RELATED: Poll Says Fox News Most Trusted News Source…And Least Trusted

According to the study:

CBS had the most positive portrayals — 57% positive vs. 43% negative, partly because of its highly favorable (89% positive) evaluations of Ron Paul. FOX had the most balanced overall coverage with 52% positive vs. 48% negative comments. NBC was the most negative overall with 27% positive vs. 73% negative coverage, followed closely by ABC with 32% positive vs. 68% negative coverage. Both NBC and ABC featured 85% negative comments on Romney.

[...]

Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage — 50% negative and 50% positive comments. Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.

To see the full results of the survey, click here.

The Georgetown manufacturing company was on Rick Perry’s mind, as he noted that “they picked that company over and a lot of people lsot their jobs there.” This he contrasted to his record, which he cited as “one of those that has been open to the public for quite a few years,” and added, “my income tax has been out every year. Mitt, we need to see your income taxes.”

The audience received the line to raucous applause, and Perry added an explanation that expanded beyond just wanting Romney to expose himself: “We cannot fire our nominee in September– we need to know now.”

The segment via Fox News below:

“You’re trying to make sure that everybody gets equal time but obviously the people who are on the top of the polls are in focus because they’re responding to attacks, responding to different questions, will get some extra time,” Baier told the New York Daily News’s Aliyah Shahid.

Steve Palisin at the Myrtle Beach Online, points out that the debate is something of a homecoming for Baier, as he first got his start as a Beaufort local newsman.

I was a one-man reporter, photographer and editor. I remember covering sea turtle nesting. … It was my first on-air position, so I have an affinity for coastal South Carolina. I did get to cover some things with the military at Parris Island, and interview Carroll Campbell, who was then governor — that was a big deal. Most of the stories, though, had to do with local battles within the Hilton Head Island Town Council.

As an added bonus to the happenings on the TV, The New York Times‘s Brian Stelter notes that Fox News will be “measuring viewers’ reactions to each answer on Twitter” during the debate.

Twitter users who are watching the debate will be encouraged to react using the hashtags #answer and #dodge — giving their assessment of whether the candidates are dodging or actually answering questions — and the results will be displayed in metered form on FoxNews.com.

Afterward, when TV commentators are analyzing what happened at the debate, “we’re going to try to pull some of this data into those conversations,” said Jeff Misenti, the vice president and general manager of Fox News Digital.

Viewers interested to see how this new dynamic will affect the candidates — and to catch native son Baier doing what he does best — can tune in at 9 p.m. EST on Fox News Channel.

RELATED: Krauthammer Deadpans: Pearl Harbor Does Not ‘Do Justice To The Grandness Of Newt’

On last night’s Special Report, the “Lightning Round” began with a quick talk about President Obama’s promise to consolidate the government in more economic ways. Eventually, they got to the most popular topic as per their online poll: Tim Tebow, Krauthammer’s pick for discussion. “I want to say how humbled I am by the support I got from the viewers, and want to congratulate my opponents for a clean campaign,” he joked, before getting to why he considered Tebow so important. “I love this guy! I love this story! and I think the best element of it is that the secular types are getting all in a twist about him– relax, enjoy!” he told detractors.

The panel then went around and discussed exactly why Tebow was so compelling– Nina Easton noted that Tebow brought sick children to his games and gave them his time and encouragement, for one– but the bottom line for Krauthammer was that the story was fun, and people allowed politics to get in the way of that.

Krauthammer is usually the columnist brought in to give specific insight on serious and complex political issues, where millions of lives or livelihoods are often on the line– things like US-Iranian conflict or what a President Gingrich would mean for America. There is a good argument for the FCC just coming down and putting a ban on the words “Tim Tebow” on cable news, but this is a marked exception from the politicization of the football player: it is a celebration of exactly what he is and wants to do with his life, independent of the usually tedious and confrontational issues that have cropped up peripherally to his success.

The clip via Fox News below:

RELATED: RuPaul Is ‘Campaigning’ In New Hampshire To Spread Awareness That He Is Not Ron Paul

“The New Hampshire primary matters, and matters a lot,” Hume noted, considering it “an important win for Mitt Romney, and “the Paul showing is interesting.” “I continue to believe– and I think most observers do– that he has as much of a chance of getting nominated as RuPaul would, so all he does is block the other candidates from trying to overtake Romney,” Hume joked.

He added commentary about the rest of the field in the future. “If you look at this field now and you look ahead and you think, well, who now is in a position to challenge Mitt Romney going forward?” he asked, “the one person with enough national name recognition, and perhaps enough money, and intellectual candlepower who might’ve been able do it would be Newt Gingrich,” but Gingrich, he notes, has been destroyed by the Romney machine.

The clip via Fox News below:

“If this keeps up we may have to reconsider!” Paul quipped.

RELATED: Rep. Ron Paul Gets Irked By Newsletter Questions, Walks Out Of CNN Interview

“It was amazing!” Baier explained to an incredulous Neil Cavuto. “It was a breakfast meet-and-greet, we went there to see Congressman Paul talking to folks and we get there and the place is packed with photographers and reporters and I would say probably, 100 or 120. I don’t know the number — but every place Congressman Paul went, every table he went to, there was a huge scrum and pancakes are flying and it was just amazing!”

