Image 01 Image 03

LIVE REACTIONS: Fox News — Google GOP Debate

LIVE REACTIONS: Fox News — Google GOP Debate

And here we go again!

Welcome to our live coverage of the GOP presidential primary debate. The main stage debate begins at 9:00 EST.

For the hottest takes on the Republican primary cluster, see here.

The prime time debate will include:

  • Sen. Ted Cruz
  • Sen. Marco Rubio
  • Dr. Ben Carson
  • Gov. Jeb Bush
  • Gov. Chris Christie
  • Gov. John Kasich
  • Sen. Rand Paul

Video Highlights

What about Trump?

[Event now over]

“Interested in watching Donald Trump’s event? The outspoken candidate will be holding an event at 9 p.m. ET. You can view a live stream over at CBSN. The feed can be viewed through the CBS News mobile app on Android and iOS, and through the CBSN apps on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire.”

Watch real time debate reaction:

Legal Insurrection Authors:

Political media reaction:


Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Once more, John Kasich trying to interrupt everyone and being a horses arse.

Quite a coup for Trump to get the last two winners of the Iowa caucus on the stage of his rally, ahem charity event.

Vetting rule for mortal candidates: “I’m absolutely not voting for that candidate because he did that one thing I don’t like!”

Vetting rule for Donald Trump: “I don’t know what Trump would actually do in office, but if he does just half the things he’s saying, that’s enough, so I’m voting for him!”

    Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | January 28, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    Well, I need to revise the Trump vetting rule: It’s really “If he does only one-tenth of what he says, that’s enough.”

    The Trumpbot, of course, has faith that Trump will do the exact 1/10 that the Trumpbot really cares about.

    No other candidate gets judged on such lax standards — and Trump knows it. He called out his supporters on their puppy-dog devotion, and they don’t even notice how little he seems to respect them.

Fox is claiming that Trump demanded $5 million for his charities to appear. Trump is not really/sorta denying it. Whole thing seems funny to me since I think that aspect puts Trump in a good light.

Trump is also saying that Fox has been calling every 15 minutes. Fox is saying they called him three or four times. The truth is somewhere in between, but given Trumps appearance on O’Reilly I would say Trump is closer.

Last month Cruz was saying a big part of his plan was to pick up Trump voters when he faltered. Given what he said at the debate, I guess he has given up on that plan.

Like the song says “it’s not Christmas without Grandma” it seems like “it’s not a ddebate without Trump”. The lack of energy here demonstrates that.

    Sanddog in reply to HandyGandy. | January 28, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    I haven’t missed Trump at all. I do miss the days when debates meant tossing out a question and having all the candidates answer it instead of using the time trying to get one candidate to attack another.

    If I were on that stage and the “moderator” started out by asking me to offer my opinion on what another candidate said, I’d tell them to ask the candidate because I don’s speak for them and I’m not there to satisfy the moderator’s desire for a cage match.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to HandyGandy. | January 29, 2016 at 1:16 am

    With Trump it is a media fueled celebrity clown show.

    Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | January 29, 2016 at 8:52 am

    “The lack of energy here demonstrates that.”

    T-rump…for those of us in Realityville…was not exactly a ‘high voltage’ dynamo in any debate.

    It’s always been AFTERWARDS, when he decides he’s been hurt/insulted/stuck that the energy kicks in.

    If you missed “energy”, that just might mean you’re a cultist.

theduchessofkitty | January 28, 2016 at 11:11 pm

I just watched this segment of Megyn Kelly’s show with Dr. Krauthammer. They both treated Trump as “He Who Must Not Be Named”!

(Just wait until I tell my daughter, who has been reading the Harry Potter series.)

I’m starting to think a phone book and a dart board might be a better way to pick a President.

CNN interviewed 4 previously undecided Iowan voters after debate. 3 of 4 remained undecided. The last of tge four was persuaded by the debaters to switch to Hillary.

This is pretty Hilarious. Cruz does not appear to have closed any new voters with this debate.

