I asked some friends to offer up their opinions on the recent GOP debate for the presidency in Iowa. We are always looking for a deeper understanding as to why some candidates appeal to folks when sometimes, we are unable to see it ourselves.

For instance, according to Politico, rapper Vanilla Ice weighed in on Twitter saying he liked Cain the best. Well, as we all know, as goes Vanilla Ice, so goes the country.

I also heard (okay, maybe I started this rumor) that Bill Clinton supports Ron Paul. Why? Because Bill admires any man who has had his hands up in more women than he has!

And to tell you the truth, I would vote for Chia Pet Obama over Obama – because the Chia would do less harm to our country!

Alan Dillingham, Facebook friend, patriot, serving in the Navy, and conservative said this:

The debate was interesting to say the least. It quickly turned into a no holds brawl when the moderators quickly and brutally attacked most of the candidate’s records. Then they deliberately manipulated the debate by pitting each of them to fight amongst themselves, which they would later take advantage of in a news report proclaiming weakness in the GOP field. I noticed that this debate had a lot of talking points that Ron Paul has addressed for many years now. Who won the debate is subjective, but in my opinion it would Ron Paul, based on the fact that most of his issues with the economy and foreign policy is now in mainstream debate. So I view that as an overall win, not just for the night but over time including the growing Liberty movement, all in the pursuit of restoring the constitution, the back bone of America.

Sorry, Ron Paul still has the Ross Perot “that dog won’t hunt” vibe to me – and he makes me a bit uneasy. But I appreciate Alan’s take on it; he is an intelligent young man.

Frank V. Colangelo, Facebook friend, patriot, who describes himself as: “I’m a practical, rational compassionate conservative individual and proud of my Italian heritage but prouder to be a patriotic American. I am a strong conservative and a strict constitutionalist who believes in the true exceptionalism of this great country and its people.”

My opinion is that Pawlenty and Santorum are out. Bachmann and Romney held their own. Newt did good – but is it too late? If you’re a Paul supporter, which I am not, you were probably pleased. The rest of the gang were insignificant.

Frank expressed what I heard others say. Frank has a sound, reasonable mind and I appreciate his assessment.

Scarlett Mullins, Facebook friend, patriot, and beautiful conservative woman who expresses herself freely and passionately said:

I think the only one who was really hurt last night was Pawlenty. He came off as aggressive, arrogant and trying desperately to stay relevant. Ron Paul was just Ron Paul. Lots of good ideas that I agree with but once again they let him talk to much. His exuberance over rides his good sense. Newt was sharp on his facts as usual. He’s smart but he tend to flip flop too much. Santorum was honest to the core. In some ways this made him the most impressive. Cain was Cain, charming and engaging but I wish he would stop with the whole ‘Problem Solver’ I know it’s his catch phrase but I wanted more than just his talking points. Bachmann and Romeny were pretty much the same as usual, professional and smooth. Again, I wish they would have given more. Huntsman was the odd man out and I don’t think he’s going to be able to pick up from that. And that’s my two cents. 😉

Again, some great insight. Cain is likeable – and is not afraid to admit there are parts of the job he doesn’t know well (foreign policy) – but is willing to learn. But is America really ready for another on-the-job training president? Once burned…

Herb Fontenot offered:

Newt has been on the inside. He knows what he’s saying. It’s just a lot of people don’t know what he’s saying and a lot of people believe the media and it’s reporting.

There is a special place in my heart for Newt. For one, liberals seem to fear him. Secondly, Obama stole the title of Newt’s book and tried to pass it off as his own catch phrase, “Winning the Future” [or WTF for the snarky ones of us].

David Cholesterol ‎noted:

Ron Paul thinks it’s okay for Iran to have nukes… He and his lunatic following are destroying the party.

“Ron Paul was just Ron Paul. Lots of good ideas that I agree with but once again they let him talk to much. His exuberance over rides his good sense.” What was the good ideas? Letting Iran have a nuke? Or leaving them alone when they do? He is insane! Pawlently is done, but RP is the biggest loser of them all.

Well, clearly David is no fan of Ron Paul. I have to say, not caring about the rest of world gives me pause. I do not wish to see the fights come to us, on our shores.

Eva Kolosiek expressed her take on Ron Paul:

Ron Paul came off (to me) as a hysterical reactionary.  (I was a bit concerned he may stroke out!) He lost me with the the remark about Iran/nukes. Then he really turned me off w his “blame America” for Iran’s intransigence because we “installed the shah” decades ago. It would have been more appropriate to blame Jimmy Carter for sending suitcases of American money to Ayatollah Khomeini and helping return him from exile to establish the theocracy they have today! (Obozo’s making Uncle Jimmy proud.)