Watch the incredible footage of Ron Paul getting chased out of a campaign event by reporters via Fox News:

RELATED: Sarah Palin To Donald Trump Critics: ‘Shut Up About It’

Anchor Bret Baier began his discussion with Palin by asking if she would be willing to endorse Rick Santorum Tuesday night, given her praise of him in the past. She would not do so exclusively, though she said that she was, “not surprised at his success tonight,” because he, “is spot on with his policies on peace through strength in America and taking a hard line against Iran.” She added that she believed there were “strong, good showings” for other candidates too, for “very distinct reasons,” and then turned to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Of the latter, Palin noted that he and his voters, “understand that many Americans are war-weary, and we are broke.”

Baier then once again attempted to get an answer from Palin about a potential endorsement, but Palin answered that she had, “openly supported each one of the Republican candidates,” and focused on getting someone elected, not just nominated. She also refused to give a prediction as to whether Romney was poised to take the whole thing, instead answering that “there is no telling after this result,” and that she believed Rep. Michele Bachmann should only drop out if she does not want to borrow or use personal money after this race.

The segment via Fox News below:

Bret Baier brought up Newt Gingrich‘s response to Holder’s accusations, and asked the panel why Holder said what he did. ABC’s Rick Klein thought it an odd move that called into question Holder’s political sensibilities, because the public scrutiny will certainly not go away after comments like those.

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out At Eric Holder Over Black Panther Comments

Steve Hayes had a different theory for why Republicans in Congress have been so strong in going after Holder: his refusal to answer questions during testimonies, especially in the midst of the “Fast & Furious” scandal, have particularly irked them. Race has not necessarily played a big role in criticism of the Attorney General.

But the biggest shots at Holder came from Krauthammer, who spared no detail in explaining what he thought of the comments.

“It’s clearly the cheap shot of an Attorney General who thinks he’s in trouble. And the reason he is is because he’s one of the most incompetent Attorneys General in US history. He’s the guy who brought on gratuitously the fiasco of the KSM trial in New York that even Democrats rebelled against. He’s the guy that’s led the department that’s been either totally ignorant or disingenuous or worse of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal. And now he plays the race card. To use his words, I think it’s a cowardly use of the race card. And it’s unbecoming.”

RELATED: Report: Congressional Investigators Prepare To Subpoena Eric Holder Regarding ‘Fast And Furious’

Of course, in the spirit of the holiday season, Krauthammer ended his remarks by wishing Holder a Merry Christmas. And isn’t that what the holiday season is all about? No matter how incompetent or corrupt you might find someone, wishing them a happy holiday season makes all the difference in the world.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Wall Street Journal Calls Republican Payroll Tax Strategy A ‘Fiasco’

“Obama set up a trap, it’s a game,” Krauthammer observed. “He knows he doesn’t have any effect on the economy. It’s a way to trap Republicans and he has succeeded! This has a lot of Republicans on board. What the Democrats have succeeded in doing is have the upper hand in the initiative. If the Republicans leave now, the Democrats are not going to save the Republicans…We are going to January 1. There will be a tax holiday imposed. They will pass it in the Senate and the House. What Republicans should have done is swallow the bill and accept it in a month or two. Or what Boehner ought to do is call the House back and propose the bill that the Senate passed with one change. You change the date of expiration of the tax cut from 29 of February to December 31. Every other comma, noun and adjective, as is, and pass it and then dare the Senate and president not to accept.”

Krauthammer joins a growing list of discontented conservatives, including Arizona Senator John McCain and the Wall Street Journal who feel President Obama outfoxed House Republicans on the payroll tax cut extension.

Watch Krauthammer concede President Obama outplayed Republicans below via Fox News:

(h/t ThinkProgress)

Wallace, who has caught some flak for his recent comments on Ron Paul, took a few serious moments to say that he stood by his feeling that a Paul win in the Iowa caucus diminishes the relevancy of the event. Cavuto jumped in, saying that it’s wrong to dismiss Paul’s hypothetical win:

“You can’t besmirch a candidate if he or she wins because it might seem like that candidate’s outside the mainstream.”

When Kelly pressed Cavuto for his impressions of the moderating experience so far, he quickly replied, “Chris is rude.” He later also added, “I can carry the nerd element here.”

Kelly then asked each “bachelor” if they were nervous, and what their pre-game ritual was:

Baier: “You always get a little bit nervous at the beginning. big crowd, big viewership. I always call my 4 1/2 year-old to get some words of wisdom.”

Wallace: “I will go sit in a room by myself, completely quiet for about 20 minutes before the debate and just go over the questions and think about it and think about how they might respond and follow ups I might ask and I just want to own the material before I go in.