Cruz loses votes from this debate. Bush may gain some votes at Cruz’s expense. Trump holds pat.


    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 12:01 am

    Obama got a huge following too. And Trump already had YYUUUGE TV celebrity going in, which is the primary basis of the Trump cult, along with uncritical faith.

    It’s Schwarzenegger redux, except that Trump is more boorish and more nasty, and his “principles” have been more fluid. And Schwarzenegger never boasted that he would be the greatest government in the history of the state. Schwarzenegger is not that much of an egomaniac.

    I’ve heard a series of Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters on the radio, and the difference is quite stark: Trump fans overwhelming are not particularly smart, and their arguments are NOT fact-based. It’s basically “We’re tired of the people in power now, so we need to give Trump and chance. And he’s not PC!”

    I’d rather be in the minority of rational people who pay attention to facts and have some standards of decency and intellectual consistency.

      You can tell what a good night for Trump this was by the level of panic and hysteria in all the usual suspects.

        Panic? What panic? Me thinks thou doth protest (or project) too much.

        If you’re referring to the Reuters puff-piece about how “Trump overshadows Republican debate even as he sits it out,” that drivel is so devoid of substance that the void of space has more matter to it.

        If you’re referring to the “Trump, with just one day’s notice on a weeknight, was able to fill to capacity a hall at Drake University that holds 700” claim a.) it’s a proven lie (see the photos) and b.) a venue that holds 700? Really? This from the person who’s been drawing crowds of thousands on short notice? Seems a bit of a weak showing.

        the level of panic and hysteria in all the usual suspects

        One individual commenter — just one! — has been responsible for nearly 25% of the comments submitted to this post — nearly double his nearest competitor in the “frenzied squirrel on meth” contest.

        I’m sensing “panic and hysteria” all right — and it all seems to be emanating from the pump-out valve of the Trump Train’s ablutions carriage.

    Wow. Four whole undecided voters. Hardly a scientific sample.

    And you wonder why individuals accuse you of hyperbole and inability to rationally review facts in your devotion to Trump.

Trump personally gives $1,000,000 to vets and raises over $6,000,000 total for vets.


    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | January 28, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    It’s vote-buying theatrics — as would be readily acknowledged for any other candidate.

    Any other candidate would be called cynical for doing it. Trump knows that the rules are different for him.

    Just what we need: Another president who firmly believes he’s so special that the normal rules don’t apply to him.

    That bastard how dare he raise 6 million for vets in 24 hours. Why it is criminal that he give 1 million of his own money to the vets.

    Now its time for Cruz’s people to step up give that 1.5 million to the vets rather than keep making Cruz looking like such a scum bag over using the vets as a pawn in some cynical game.

      How about we base it on percentage of net worth given? It’s easy for Trump to hand out $1mm. What’s that 0.0125% of his net worth? Also, is that coming out of Trump’s pocket, or out of his Foundation, which is funded by OTHER people who donate to it.

      I’m reminded of the parable of the widow’s mite.

      If Cruz gives $22,000, that would be a larger portion of net worth (based on a 1.7mm net worth.

      Nobody is required to donate anything, but remind us again how Trump is this big philanthropist?

        Get back to me when Cruz has given $22,000 to the vets from his own personal funds and not from goldman sachs money.

          Goldman Sachs money is no different than attorney fees and judgement awards.

          I supprt Cruz. I have gieven to support our troops over and over again.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 8:59 am

          On thing I’d bet…

          if/when Cruz gives charitably, it isn’t a PR move that’s immediately plastered all over the media.

          A lot of what T-rump does is all about T-rump. Polishing that turd, as you do with your tongue every day here.

          “On thing I’d bet…

          if/when Cruz gives charitably, it isn’t a PR move that’s immediately plastered all over the media.”

          You mean like offering a 1.5mil donation to the vets if trump will agree to a one on one debate?


    True Britt: “Having the donations route through the foundation just allows the donors to be able to claim a tax deduction for the gifts.”

