-important to Iowa voters.”

• The candidates are being asked about balancing the federal budget:

Obama: Hates “special interests,” without naming any

Richardson: Wants to get rid of congressional earmarks, sticking with a pay-as-you-go budget.

Biden: Says ending the war will go a long way

Dodd: Growing the economy is good. But what will the anti-economy candidates say?

Edwards: “One of the reasons we’ve lost jobs … is because corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government.”

Clinton: Evokes Clinton administration. “I will institute those very same approaches. … The economy will grow again once we start acting fiscally responsible. … The results will take awhile for us to actually see.”

• The candidates, on how U.S. China relations should be balanced in light of Chinese creditors carrying a significant amount of U.S. debt.

Richardson: “Our relationship with China today is clearly one-sided.” “I would tell them that they cannot continue playing around with currencies. … It would be a stronger relationship with American leadership.”

Dodd: “This is more of an adversarial relationship and it has to be identified as such.” Makes a key distinction that “competitors,” usually play on a level-playing field. “We need to get a lot tougher on this – fair, not loud.”

On entitlements, and if they need to be reformed:

Clinton: “It’s a particular problem with Medicare.” Suggests a bi-partisan committee on Social Security.

Obama: Cites 1980 obesity rates, saying slimming down would save $20 billion in healthcare costs.

Richardson: “I believe universal healthcare is a human right for every American.” Calls out The Beetis

• Edwards is calling out “corporate greed” for the third question in a row. Refresh my memory, but I swear hearing once that he’s the son of a mill worker.

The candidates are now answering questions about trade agreements.

Biden: “How are we helping third-world countries by signing agreements with them that we know are going to be exploiting their workers?”

Richardson: Said any future trade agreements should require both partners to agree to international trade agreements on child labor, air standards, etc.

Dodd: Said human rights should be part of the “seamless conduct” of U.S. national security. “That’s one way to enhance our reputation.”

Edwards: “Human rights should be central to how our country engages with the rest of the world.” And yes, a reference to “big corporations,” and the mill his father worked in! Who could have seen that coming?

Clinton, on if NAFTA should be “scrapped,” or “changed.”: “It should be changed.” “I want to be a president who focuses on smart, effective trade.” “We believe in trade, but we don’t want to be the trade patsies of the world.”

Obama, on NAFTA: “There’s no doubt that NAFTA needs to be amended.”

• Richardson turns the table on Washburn during his personal statement: “I’m concerned that in the media, and in the last debate, that the Iraq war was not discussed.” “This is the number one issue facing not only this country, but Iowa caucus goers.”

He seems to be in his groove, but does it matter at this point?

The candidates on energy policy:

Biden: “The president’s gotta make this a moral crusade for the American people.”

Richardson: “Fuel-efficiency standards in this country should be 50 miles per gallon.”

Dodd: “We’re borrowing a billion dollars every day to buy foreign oil. … (getting quite vocal) “You need to be able to tax this carbon, which is killing us, killing this planet.”

Clinton: “This has to call for a new form of American patriotism.”

Obama: “There are going to be some increases in energy prices, initially, if we go with a cap-and-trade system.” “We’ve got to be courageous enough to not just talk about this in front of the Sierra Club.” Tells an anecdote about talking to auto makers in Detroit. “It was quiet in the room, nobody clapped,” gets laughter from both Washburn and the audience.

Edwards: “We have a future responsibility to future generations, an enormous responsibility.”

That wraps things up for today's Des Moines Register Republican debate. The Democrats' debate is tomorrow.

But first, a few more nuggets...

Paul, on how he would “adjust his plan in light of political reality in Washington,”: “In a way, it is revolutionary to go back to the Constitution.”

McCain, asked to give an example of a time he wished he would have compromised rather than sticking to a “maverick” position: “I cannot think of a time and I hope I never think of a time.” Also said he will “reach across the aisle” to Democrats if elected.

The final question asked candidates to suggest a New Years resolution for another candidate. Most dodged the question, or gave their own, personal resolutions. But a few actually answered the question:

McCain: “Let’s not accuse each other of a lack of patriotism.”

Huckabee: “I’m going to be a lot more careful about anything I say.” When it was pointed out that he was answering about himself, “Well, I’m going to make it about them too.”

Romney: “That we’ll fight to make sure one of those people on this stage is the next president.”