Cavuto: “I am nervous. You guys have been cool as a cucumber before this. I’m going to have a Ralph Kramden ‘core a apple’ moment. I know that. It’s well worth it for viewers to stick around to watch. So when the first question comes, Bret’s ready with, ‘Okay, we’ll take over the derivatives questions.’” (“That’s why I have all of the questions,” Baier added. “Just in case somebody leaves the stage momentarily.”)

Watch the entire preview clip below, courtesy of Fox News:

He Tweeted a picture of Paul happily playing with a teddy bear at the hospital before his procedure, as well as two of the little boy enjoying a cartoon movie and a popsicle with his parents.

RELATED: Fox News’ Bret Baier Talks About Raising A Child With A Congenital Heart Defect

After the procedure, Baier let his Twitter followers know that “Paul is out of his procedure and doing well. He is resting now– thank you to everyone for your prayers and your good wishes!” Baier also interracted with his well-wishers online, thanking them for their kind words, trading stories, and answering questions.

Get well soon, little dude!

h/t Bret Baier

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Won’t Kiss Donald Trump’s Ring, Or ‘Any Other Part Of His Anatomy’

The conversation was short and began with host Bret Baier turning to David Drucker of Roll Call, who argued that Trump was not the only problem with the debate, but simply that there had been so many debates that yet another one would not be “the most attractive ticket.” There was also the fact, he noted, that Trump was still threatening to run for president as an independent, and “somebody like him could split up the Republican vote.”

RELATED: Donald Trump Fights Back: ‘Ron Paul Is A Joke’ And George Will Is ‘Third-Rate’

Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor took former Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s side on the debate, however, arguing that Gingrich’s point about having a sense of humor about these things was healthy. To that point, Krauthammer agreed, but added, “a debate in which the moderator chooses a nominee afterwards, I think, is a reality TV show. It’s not a debate, and it is a joke.”

The segment via Fox News below:

After showing the clip of Baier riding in a pick-up truck driven by Bush on his Crawford, Texas ranch, Colbert called out Baier’s follow-up comment of “wow!” with incredulity, saying “Wow? Wow! That’s a follow-up question! Where was that Brett Baier?” Colbert then chided the Fox News anchor by adding “All of a sudden you are admiral tough question! if anyone here is a flip-flopper it’s you Brett Baier.”

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Comedy Central:

“Romney appears only in debates,” Stewart explained, “surrounded by Munsters, aka the other Republican presidential candidates. And instantly, voters think, ‘Hey, the pretty one seems normal.’”

That all changed, of course, when Romney sat down for an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier inside an abandoned jelly mine. (Or, Stewart jokes, the bunker Glenn Beck left behind.)

Stewart, of course, made sure to mention Baier’s appearance on Bill O’Reilly‘s show, where he shared that Romney had grown “irritated” over their interview.

RELATED: Bret Baier To O’Reilly: Mitt Romney Thought My Interview Was ‘Overly Aggressive’

Stewart then teased (He did! It was teasing!) Romney for not sharing the “fun book” he’s reading, as well as for naming the same book he purported to have “just read” six months ago.

The real (“real”) issue at hand, however, is Romney’s defensiveness over being asked about having changed his stance on various issues since his time as governor of, as Stewart put it, a liberal state. “Where have I seen that evasive, defensive attitude before?” Stewart mused. Answer: Herman Cain discussing allegations that he had a mistress for over a decade.

Stewart’s conclusion?

Just like Herman Cain, Mitt Romney has had an embarrassing person in his past who he’s desperately trying to hide. For Herman Cain, it’s a woman named Ginger White. For Mitt Romney… It’s Mitt Romney.

Have a look, via Comedy Central:

The video supplements tense moments from that Fox interview with footage of Mitt Romney arguing with a reporter during the 2008 campaign, losing his temper with a voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in April, and scolding reporters for asking questions outside his appointed “press availability” a few days ago (not included in that clip is the ironic fact that one of those reporters asked him asked, “Is there a particular reason you’re only speaking to Fox News?”).

As bad as the interview was, the most damaging thing in this video is Bret Baier’s account of Romney complaining to him after the interview that Baier was “too aggressive,” returning to his “holding area,” then coming back to complain again.

The video also contains clips of cable newsers commenting on Romney’s avoidance of the press, an attack that the Huntsman campaign also leveled today, emailing reporters an op-ed that notes Romney “has not appeared on a Sunday talk show since, as Gail Collins put it in today’s New York Times, ‘The Hurt Locker’ beat ‘Avatar’ for best picture.’”

Ordinarily, this kind of an attack would produce diminished returns with conservative voters, who often view inimical relations with the media as a product of the media’s lamestreaminess, but the fact that this one revolves around a Fox News interview, supposedly “friendly” territory, gives it extra bite.

Of course, Romney’s current chief rival, Newt Gingrich, is also no stranger to question kvetching. Even among conservatives, his constant scolding of debate moderators this cycle has become a running joke. Like Romney, the supposedly safe environs of Fox News have not deterred Gingrich from whining about the questions he’s being asked.

Asked what book he’s read most recently, Romney said, “I’m reading sort of a fun one right now, so I’ll skip that,” adding, “I just read ‘Decision Points’ by President Bush.”