Do you see a trend? All of these comments were on one thread, where I asked my FB friends to comment on the debate, who won, and why. It quickly devolved into a food fight between Ron Paul anarchists and everyone else not for Ron Paul. That tells me Ron may be too polarizing – no matter how brilliant. Could his brilliance be tapped as a member of the president’s cabinet or other significant position? The answer to that is above my pay grade and I admit to being biased against him.

And finally, in my poll of a Conservative group on FaceBook:

Steve Frank weighed in:

I will give Newt a second look.

Steve clearly read all of the above comments (and more) and I have to say I enjoyed the snippets of Newt going off on Chris Matthews, who wanted to roll around in the minutia and not ask policy questions. Also, it shows that at least some conservatives have not cast their opinions in concrete yet – a good sign to those of us dedicated to voting Obama out.

So how did the Straw Polls turn out? I asked Craig Andresen for his interpretation of the data:

Craig Andresen, all around cool guy, smart mouth, cynic:

Okay, first, Thanks Patty, for allowing me to weasel into your article! Let’s take a look at the debate and how it either did or didn’t influence the Iowa Straw Poll and where we may go from here with this gaggle of candidates.

I have to admit, when the debate started, and all 8 candidates were lined up on the stage, MY first thought was…Well, there’s Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs! As it turned out, Snow White won the straw poll with Grumpy finishing 2nd but, did Bachmann win the debate and where did Paul stand after the debate?

Most pundits thought Gingrich won the debate but goodness, he finished after a write-in at the Straw Poll…what happened?

Most pundits aren’t from Iowa…THAT’S what happened! Michelle Bachmann IS from Iowa and THAT plays into it. Tim Pawlenty struck OUT at Bachmann trying to label her leadership as a disaster and not because she’s from Iowa but because she’s a Tea Party staple, Pawlenty looses votes.  When he went after her on THOSE grounds, Pawlenty was dissing all Tea Party backed Members of Congress and Iowans are plenty smart enough to know that one person alone in the House, voting against the majority in the senate, is NOT responsible for what’s going on and that the democrats ARE.

Who care now? He’s OUT of the race making his announcement on Sunday morning after his 3rd place finish. Newt? You paying attention here???

Grumpy finished 2nd in the Straw Poll and the Grumpettes are vibrating mad! Here’s why, even with an army of Ron Paul zombies he couldn’t pull it off. Paul said in the debate that he was just fine with Iran getting nukes. In Iowa, people HELP their neighbors and they realize their neighbors may live a long ways away. Iowans also know that Israel IS our neighbor in their part of the world and IF Iran gets nukes, they’re gonna aim em at Israel. Paul’s most memorable moment in the debate didn’t sit well in Iowa.

So, what about Newt? What happened?Newt went to the well one too many times with his “gotcha” routine and when in Iowa, you should NEVER go to the well too often. Iowans also seem to know a dry well when the see one and they feel Newt’s done. He was great when he led the house but the baggage he’s accumulated since and the years he’s been out have left him bogged down and rusty. Iowans are slow to give up their tractors but they WILL hitch it to a new plow…Newt., in Iowa lingo, is headed for the back of the barn and a bunch of tall grass.

Now, before you start thinking it’s insulting to compare Michelle Bachmann to a plow, think like an Iowan. Whether they’re city dwellers of farmers, they now the value of a good new plow! They know you can drive a tractor all day but it’s the plow that does the work and they just hitched up to Bachmann and turned over the field of candidates!

Throughout the debate, Bachmann stood her ground, she didn’t try to avoid questions, she stood on her record and she knew who the enemy was…Iowans WERE listening and Iowans DID show the pundits who THEY felt won the debate!

From here, it’s campaign heavy and straight on till caucus. The entry of Rick Perry will be Bachmann’s biggest NEW challenge and Mitt will be the biggest long term challenge. With her now 2 debate showings and the Straw Poll victory, Michelle Bachman is a solid top tier candidate and unless she self destructs, will be in the final 3 leading to the nomination…a thought that strikes FEAR into the hearts of liberals everywhere.

Whoever wins or comes in second in the Straw Poll wins the Iowa Caucus but if Ron Paul continues to proclaim that Iran is cool with nukes, the Caucus belongs to Bachmann and other states will combine to determine the nominee.