    True This: Trump is so Hillary-esque, routing through foundations.

    And this: My donations can go directly to Wounded Warriors – directly – and do not pass through Big Government’s hands.

      Every new year Wounded Warriors sends me a receipt of my previous year’s donations. They did so again this year. And I claim my tax deductions.

      Dishonest John Trump is routing donations through his ‘foundation’ so that he can harvest voter information and then harass voters before the general.

        Well good for you but Trump wants to spread money around to about 18 different groups but only after his accountants have vetted them to make sure each group selected has low overhead and admin charges with max money actually going to vets. Takes longer than 24 hours to do so best way to handle to guaratee tax deduction for donations is to have donationxs collected by Trump cyarity that is IRS approved and then disbursed from there.

        Some people with black hearts and a political agenda of their own can bitch about anything including selfless good deeds like these of Mr. Trump.

        And then these bitches can shiw their hypocr8sy by ignoring Cruz people trying to buy a personal benefit for Cruz on the backs of veterans.

        That is a two fer being blach hearted bitch and hypocrite all at the same time.

          Takes longer than 24 hours to do so best way to handle to guaratee [sic] tax deduction [sic] for donations is to have donationxs [sic] collected by Trump cyarity [sic] that is IRS approved and then disbursed from there

          Neither you nor Trump have ever heard of Charity Navigator?

          All that work has already been done — and is kept constantly updated, by analyzing all the IRS forms every non-profit is required to fill and to make publicly available.

          All these charities have already been extensively vetted. Over and over and over again — see this as an example. Every quarter in most cases. I know — I’m involved in several 501(c)(3)s myself. There is no need for Trump to re-invent the wheel, and it looks seriously dodgy for Trump to be asking for all the monies to be placed with his personal foundation (which is a big donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrat causes), and then let HIM decide who to pass it on to (eventually, after it produces who-knows-how-much income for him as it sits in his personal account for who-knows-how-long).

          You people are so naive* that it almost hurts.

          *And by “naive,” I mean “deeply stupid.”

          Trump all ready has a tax exempt setup. Those donating are not stupid enough to not know they can donate directly without going through trump. They are doing it to make a point.

          There is nothing dishonest or nefarious about this. It is a political stunt, but it has the effect of raising money for the vets that would otherwise not have been done.

          You suffer from TDS to the point you become deeply stupid*.

          *And by “deeply stupid,” I do not mean “naive.”

        “Dishonest John Trump is routing donations through his ‘foundation’”

        Jennifer, try not to be silly. You can hate trump without being stupid. Of course the trump festival was political. The donations however are real and will be passed on. There is nothing dishonest about it. Most of the donations are from trumps friends. He already has their personal info.

          First of all, I don’t “hate” Twump. I don’t want him in the WH or around me. Period.

          Second, I noted what Trump was doing by needlessly routing donations through his foundations. Yes, it was also for show.

          Bottom line: I am voting for a True Conservative, Ted Cruz. If that makes me stupid then I can live with that.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 29, 2016 at 8:53 pm

          No, what makes for stupid is insinuating that routing the donations through his already existing tax exempt charity is dishonest. That is what you did.


      By the way, Jennifer, I hope you’re aware that only 59.9% of Wounded Warriors’ expenses actually go towards the programs and services it advertises about delivering. 34% of their money is actually spent on “fundraising efforts,” which is rather a lot compared to other groups, which hover closer to the 4%-6% mark. If you have a look around, there are far better charities for wounded veterans out there.

    Seem to remember that Trumps donations to dems over the years is far larger than his Veteran donation.

Not a good night for Cruz. You can tell because Rags is still silent waiting for Cruz people to tell him what to say.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 1:25 am

    Two months ago there were a lot of Trump supporters in the comments here. Where are they now? All I see are the same lame personal attacks by someone who had admitted he does not care about the facts when it comes to his secular messiah.