This begs the obvious question of what could be more embarrassing that reading a George W. Bush tome. Is he reading the scratch ‘n sniff edition of Snooki‘s A Shore Thing?

Romney has taken some ribbing in the past over his reading choices. Some websites needled him earlier this year over his admission that he’s a big Twilight fan, almost exactly four years after he took grief for telling Fox News that his favorite novel was Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard‘s Battlefield Earth. (Romney was careful to add that he was “not in favor of his religion by any means.”)

The “what do you read” question has tripped up many a candidate, but it’s not as if Romney said he was getting his news from Hubbard or Team Edward. While we may kid candidates about stuff like this, Romney’s affinity for crap shouldn’t matter at all to voters, or anyone else. In fact, as a guy who loves to chair dance to the Lil Mama remix of Avril Lavigne‘s Girlfriend in the car, and doesn’t care who knows it, I find Romney’s willingness to admit the embarrassing somewhat endearing.

The reason that Romney’s response to Baier is so telling is that it demonstrates that these superficialities matter to him. When he took grief over Battlefield Earth, he had his spokesperson put out a statement clarifying that it was only one of his favorite books, and that The Bible was his favorite. This time around, he dodged the question entirely.

What’s really strange, though, is that he said the first part out loud. Instead of just telling Baier, “I’m reading Decision Points,” he engaged in a bit of “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake!” honesty by telling him that he’s reading something “fun.”

Politically speaking, he’d have been better off just lying, but maybe it says something about Mitt Romney that he couldn’t bring himself to lie, but was also too afraid to tell the truth.

What’s also interesting is that Baier had a question about Romney’s religion queued up right after the book question. Did he think the answers might be related?

Baier asked, “Do you think your faith will hurt you in this primary election, and what do you think the biggest misconception of your faith is?”

Romney said he thought it might have some impact with “a narrow group of voters” (don’t be so sure he wasn’t using “narrow” as a double-entendre), and cleverly answered that the biggest misconception about his religion is the name. “It’s the Church of Jesus Christ,” Romney said, with a pause for emphasis on Jesus Christ, “of Latter-Day Saints.”

Here’s the clip, from Fox News:

Romney’s poor performance, compounded by his later complaints that Baier was “overly aggressive,” is on full display in Huntsman’s ad, which interrupts Romney’s protests with smoking-gun clips that drive the fork in deeper. Substantively, it’s very effective, but Huntsman really ought to hook up with Paul’s campaign, or with Bill Burton, to get past the cheesy underproduction that has dogged his ads. This one, for example, has a great hook with “Mitt-stant Replay,” but has no score, and uses an arcane rewind effect.

Here’s the spot, via YouTube:

With scant weeks before Republicans go to the polls, Huntsman’s New Hampshire numbers wouldn’t ordinarily look too scary. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, he’s at 11%, 23 points off the lead. If this year’s race has taught us anything, though, it’s that a lot can happen in a few weeks, and in fact, does happen. Huntsman and Ron Paul, who’s at 14% in NH and is polling in second place in one Iowa poll, each have decent cause for optimism.

The mercurial nature of this primary has been blamed on the combination of a weak field, and a fundamental distaste/distrust for consistent polling leader Mitt Romney, but the 2011 media machine also has a lot to do with it. Even in the scant years since 2008, the media has changed a lot, with social media and the ever-shrinking news cycle playing a much more influential part. Every little thing these candidates say matters, and it’s all available for embedding on your favorite website.

The most tangible result of these changes is that the debates matter more than ever. They have become social media Super Bowls, with the highlights and lowlights disseminated far and wide. That’s a distinct advantage for bubble candidates like Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, who can make gains on wounded frontrunners like Romney and Gingrich quickly. Huntsman’s failure to qualify for the next debates in Iowa hurts, but he’ll still have a shot in the New Hampshire debate, days before that state’s primary. Ron Paul, on the other hand, will have ample opportunity to take Romney and Gingrich out, but he also has to deal with a mainstream media that simply refuses to acknowledge his existence.

Even without the debates, though, Huntsman can benefit from another growing media phenomenon: the completely free web ad. Nowadays, any candidate or committee can produce an ad very cheaply, and if it’s compelling enough, cable news channels will play it incessantly, free of charge. On Morning Joe today, for example, host Joe Scarborough played a very long stretch of Ron Paul’s two-and-a-half minute nuclear attack on Newt Gingrich. That’s why Huntsman could really use some production mojo.

Paul’s ad showcases the most compelling reason to think that Newt Gingrich’s days at the top  are numbered. In the search for the anti-Romney, Newt Gingrich turns out to have out-Romneyed Romney. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman are all that’s left of the GOP bench. The next few weeks will determine who can make the best case to “Put me in, coach!”

Baier gamely explained why it was that he’d asked Romney about “RomneyCare.” Yes, again:

RELATED: Tense: Bret Baier Confronts Mitt Romney Over Health Care Mandate

Well it lead, Bill, to another question about some of the statements that had been used in ads, both by the DNC and Jon Huntsman and others, that are current and in which he has, he says in these clips, that it’s a model for the nation. He’s been clear that health care in Massachusetts was, in his mind, for the state. But I wanted him to clear up some of these clips that have been out there. That’s why I went down that road. And he clearly got upset with the question.

