At which point, he has a death sentence on his head for apostasy, no?

"And unfortunately for the country these people vote.... "

Multiple times...

Thanks for completely ignoring (though quoting) the "up until a few weeks ago..." part of my comment. My point is that in the run-up to the primaries, Romney was only campaigning against Obama. It was when the race began to tighten that he was compelled to go negative on his primary opponents.

Gingrich is using a lot more than small arms fire in his assault, up to and including gross misrepresentations of Romney's AND Santorum's past actions and statements, which is when I lost all respect for him. When things are going well for him, he's all sweetness and light. When things go bad, he gets mean-spirited and ugly, and that kind of behavior would not go over well in the general election.

And I'm quite awake, thank you very much.

You must have a short memory. Up until a few weeks ago, when Gingrich pulled out the long knives, Romney was almost exclusively campaigning against Obama rather than his primary opponents, letting everyone else take shots at each other as they vied for the title of the best non-Romney candidate. Now that the field has narrowed and Gingrich won in SC and has gotten pissy about his losses, Romney has focused his attention on Gingrich and Santorum.

I've liked Romney's and Santorum's stump speeches when they've focused on Obama and on how to bring America back to greatness. Gingrich is just too snarky for my tastes, even when he's going after Obama.

Maybe the embryonic stem cell research isn't showing any promising results for a cure to breast cancer, so they've decided to put their money into different research that is showing results. I don't know if this is the case, but it's a legitimate reason to cut off the grants. From what I've read, embryonic stem cells are not as useful as adult stem cells in addressing medical problems.

Am I the only one who thinks they've already had way too many debates? It seemed to be every 3 days or so for a while there.

If I were in charge, there would be four or five debates, and they would focus on the areas that the public show are most important: the Economy, National Security, Role of Government, etc. Focusing on gotcha questions is not informative to the viewers. I'm not a big Gingrich fan these days, but at least he tries to get them back on topic.

I think the candidates should use my old college exam approach: whatever the question, redirect to what you can talk about and score points; in this case, an actual platform issue. Example: "Do you oppose gay marriage?" "Whether I oppose it or not is not germane since the Executive Branch cannot enact any laws. I will say that I believe in states' rights and feel that the issue rests in that realm. The federal government shouldn't dictate a policy in this area to the entire nation...."

Hasn't this story already received more attention than it could possibly warrant? Is this equal time to rebut the version told in The King's Speech?