      They were beaten into silence by the LI insane clown posse for Cruz but I’ve been competing online since 1987 and the hey day of compuserve and PC Mag arguing about computers and os/2 versus windows, IBM versus Microsoft, so with 30 years experience of dealing with imbecilic children like Rags et al I’m a little harder to silence with a rabid gang attack. Been there done that.

      I still sometimes read here, but I comment less because of the vicious ad hominem of the anti-Trump crowd.

      NCMG, it’s a thread about the debate, one without trumps participation.

      You are, like so many, here obsessed, suffer from TDS. It’s so bad you are hurt when there are not enough trump supporters showing up…

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 9:05 am

    See? I live rent free in Bierhall Britt’s “mind”.

    And I really should! I’ve exposed him as a pathological liar days uncounted, and THAT has to sting.

    But I do have a life, and sometimes I just can’t schlong him constantly.

JackRussellTerrierist | January 29, 2016 at 12:35 am

That was an excellent debate that Fox held. It wasn’t boring as some suggested it would be. There were plenty of fireworks, lots of substance, and…..civility.

What breath of fresh air the event was without the noxious, toxic humpatrump there.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | January 29, 2016 at 1:17 am

    I didn’t watch but I’m reading comments about an Islamic Bernie Sanders supporter and an illegal being allowed to ask questions of the candidates

      Yep and that fact alone should be cause for the RNC to cancel all future fox news debates. Fox business channel still ok as they have done good job with debates.

      Ragspierre in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | January 29, 2016 at 9:13 am

      See, this is confusing to me, especially on a site that so thoroughly believes in and supports free speech and dealing with reality.

      If Mark Steyn were invited to sit down and debate a jihadist Imam and a La Raza supporter, do you think he’d refuse? Run away, because the ideas are bad and scary?

      This is what we HAVE to DO, not be afraid to do. It’s really very like Obama and the Obami not being able to say “Islamic terrorism”.

      Use the words…expose and deal with the ideas in the open so that Americans fully understand the issues and how to defeat them!

        JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 10:58 am

        Sure, but I think that at a Repub debate bringing in anti-Conservatives (selected by Google?)to spring gotcha questions should be left to MSNBC and the other pro-Dem channels. Are there *any* watching Conservatives who need to hear about how Muslims are being mistreated?
        Aren’t there some other topics of more concern to us? Spending, the deteriorating education system, expansion in the size and scope of gov’t… Seems to me there are plenty of things to talk about that don’t involve validating Hillary’s talking points?

        Rags, try not to play the stupid. Sitting down for a one on one debate is quite different from inviting a bomb thrower to make accusations in the form of a question, when the response is time limited.

        Fox has been outed. The statement put out by Fox does that all by itself. The tactics employed by fox, the hidden associations by fox, are all things decried by conservatives when practiced by other organizations.

        You seem to be fine with it as long as it is directed at the hated trump.

I haven’t insulted Trump supporters previously, just felt it was not beneficial. I have to say though, having listened to them for months now I have concluded that they are largely dumb people with dumb thoughts spilling put of their slack jawed dumb maws.

I guess in the end we’ll get the Gov’t we deserve, but man oh mighty has the country gotten stupid.

I of course did not watch 1 second of tge debate. But from what ive gleaned from the talking heads on CNN, Hannity, and MSNBC the overwhelming consensus is that Cruz did not have a good night. Rubio had a good night along with Bush and Christie to sone extent.

When asked who was winner in tonight’s debate the strong consensus was TRUMP.

but will those Vet Donations Redirected to Trump Foundation Go 2 Hillary??

Given that FNC gave Rubio the most amount of time and then at the conclusion hyperventilated at how well Bush did it ought to be clear by now that FNC is all about open borders.
Be nice if the sheeple wake up before it’s too late.

    Rupert Murdoch is open borders all the way. That is why Wall Street Journal is blatantly open borders and openly anti Trump. That is why fox is gop establishment and anti Trump.

      JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 11:04 am

      Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics has a 3 piece story about Trump, Cruz and the Repub nominees.
      He pretty clearly sides with GOPe, but does his best to explain the appeal of Trump in an objective way. I still like Miniter’s “a plea to conservative voices” blog post on American Thinker the best for opening my eyes to what’s going on.

After watching the Trump/Fox News Circus, followed by the brutal circular firing squad and then realizing the choice will be between the felon known as Hillary and Trump, Cruz or who knows, I suddenly fear terrified for our country. Is it any wonder why we are failing so badly when we have such a terrible method that results in us picking the least qualified? May God have mercy on America.

    tom swift in reply to Cleetus. | January 29, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Certainly a valid concern. But has the situation really deteriorated, or was it always somewhere between blatantly criminal or downright daffy?

    The 1800 election came perilously close to making a President of Aaron Burr—who by comparison could make even Hillary look like a straight shooter … almost.

    For outright silliness, few modern elections can match the William Harrison campaign in the 1840 election.

    And if you want backroom Congressional wheeling & dealing, the bizarre Tilden/Hayes faceoff of 1876 remains the gold standard (although the eventual winner, Hayes, was apparently not himself a sleazebag).

    They’re all madmen or criminals, and most are both. But so many voters keep hoping that they’ll stumble on one who is both honest and capable. Well, good luck with that.

Serious question: if Trump wasn’t around, wouldn’t Jeb still be leading?

Cruz and the rest are dependent on Fox News for free media, and Fox could direct it’s ire at candidates who didn’t play bal with their agendal, like they kind of did last night. Fox News shouldn’t even have a political agenda but it’s obvious at this point that they do.

Also, Cruz and Rand and Carson are just too nice people to expose Jeb the way Trump did. Without the tough and direct approach, Jeb might never have been exposed.

Other than the pro immigration stuff which is still infuriating, Jeb looked like a typical legitimate Republican candidate last night.

    Ragspierre in reply to rotten. | January 29, 2016 at 9:25 am

    “Serious question: if Trump wasn’t around, wouldn’t Jeb still be leading?”

    No. Would you have any reason to believe YOU’D be inclined to support him?

    Was Jeb! EVER “leading”? And if so, on what possible basis except possibly name-recognition?

    Being rationally consistent, if T-rump’s support is from masses of people who are fed up with the immigration mess, would Jeb! be LEADING if it were a choice between Jeb! and Cruz or Perry?


    janitor in reply to rotten. | January 29, 2016 at 10:40 am

    Rotten: probably, or if not then Rubio.

    Look at what happened to Cruz last night. Look at how he was shut down. Look at how snotty Kelly was, repeatedly arguing. Look at how on so many questions, the same question was not even asked of another candidate. Look at how obnoxious and unnecessarily time-shorting the timer bells were. (An idiot game show).

    We went to a Trump party in Florida. A few Rubio supporters were there with their husbands. (Little sweaty 5’6″ Rubio is just so cute I guess…)

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 29, 2016 at 11:01 am


      YOU would base your vote on how “snotty” Megyn Kelly was to a candidate in ONE debate?

      That’s remarkable. What makes you think other Americans would do that?

      Or, I guess I should say base voters on the conservative end of the spectrum?

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 11:23 am

        I didn’t say that, Rags. But over time, bias has effect, primarily boosting the “favorites”. (Why, e.g. are the rules such that Jeb Bush, Kasich are even still on the stage? And look at how the “debate” rules so unfairly work against Caron, who is a brilliant man who I have no doubt could and would learn what he needed to learn before making any decision. Brain surgeons aren’t allowed to have occasional hasty ooops-es.)

        I wasn’t there booing Cruz.

    Barry in reply to rotten. | January 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    “Serious question: if Trump wasn’t around, wouldn’t Jeb still be leading?”

    The sufferers of TDS are blind to any evidence. That graph (look at one year) tells us a lot. When trump enters the race jeb! is in the lead. Trump goes up, jeb! goes down.

    Other factors? Anything is possible. The only facts in eveidence suggest trump killed the bush.