He was irritated by the interview after we were done.

“How’d you know he was irritated?” O’Reilly asked. “Did he slap you, or what’d he do?”

“Well, he just made it clear at the end of the interview,” Baier responded, later adding that Romney had thought the interview was “overly aggressive.”

“Wow,” said a rather surprised O’Reilly.

“As we were walking in the ‘walk and talk,’” Baier continued, “and then after we finished, he went to his holding room and then came back and said he didn’t like the interview and thought it was uncalled for.”

RELATED: Fox’s Bret Baier Calls Out Mitt Romney For Having Same Immigration Stance As Gingrich

When pressed by O’Reilly on what else might have irritated Romney, Baier obliged:

Well, I mean, I started with the union leader endorsement of Speaker Gingrich [...] and the fact that they said, in not so many words, that Mitt Romney lacked conviction.

Baier added that he wasn’t trying to put Romney in a spot with “gotcha” questions, but, rather, was trying to get the candidate to address current issues and talking points relating to his campaign. “He’s under attack,” said Baier. “If you look at any analyst, they’ll say his biggest vulnerability is what he said back then and what he’s saying now. And I was giving him the opportunity to address that head on.”

Have a look at O’Reilly and Baier’s full discussion below, via Fox News:

Baier began by referencing Romney’s book, which had a line about the health care mandate (“We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”) removed in its paperback version, and Romney’s insistence that his Romneycare law is not the same as Obamacare.

“Do you still support the idea of a mandate? Do you believe that that was the right thing for Massachusetts? Do you think a mandate, mandating people to buy insurance is the right tool?” Baier asked.

A clearly frustrated Romney replied, with a strained laugh, “Bret, I don’t know how many hundred times I’ve said this, too — this is an unusual interview. All right, let’s do it again.”

Romney reminded Baier of all the times he has said that his plan was only a good idea at the state level, at which point Baier, to his credit, reminded the candidate of what that other Romney guy has been saying. “Governor, you did say, on camera and other places, that at times you thought it would be a model for the nation.”

“You’re wrong, Bret,” Romney shot back.

“No, there’s tape,” Baier replied.

Perhaps a bit rattled, Romney urged Baier to continue to “read the tape,” insisting that his position on the individual mandate has always been “for each state to be able to look at it.”

Unfortunately, Baier didn’t produce any tape for Romney to “read,” but we’ve got some that might have come in handy last night. In a 2009 Meet The Press appearance, Romney endorsed the Healthy Americans Act, also known as the Wyden-Bennett bill, which would have “establish(ed) Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans (HAPIs) and require those who do not already have health insurance coverage, and who do not oppose health insurance on religious grounds, to enroll themselves and their children in a HAPI.”

Here’s what Romney said then: (emphasis mine, h/t Ezra Klein)

…the right way to proceed is to reform health care. That we can do, as we did it in Massachusetts, as Wyden-Bennett is proposing doing it at the national level. We can do it for the nation, we can get everybody insured, we can get the cost of health care down, but we don’t have to have government insurance and government running health care to get that done.

Your witness, Mr. Baier.

As sorry as I feel for the Romney Dangerfield of the Republican field, I feel even worse for the voters he can’t seem to get no respect from. How is it that a group of people who hate Obamacare so much have now ended up having to choose between the Wright Brothers of the individual mandate? In case you missed it, Romney made it fly, but he credits Newt Gingrich for the blueprints.

Here’s the health care portion of Bret Baier’s interview with Mitt Romney, from Fox News:

Gingrich was roundly attacked at last week’s debate for proposing what he called a “humane” immigration policy, one that would not expel undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for 25 years, who have children and grandchildren, and who belong to a church. He took great care to specify that even that narrow subset of immigrants would not be granted citizenship, but rather, some kind of interim legal status.

His rivals, Romney most vocally, pounced on the suggestion, labeling it “amnesty.” In his interview with Romney Tuesday night, Bret Baier pointed out that Romney “took a similar position back in 2006-2007, telling Bloomberg that some illegal immigrants need to be allowed to stay, come out of the shadows,” and asked, “Is that different than where you are now?”

Over the next several minutes, Romney tried his best to dodge the question, even falsely accusing Gingrich of supporting citizenship for that narrow sliver of illegal immigrants, and trying to skirt the issue of deportations by saying, “Whether they apply here or apply by going home, I think I’ve said in the past it makes more sense for them to go home if we set up a system to apply here.”

So, maybe deport them? Baier kept at him, trying to get him to explain “What you do with the 11-plus million people who are already here, how you handle them.”

“Back in 2006-2007 you made a point of saying, ‘we’re not going to round them up and send them out,’” Baier said.

“That’s right,” Romney replied.

“What do you do with them?” Baier asked, one last time.

