Paul makes one good point on the Department of education.
McCain on his amnesty plan. Nice try, no dice. Get at the end of the line?
Romney on illegal immigration. No advantage to illegal immigrants as with the Z visas. He’s on the right side of this.
Thompson. Good on illegal immigration. Zings McCain and Hukabee.
Paul mentions welfare as a magnet. True to some degree. But mostly it’s jobs.
Huckabee makes a good point on legal Hispanic Americans who want border enforcement. Good words but what tune would he sing as President.
G man gives a good answer and touts his crime reduction efforts, which really did work. What he did was much more impressive than McCain and the surge.
Good debate. I’m disappointed by all the applause for Ron Paul. Bussed in? or Real?
Luntz’s focus group really liked Thompson. Maybe Luntz’s group is legitimate. They don’t like Ron Paul, who they identify as a loser.
Dig deeply to see
a) what the candidate actually DID and SAY before Immigration became such a hot topic in this 2008 Election
b) where his money has come from and from where it continues to come
c) whom his advisors, brain trusts and endorsers are and whom these inner cirlce advisors would probably be
Often you get a much different picture when you look at things in this deeper way of analytical due diligence, rather than falling for the surface, insincere press releases, websites, positions papers and sound bites all whipped up in a rushed frenzy for votes.
I would say there is no shortage of average Americans who are docile, stupid, lazy, easily *wowed* and don't get past the slick campaign PR fluff designed in marketing bull sessions in the back rooms, and will just go and vote on surface issues. (I personally think Freepers are more clever and informed than that.)
Same way they sell us, Modern American TV-based culture, soap and iPhones and Britney Spears, and Lord knows what else, and the sheeple gobble it up like automotons anyway.