    One thing I’m certain of, without trump, Cruz never had a chance. Even cruz acknowledges this in his own way.

Connivin Caniff | January 29, 2016 at 8:51 am

I did not watch the debate, but I am curious if the two “outside” questioners who were allegedly going to participate, an illegal alien woman and a Muslim woman, actually appeared, and if not, why not. If they did not show, was their supposed participation bad reporting in the first place, or did Fox pull them because Trump was not there?

    From what I’ve read they were there. It is difficult to understand why RNC in a gop primary not require that any non news people questioners be gop supporters. This is a primary after all.

Those few empty chairs in the balcony at Trump’s vet fundraiser were probably where the protesters sat. The protesters were sitting up there, and when they began shouting, the rest of the audience out-shouted them.

I watched that fundraiser, and it was great! I didn’t watch the debate, but I heard that Cruz didn’t do so well. Someone posted this clip titled “Ted Cruz gets shut down after debate.”

Signs of the Twump times:

“The result: “Senators who exhibited signs of being virtuous became more influential when they were appointed to leadership positions,” the authors write. “Being concerned with issues of justice and fairness, and communicating fearless courage all led independently to increased success.”- (Mr. Ted Cruz)

Meanwhile, “senators who exhibited signs of using manipulative, deceitful or forceful strategies to assert political influence were generally unsuccessful,” the authors write. These results held true across both political parties, both genders and throughout the 10-year study period.” (Twump and Hillary)

Twump charater: narcissistic, Machiavellian and psychopathic.

So, we finally have a Republican debate among the Republican candidates, and the next day, the San Diego Union-Tribune publishes a main editorial by Michael Gerson about Trump.

That, in a nutshell, is the Trump phenomenon.

Our “news” media simply fail to give any of the other candidates their due.

And they wonder why their circulation numbers are so poor.

I think Levin nails it.

Donald Ducks would have manufactured a pretext to avoid a debate with any network conducting it.

He ran. He’s a pussy.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    So a soldier should just go throw himself on a grenade even though there’s no one else around just to prove how brave he is.

    Trump is still beating the crap out of Cruz.

    Trump gave Cruz his chance to lead and show what kind of leader and dealmaker he could be without competition from Trump.

    Apparently Cruz looked whiney and weak. His vaunted college debater skills nowhere to be found, and leadership skills non-existent.

    Turns out Trump is so good and such a leader those who bask in his aura look stronger than they are.


      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 1:25 pm


      Donald Ducks RAN. He’s a pussy.

        Yes that is the official Cruz talking point.

        Trump had the courage and leadership to stand up for himself and walk away from a bad deal. Just like he will stand up for USA when he is president.

        He also was much better strategist than Cruz.

        Given Cruz’s unanimously declared poor whiney performance last night I bet today he very much wishes that he had joined Trump supporting the vers.

        Cruz will be lucky to come in 3rd place in Iowa after oast night.

    “I think Levin nails it.
    Donald Ducks would have manufactured a pretext to avoid a debate with any network conducting it.
    He ran. He’s a pussy.”

    It’s also possible trump is just smarter than you and levin and created a twofer. He avoided a direct confrontation with Cruz that he may or may not have won and took down the despised fox news.

    “He’s a pussy”. And you’re ignorant about politics apparently. He is now leading in the Iowa polling. Winning against Cruz in the debate has no real value. A loss would. Ther is no debate participation requirement. Fox news is clearly biased against both trump AND Cruz. By not participating he leaves fox with the black eye they deserve and

    leaves Cruz on stage a fox’s target.

    Brilliant. Levin nor you are.

MOOK SPOOKED: Hillary manager predicts Trump will win presidency if nominated!

Democrats aren’t laughing about Donald Trump anymore. He has them all but admitting defeat.

Robby Mook

In a stunning admission, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager predicts in an email that Donald Trump will become president if he wins the Republican nomination.