Romney delivered a rambling, exasperated summation that notably did not include deporting the people who are already here. He talked about securing the border and denying “tuition breaks” and “amnesty” before even thinking about the undocumented immigrants who are already in the US.

“To make it as clear as I can possibly can,” Romney said,  ”let those people apply, just like everybody else that wants to come to this country, but they have to apply at the back of the line, as opposed to jumping in the front because they’ve come here illegally.”

Clearly, the only difference between Romney’s position and Newt Gingrich’s is that Romney decided not to use the word “humane.”

While Romney has been withstanding heat for months for being a “flip-flopper,” this immigration issue is positioned to really damage him. It was immigration that sank Rick Perry’s candidacy, and now that Romney’s chief rival is Newt Gingrich, there couldn’t be a worse time for Romney to fail so badly on this question.

Gingrich already appears to have weathered this attack, but Romney, still reeling from being snubbed by the Manchester Union Leader, can ill afford to lose ground on such a key issue with Republican voters.

Ironically, when a group of reporters challenged Romney about avoiding their questions earlier today, one of them asked, “Is there a particular reason you’re only speaking to Fox News?”

The implication seems to have been that Romney could expect an easier time of it from Fox News, but as Baier’s interview demonstrates, apparently nothing is easy for Mitt Romney these days.

Here’s the immigration portion of Bret Baier’s interview with Mitt Romney, from Fox News:

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer had asked the Texas Governor if he would support armed resistance in Syria.

“Let me back up and say we missed some great opportunities,” Perry opined. “Iran is the real issue in the Middle East from my perspective and we had the opportunity in 2009 with the Green Revolution to use economic sanctions, to use diplomatic sanctions over covert. We had the opportunity to help the citizens overthrow that very oppressive regime and to stop them in their quest to get a nuclear weapon in 2009 and we failed. Naively, the president and the administration was talking to Syria and the Iranians and we wasted a great opportunity. The point should always be when there is this type of oppressive regime obviously working with Iran in that area to be very hostile to our oldest friend and longest serving democracy Israel, we need to put everything on the table there. There should not be anything set aside that keeps the pressure off those individuals.”

“Would you do what we did in Libya, which is to institute a no-fly zone over Syria?” Krauthammer asked. “If you were president today, would you advocate that we do that in Syria?”

“Absolutely,” Perry exclaimed. “Absolutely.”

Bill Kristol asked if he’d support such an action without United Nations approval.

“I would not spend a lot of time waiting for the UN,” Perry explained. “We need to sit down as a country and have a conversation about is the continued funding of the United Nations in the best interest of America.”

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York notes that Perry is the first Republican candidate to support a no-fly zone in Syria.

Perry’s answer seemed to solidify the Texas Governor’s reputation as prone to shoot-from-the-hip. Slate political reporter Dave Weigel reacted to the news incredulously, “Hoo-okay.”

Watch Perry’s bold foreign policy proclamation below via Fox News:

RELATED: Charles Krauthammer On Herman Cain’s Incoherent Abortion Stance: ‘He’s Winging It’

“That’s not a gotcha question,” Krauthammer told Baier about the question Cain couldn’t answer without much thought: whether he agreed with the way President Obama handled the Libya situation. Noting that he was “surprised” Cain was still a frontrunner after this, it made it all the more apparent that “he is over his head– he’s wining it.” It didn’t help after Saturday’s debate, he continued, calling that a “dismal performance.”

RELATED: Charles Krauthammer Sternly Advises Herman Cain To Stop Accusing People Of Setting Him Up

Turning, then, back to the Libya question, Krauthammer marveled at the simplicity of the question compared to the response. “What exactly was it about Libya that he had to gather his thoughts on?” he asked. “It looked as if he either didn’t know where it was, or what country it was, or perhaps how the war turned out, or what Obama’s policy was– I’m not sure what there was that required almost a minute of thought gathering.”

The segment via Fox News below:

“I didn’t think he could survive the other allegations,” Hume expounded. “Although I have misgivings about how they came about and the whole case, I think now it’s almost impossible. He told everyone there was nothing else that could happen — it had to be made up. Here is a person with specifics. In order to deal with it, he has to rebut specifics in some way and pretty soon you got him alone with a woman and having dinner and the whole thing. I just think it’s going to leave Republican voters when they finally get down to voting wondering whether this is someone they can afford to put up against Barack Obama.”

RELATED: Herman-ally Ill: Herman Cain’s Approval Rating With Republicans Drops 9 Points In One Week

“In a court of law, accusers must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt to win a criminal conviction,” Hume explained. “All a defense lawyer needs to do is sow such doubt and the client will be acquitted. But the case of Herman Cain illustrates perfectly (that) in politics the situation is upside-down. All an accuser needs to do is sow reasonable doubt about candidate in mind of voters — no proof is needed.”

With Hume’s pessimistic analysis of Cain’s beleaguered campaign, it will be interesting to see if political commentators will begin to call for Cain to step down from the race.