Paul: “My advice would be to re-read the Bill of Rights and to take it seriously.”

Hunter: ‘One thing we could do just a couple weeks before Christmas is to buy American goods.”

Giuliani: “All of us should take a better look at America and realize how lucky we are.”

Quick analysis: Romney takes another veiled shot at Huckabee by stating that Republicans can only win in 2008 if they nominate a candidate who will hold the base together on not just social, but fiscal issues as well. Huckabee didn't do anything to damage his lead, but did appear a little more scripted than before his jump to front-runner status. And finally, how obvious was it that Carolyn Washburn is regretting her paper's decision to include Keyes in the debate?

Some of the candidates were asked questions about "leadership."

Giuliani, on ensuring his administration would be open to information that might not be flattering: “I would be extremely open. I’m used to it – I’m used to being analyzed.” “I’ve had both an open, transparent government and an open, transparent life.”

Romney, on whether he wants to respond to Alan Keyes’ previous answer on abortion: “I’m not sure.” (crowd laughter). Then explains his transformation from pro-choice to pro-life.

Thompson, on how he would make use of national intelligence: “”That’s probably the most important question asked today.” “You’ve got to rebuild from the bottom up.” “In the meantime, we’ve got to rely on other people,” (cites the British).

Quick analysis: Pretty shocking answer by Thompson, who not only said that American intelligence is unreliable but that we should rely on foreign intelligence until American reforms are enacted. Did he really mean that?

The candidates were asked about education and what role the federal government should play.

Tancredo: Noted his tenure working to reduce staff sized in Ronald Reagan’s Education Department. “We took the staff down to 60 … I asked anyone if they could notice a difference … no one said they could.”

Huckabee was chided for advocating expanded arts and science programs for children. On whether POTUS should be an advocate for education, Huckabee noted 30% high school drop out rates: “For a president to say that’s none of my business is unacceptable.”

Romney: Initially downplayed Huckabee’s education record as Arkansas governor, but then said there is a role for POTUS in educating, “Not just poking and saying it’s someone else’s job.”

Quick Analysis: Romney is performing well so far and taking on Huckabee without coming across as bitter or angry.

The candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believe global climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity.

Thompson: I’m not raising hands (applause from the audience)

The question then shifted to what the candidates would do instead.

McCain: “I know it’s real.” On if global warming isn't real, “All we’ve done is give our kids a cleaner world.”

Giuliani: Agreed with McCain, then, “I believe the best way to deal with climate change through energy independence.”

The question then changed to one about how much the government and economy should be used to combat climate change.

Romney: “It’s going to help our economy because we’re going to invest in new technologies to get off our dependence on foreign oil … We can do these things in a way that help both our economy and the environment.” “We call it global warming not America warming … let’s not put all the burden on us.”

Keyes: Makes his own contribution to climate change with a passionate, eloquent answer about nothing and then chides “politicians who create hot air.” He should know.

Huckabee: “The reason this issue ought to be important is that we are not owners of this world, we are stewards.”

Hunter: “Instead of mandates, I’d say incentives.” “We can produce a great new industry.”

I’m live blogging today’s Republican presidential debate from Iowa. One of the first questions asked was who is paying too much in taxes: the wealthy, the middle class or the poor?

The responses:

Alan Keys: non-answer

John McCain: “I don’t know exactly who’s paying the most of the burden.”

Mike Huckabee: non-answer, followed by fair tax posturing

Mitt Romney: “I don’t stay awake at night worrying about the taxes rich people are paying, to be honest.” “We need to reduce the burden on middle income Americans.”

Fred Thompson: non-answer, followed by snipes at Romney, “My goal is to get into Mitt Romney’s situation where you don’t have to worry about paying taxes anymore.” He then seemed to answer that the wealthy are carrying too much of the tax burden by noting the wealthiest five percent of Americans pay more than 50% of overall taxes.

Tom Tancredo: non-answer

Ron Paul: the poor “It’s the middle-class that is being wiped out.”

Hunter: non-answer, followed by attack on the IRS

Giuliani: non-answer, flat tax, tax rates

Quick analysis: Romney, in a rare move, shows the most political courage by answering in favor of the poor, but keeping it in a Republican, fiscally conservative context. Huckabee gives a surprisingly weak answer.