“If Donald Trump takes the Republican nomination, our party will lose more than the presidency,” Robby Mook writes to supporters.

“Years of progress will be ripped away. Obamacare will be repealed. Marriage equality will be rolled back. Get excited to visit the wall on the Mexico border

Viewers started to understand that Trump’s decision to skip Iowa was strategically perfect. He was already ahead in the polls and the debate could have gone bad in some unpredictable way. He removed that risk and moved to something he could control, along with the media.

Trump often claims he can overcome his lack of government experience by hiring great people. Evidently Trump has good people on the campaign because they pulled off quite a show on limited time. It would be hard to think of anything Trump’s campaign has done wrong.

Trump is running for Dealmaker in Chief. We saw him walk away from a bad deal at Fox and negotiate for millions of dollars in donations within one day. And we saw him make all of it work. It looked effortless (but obviously was not).

Huckabee and Santorum shared the stage with Trump. Both are popular in Iowa. They improved their own images and Trump’s too.

Marco Rubio Previously Paid Pollster Frank Luntz, Who Praised Rubio on Fox News

“…Nevertheless, GOP Establishment flacks cited Luntzs post-debate focus group to defend Rubios subpar performance…

“I say this merely as a reporter: Marco Rubio crushed it according to Luntzs focus group”…

List of charities that will receive donations from last night’s fundraiser

    Tell us how much they’ll each receive… and also tell us why Trump didn’t recommend that people give directly to those charities themselves rather than to Donald Trump’s personal foundation, which so far has donated more to Hillary Clinton than it has to veterans’ associations.

This means Cruz has given up on thoughts of winning Iowa. Now he’s playing to try and hold onto second place in Iowa. After last night’s spotty debate performance by Cruz and better performance by Rubio, Rubio is positioned to pull votes from Cruz.

One thing the debate did last night was make clear yet again how Cruz supported amnesty and paths to legalization previously, and how both Cruz and Rubio have flip flopped around on Amnesty and illigal immigration.

Only Trump is left as the ONLY candidate clearly against amnesty, for deportation, and the enforcement of our laws.

Here is Politico’s description of the destruction of Rubio and Cruz on immigration last night:

Kelly flummoxed Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, currently polling second and third in Iowa, with brutal video montages that vividly demonstrated their flip-flops on immigration reform. To make things even more delicious for Trump, his other favorite bullying target, “low-energy” Jeb Bush, helped twist the knife into Rubio. And another one of his punching bags, Rand Paul, helped deliver the beatdown to Cruz.

It’s hard to see how the debate could have gone any better for Trump than if he had actually participated.

Takedown Cruz:
Cruz once filed an amendment to Rubio’s bill that would have created a path to “legalization,” but he has argued that it was really a poison pill designed to kill reform. Last night, though, Kelly effectively quashed that argument, playing several clips of Cruz insisting that he did want reform to pass. “Was that all an act?” Kelly asked him. “It was pretty convincing!” After Cruz flailed around for a few minutes, arguing that it was unfair for Kelly to focus on 38 words in a 1,000-page bill, Kelly turned to Rand Paul, yet another frequent target of Trump’s barbs. “Senator Paul, you know how Washington works,” she said. “Do you buy that?”

Paul—who has denounced Trump as unfit for office, and who has been mocked by Trump for his poll numbers and even his looks—obligingly continued the evisceration of Cruz. “He can’t have it both ways,” he said. “What is particularly insulting is, he’s the king of saying ‘You’re for amnesty.’ Everyone’s for amnesty except for Ted Cruz. But it’s a falseness, and that’s an authenticity problem … I was for legalization. So was Ted—but now he says he wasn’t. That’s not true.”

Takedown Rubio:
She began by airing several video clips of Rubio promising to oppose amnesty when he ran for Senate in 2010, at one point arguing that an “earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” She then pointed out that in the Senate, Rubio helped lead the push for a bill that included an earned path to citizenship.

“Haven’t you already proven that you cannot be trusted on this issue?” Kelly asked.