Watch Brit Hume toll the death knell for Herman Cain’s campaign below via Fox News:

(h/t Daily Caller)

The actions of the Perry campaign are despicable. Rick Perry and his campaign owe Herman Cain and his family an apology. Both the Rick Perry campaign and Politico did the wrong thing by reporting something that wasn’t true, from anonymous sources and, like I said, they owe Herman Cain and his family an apology.

As evidence, Block points to Curt Anderson, a man formerly hired by Cain as a general consultant during his 2004 Georgia state senate run. Cain, says Block, divulged details of the claims against him to Anderson so that his campaign “would be prepared if the issue surfaced.” Two weeks ago, Block continued, Anderson went to work for Perry’s campaign. And “what else happened about two weeks ago?,” he asked. “Politico began this smear campaign, citing anonymous sources claiming Mr. Cain acted inappropriately.”

In addition, Block maintains that, while Cain had knowledge of the claims against him (a point which had not been made clear by Cain in his various television appearances this week), he is innocent of the accusations waged against him.

Perry’s campaign, for their part, deny all involvement, as does Anderson, who referred to Cain as “a gentleman.”

Bret Baier brought on a panel to discuss what this now means for both Cain and Perry’s campaigns. The Weekly Standard‘s Fred Barnes, for one, believes Block is going way off-message by accusing the Perry campaign of impropriety, and believes this will do more to harm Cain’s image than Perry’s. Candidates, he added, should not be a part of political “tactics,” and should focus instead on keeping the discussion on their respective messages.

NPR’s Mara Liasson pointed to a similar example from the past, noting that John McCain’s presidential campaign was not impacted by accusations that he’d been involved in some sort of unpleasant and inappropriate “something.”

Charlies Krauthammer highlighted the reality that Cain is essentially shooting himself in the foot here by revealing that he had lied to media outlets about not having known about the allegations against him and the settlements (and/or agreements) made as a result.

Have a look, via Fox News:

When MSNBC decided to move Lawrence O’Donnell to 10 p.m. and put Ed Schultz in his time slot, they had to be hoping for better results than a third-place finish at 8 p.m., especially on his debut night. But Schultz’s first appearance at 8:00 was merely the side story to Nancy Grace‘s second-place finish in the time slot (for viewers in the 25-54 year-old demo); Grace beat Schultz, 208,000 viewers to 201,000.

While FOX continued to dominate, MSNBC — despite the Schultz slippage — finished ahead of CNN in every time slot. And the night’s only show, on any network, to dip below the 100,000 viewer threshold in the 25-54 demo was the 11 p.m. repeat of Erin Burnett, which pulled in 74,000 viewers in the demo. Dr. Drew came perilously close to joining the club, with 102,000 at 9 p.m.

Some other nuggets from Monday’s numbers:

RELATED:Donald Trump Calls Lawrence O’Donnell A ‘Total Loser Who Is Killing The MSNBC Brand’

Here are the complete cable news ratings for Monday night:

TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)
5 pm	The5  368	Blitzer  158	Matthews  178	Special  199
6 pm	Baier  394	King, USA  148	Sharpton  173	Prime  181
7 pm	Shep  398	Burnett  174	Matthews  218	Issues  178
8 pm	O’Reilly  514	Cooper  152	Schultz  201	Grace  208
9 pm	Hannity  405	Piers  111	Maddow  190	DrDrew  102
10 pm	Van Susteren  212	Cooper  121	O’Donnell  182	Behar  120
11 pm	O’Reilly  191	Burnett  74	Schultz  136	Showbiz  106
TOTAL DAY	289	129	133	124
PRIME TIME	377	128	191	140
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

TV NEWS RATINGS: TOTAL VIEWERS (L +SD)
5 pm	The5  1,592	Blitzer  732	Matthews  701	Special  607
6 pm	Baier  2,023	King, USA  464	Sharpton  655	Prime513
7 pm	Shep  1,849	Burnett  593	Matthews  818	Issues  519
8 pm	O’Reilly  2,845	Cooper  483	Schultz  903	Grace  535
9 pm	Hannity  1,677	Piers  393	Maddow  880	DrDrew  354
10 pm	Greta  1,172	Cooper  385	O’Donnell 787	Behar  460
11 pm	O’Reilly  864	Burnett  235	Schultz 447	Showbiz  347
TOTAL DAY	1,269	446	496	382
PRIME TIME	1,901	420	857	440
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data

As we reported earlier, Obama — deep in campaign mode — addressed liberal supporters in various West Coast cities during his three-day tour of the area, telling his audience that Republicans would “fundamentally cripple America” and calling out GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry, saying ” you’ve got a Governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.”

The President also referenced the booing from some in the audience that took place at last week’s debate after an openly gay solider asked a question about the future of gays in the military:

You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have healthcare and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay. That’s not reflective of who we are.

But that assessment of what actually happened that night is misleading, Baier tells Kilmeade:

Well, listen. First of all, the audience was, I think, 5,500, maybe? Huge. Huge audience. And the boos on that gay soldier? I would say it may have been two people, maybe three, out of 5,500. Now, it was loud, it was audible. It was a cavernous facility, the Orange County Convention Center. But… it would be painting with a broad brush to say that this crowd boo’d the gay soldier.

Have a listen to the interview, courtesy of Kilmeade & Friends:

Howard Kurtz pointed out to Shuster that many of the questions asked were substantive and fair. Shuster agreed some of them were, but dismissed most of them as trying to get the candidates in gotcha moments like asking Mitt Romney if he agreed that President Obama was a socialist. He argued specifics were not asked of the candidates by any of the moderators at any of the Fox News debates.

Craig Crawford briefly interjected to express his opinion that journalists do not necessarily make good moderators. Shuster allowed that even when you do have journalists as moderators, you pick the experienced ones.

There are a lot of folks at Fox News who bring a certain level of sophistication to their understanding of politics. And I think when Fox News goes to the Megyn Kellys, the Bret Baiers, and people who don’t have much experience who haven’t covered campaigns, the result is sometimes you have these inane questions that come out and, frankly, waste everybody’s time.

Indeed. There is a certain level of sophistication you want to have when discussing important issues. Maybe not shouting-at-Andrew-Breitbart levels of sophistication, but somewhere around there.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

(h/t)

The figure is significantly less than the 27,000 generals on the ground had hoped for, and less still than the 10,000 they said they could work with “in extremis.” Officials are concerned that drawing the number down to 3,000 troops on the ground will render their limited missions ineffectual. ”There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission,” voiced one source with concern.

Huffington Post’s Joshua Hersh has confirmed the figure, adding that there “may end up being as many as 5,000 troops in the country at any time, given the logistics of troop rotations.”  The draw-down, he emphasized, might significantly decrease American presence, but will not cut it out entirely. According to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for the Center For American Progress, “the American footprint will remain quite large no matter what … We’re going to have the largest diplomatic and development presence in the world, and there’s going to be a very large army of private contractors defending them.”

The plan, already signed into action by Panetta, still requires Iraq approval. Presumed cost-cutting reasons aside, the Pentagon sounds unready to explain the drastic drop, spokesman George Little commenting only that “Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made,” and saying that the Pentagon will “continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president.”

Meanwhile, Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani has in recent days called on central Iraqi government to keep American forces in the country, saying that: ”Iraqi security forces are still not prepared to secure protection for Iraq and the Iraqi army is not prepared to guard borders and the air force possesses nothing.”

Watch Bret Baier on Fox below:

 

In the clip below, Baier, speaking from right outside the building, told Megyn Kelly that employees would be allowed back inside only to get some essential belonging and that, after that, it would be shut down for fear of after shocks. After the report, Kelly told viewers that that was apparently pretty common this afternoon in capital.

UPDATE: Bummer. Fox News has informed us that Special Report will be inside as usual. Apparently the building staff are a bunch of buzz kills and have secured the building enough and so everyone will get back in in time for the show. Stupid boring earthquake.

Watch from Fox News below:

Burton responded “The difference is the republicans won the House,”since that time they have done nothing to produce jobs, and put nothing forward to partner with the president to create jobs and move this economy in the right direction.”

Baier, citing his 10 to 1 debate question, asked Rove if Democrats might have a point about ideological rigidity. Rove started out by knocking the question as one “that had a predictable answer to it,” and accused Baier of not offering them a chance “to give a nuanced answer.”

Baier pushed back, saying, “Wait a minute, hold on, we gave them the opportunity, Karl…”

“With all due respect, Bret,” Rove began, respectfully, “it was a lousy question for a debate. If you wanted to get a better answer, ask that question of the candidates individually.”

Rove’s comment drew an incredulous smile from Baier, and chuckles from an off-camera Burton, who interjected, “These guys are running for President of the United States, and they can’t talk to Bret Baier about what their vision is for how to deal with the economy?”

Rove then explained that the GOP was rubber, while President Obama was glue, because the President, in 2009, had responded to another set of unreasonable Republican demands by reminding Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) “I won” during negotiations over a stimulus package that contained 40% tax cuts.

Burton then lit into Rove over his role in the current economic conditions, saying, “I appreciate that you have an opinion on this, Karl, but as someone who was a leader in a White House that turned a record surplus into a deficit, that got us involved in a war we never should’ve been in, and turned the floor of the New York Stock Exchange into a casino, I don’t think the American people are quite ready to hear a lecture from you on good governance.”

Baier tried to rein in the discussion a bit, asking Burton what the President has done to create jobs, and Burton responded by ticking off things, like the payroll tax, the infrastructure bank, and trade deals, that could be done if Congress would act. Baier pointed out that the White House recently said it had not yet sent over the trade deals to Congress.

Burton then accused Republican leaders of wanting “the economy to do poorly so that they can score political points,” to which Rove responded, “With all due respect, Bill, do not question the motivations and the integrity of the people on the other side.”

Burton pointed out that statements from leaders like Mitch McConnell didn’t leave many questions about their motivation.

Rove did make a good point that some Democrats are opposed to the infrastructure bank, a symptom of the lack of unanimity that allows a lockstep minority to get so much done.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday: