RELATED: Christiane Amanpour Asks Rick Santorum If Voters Should Hold Gingrich’s Past Infidelities Against Him

Santorum denied this was the case, pointing out the context of the ad is a list of four important issues that Santorum, as he argues, is more in line with conservative values than his Republican rivals. Santorum has not gone after Romney or Gingrich with the same level of vitriol they’re attacking each other with, and his attack ads have not been that controversial. The ad in question makes a powerful comparison between Gingrich and Democrats like President Obama and Nancy Pelosi. But Santorum did agree that the character of any political candidate should be taken into consideration when casting one’s vote, though he did not specifically say Gingrich’s name in professing that.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Fox:

RELATED: Soledad O’Brien: Planned Parenthood And Komen Foundation Are ‘Cat Fighting’

Liz Cheney argued they completely mishandled the situation, stating that from the conservative viewpoint, it was outrageous to think that money given by pro-life women to a cancer foundation may end up in the hands of an institution that performs abortions. She tried to bring up the Obama administration’s decision to pressure religious institutions to provide contraception services, but Wallace was saving that for a separate discussion and made her stop talking about it before moving on.

Wallace laid out the facts, namely that only 3 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions, and it was responsible for millions of breast exams over the past year. Liz Marlantes thought this “was a case of bad PR,” and the Komen Foundation did a bad job trying to justify their actions in the initial withdrawal and then the subsequent reversal.

What interested Wallace was the effect social media had in pressuring the Komen Foundation both times, and given how powerfully social media was utilized to launch widespread opposition to SOPA, Wallace asked how big a player social media has been in the world of politics. Bill Kristol acknowledged its power, and noted in the world we live in, people don’t have to just care about the economy because of how important an issue it is, they can care about multiple issues like internet freedom and health care services for women as well.

RELATED: Megyn Kelly Panel Battles Over Whether Planned Parenthood’s Commitment To Cancer Is A ‘Hoax’

Kristol and Juan Williams brought up the “culture war” aspect of this debate, noting how the Obama administration’s contraception mandate could have an effect on the number of Catholics who end up voting for the president in the fall.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Geraldo And O’Reilly Tussle Over Whether Gingrich Called Spanish The ‘Language Of The Ghetto’

Gingrich argued that he never once used the word “Spanish” in his comments, and the point of his comments was to try and encourage more people to speak English so they can get ahead in the United States. He accused Romney of manipulating his words, but Wallace played the clip and pointed out not only is Spanish one of the most widely-spoken languages in the United States behind English, but Gingrich actually apologized for his comments in Spanish after the controversy first emerged.

But what bothered Gingrich more was that his initial comments were about promoting cultural immersion in America, and that is a policy Romney has himself supported in the past. Wallace read a brief excerpt from Gingrich’s Spanish-language apology, and noted that at no point in his apology did Gingrich deny his comments were specifically targeted at the Spanish language. Gingrich again denied the connection and criticized Mitt Romney for taking his words out of context in such an irresponsible manner.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Anderson Cooper Presents Isha Sesay With Gumby And A Platter Of Twinkies For Her Birthday

The cake was layered with a frosted-on dollar sign, and Wallace encouraged Ryan to cut into it because what better birthday present can you get a fiscal conservative than allowing him to metaphorically carve up the federal dollar? Ryan joked that we should be making more of these for people all across the country. Sadly, he wasn’t referring to cakes. But perhaps the most awkward part of the exchange was Ryan’s admission that he stopped eating sweets a long time ago.

It’s like if a vegetarian was on the show, and Chris Wallace said, “Happy birthday! We got you a week’s supply of steaks!” (Or conversely, trying to give salad to an ardent carnivore.) Wallace cracked himself up at the end of the segment, quipping, “Oh, what we’ll do for a photo op.”

Watch the incredible awkwardness below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Chris Wallace Grills Speaker Boehner On ‘Do-Nothing Congress’: ‘One Of Least Productive Ever’

Wallace told Gallagher that “it is ridiculous how many debates there have been– this is the nineteenth debate. It is insane that there have been nineteen debates!” to which Gallagher replied that the debates had become something of a reality show. Wallace noted that he had “been party” to four debates and it was difficult to come up with questions after a while, since they have already outlined their policies multiple times. The causes moderators to instead ask about personal attacks between the candidates. “I’m not saying it’s a great moment in journalism,” he clarified, “but on the other hand, they have been asked about almost everything a million times.”

After a comical exchange in which Gallagher tried to talk but Wallace complained he didn’t give him enough time, the former noted that “nobody ever booed Chris Wallace,” to which Wallace objected, joking that he was “still in therapy” for getting booed when asking Gingrich whether reports that his campaign was “a mess” were valid. Wallace then noted that, unlike himself and other moderators, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer had the State of the Union address to work with, and not discussing it was a “huge failure.”

After playing the exchange where Gingrich got feisty with Blitzer for a question about his attacks on Romney, Wallace began once again to analyze the clip before again repeating, “why on earth did they think it was good to have nineteen debates?” and later adding, before his point on Romney, that “they’re all stupid” and “people are not tuning in” to learn about policy: “it’s like you’re tuning in to a car race, you really want to see if there’s a wreck.”

The clip from the Mike Gallagher Show below:

[h/t]

Conversely, Boehner argued that Obama’s policies “have failed to get our economy moving again” and made the economy worse. Wallace pointed to studies that showed this current Congress has been the least productive in years, with only 80 laws passed with 20 percent of those focused on naming buildings and other “housekeeping” measures. He contrasted Obama’s middling approval rating with a 19 percent approval rating for House Republicans.

RELATED: Speaker Boehner: I Trust President Obama Even When We Have Tough Time Coming To An Agreement

Boehner’s argument basically boiled down to “quantity over quality,” asking if Congress passing a lot of bills would make it that much more effective. In fact, he argued that “most Americans think we’ve got too many laws already,” while pointing to 30 bills the Congress pushed through to help improve the economy. Wallace pointed out none of them ever actually got through. Boehner countered that everything they did was in service of the American people.

Wallace wanted to know if Boehner’s attitude that Obama’s policies have failed, especially going into an election year, would make this coming year of Congress less effective than last year. Boehner suggested some provisions proposed by Obama’s jobs council are exactly what Republicans have been pushing for.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Republican Debate Audience Boos Mitt Romney Over Releasing Tax Returns

Wallace asked Romney if he would consider releasing tax returns going back a few years ago. Romney countered that no other Republican candidate has released that many records, adding that he hoped the release of his 2010 returns would finally give voters a clear idea of where he gets his income from. As for any possible political scandals that could potentially arise from the release of his returns, Romney insisted getting the records out now would help him because having his tax returns vetted now would mean the Democrats would have a harder time making them a campaign issue in the fall.

Then Wallace broached one subject that has not been brought up very much during Romney’s campaign this election season: his ties to the Mormon church.

“You have been very open about the fact that like a lot of other devout Mormons, you tithe to your church. Given the results that we saw in South Carolina, do you think it might be any kind of a political problem, the fact that, being as wealthy are you are, you’ve given millions of dollars to the Church of Latter-Day Saints?”

RELATED: Chris Matthews And Panel: How Much Of Romney’s Opposition Is Due To His Mormon Faith?

Romney answered “Gee, I hope not” before explaining that as a faithful member of the Mormon church, he gladly gives ten percent of his income to the church every year, framing himself as someone who “made a promise to God, and kept that promise.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Rips John King And CNN For Opening Debate Question

“I think it was the elephant in the room, if you will, everybody was talking about it, it was the one big news development since the previous Fox debate on Monday. I might have phrased it differently than John King but I thought it was fine to ask,” Wallace continued. “And look, it didn’t either help or hurt asking the question, the fact is that Newt Gingrich gave a very strong answer, the crowd cheered him and in fact, after the debate, Newt Gingrich himself said that he thought John King had done a good job. Our job as the moderators is not to be popular and not to win praise from the crowd but to ask the questions that are going to make news and that one did.”

Watch Wallace defend King below via CNN:

In the early 1990s, Gingrich was on the advisory board of private equity firm Forstmann Little. Winning Our Future spokesman Rick Tyler acknowledged he was aware of Gingrich’s ties, but insisted the problem was not with private equity firms in general, just Mitt Romney’s business practices. But Wallace pointed out that during Gingrich’s tenure, Forstmann Little invested millions in two telecommunications firms that eventually went bankrupt. He asked Tyler why he doesn’t think Gingrich’s ties to that industry are as significant as Romney’s.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Calls For SuperPAC To Correct Errors In Anti-Mitt Romney Bain Film

Tyler kept bringing the discussion back to Romney’s record, and why that should be at the forefront of people’s minds, even as Wallace attempted to ask him the same question a number of times. When Wallace asked if it was a contradiction to go after Romney for being involved with buyouts but not Gingrich, Tyler said it wasn’t. In fairness to Gingrich, The New York Times noted last week that “Forstman bristled at some of the more aggressive tactics of his rivals, and once described them as ‘barbarians at the gate.’”

Club for Growth President Chris Chocola took on Tyler’s assertion that Gingrich was responsible for creating millions of jobs while serving in the government, and argued that the private sector (including Bain Capital) is better for job creation than the government. He also slammed the attack ad as “universally discredited.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: David Axelrod References Mitt Romney’s Dog On Car Roof Episode On Morning Joe

For the uninitiated, Axelrod was referring to an anecdote that appeared as part of a long profile of Romney in The Boston Globe:

Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.
Then Romney put his boys on notice: He would be making predetermined stops for gas, and that was it.
The ride was largely what you’d expect with five brothers, ages 13 and under, packed into a wagon they called the ”white whale.”
As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

The ad, entitled “For The Dogs,” is ostensibly pegged to the idea that Romney is unfit to debate President Obama, but that’s really just a fig leaf to exploit comical Romney moments like his recent “I like to fire people” gaffe (taken unfairly out of context), his comical rundown of his history of “varmint” hunting, or his impromptu performance of Who Let The Dogs Out?

For a candidate who has tried to draw a distinction between “going negative” and drawing legitimate contrasts, this is an exceedingly cheap exercise.

Here’s the clip, via YouTube:

RELATED: ABC News Debate Ignores Mitt Romney’s Admission That His Bain Jobs Claim Is Bunk

Wallace was referencing the energy company that filed for bankruptcy last year despite getting an investment of over half a billion dollars from the federal government. Wasserman-Schultz was alleging that Romney, despite not being the CEO of any of the individual companies that went under, was responsible for job losses because of the investment choices he made. And yet, she did not seem to make the connection between the two points, continuing to insist that Obama is not the CEO of Solyndra, therefore Wallace’s argument is invalid.

Calling this a debate or a discussion would be giving it too much credit, it reads more like an old Abbott and Costello routine. “Who’s on Bain?” “Exactly.” “What do you mean?” “No, he’s on Solyndra.” “Who is?” “No, who is on Bain!” “What are you asking me for?!”

RELATED: DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz: GOP Acts Like ‘Spoiled Children’ Sitting On Their Hands During Debt Talks

And even if Wasserman-Schultz did have an important distinction to share between Romney’s leadership of Bain and Obama’s involvement with Solyndra, she never got it across. You could say that it was because Wallace cut her off, but it’s more likely that she was just caught by surprise (or didn’t have a good answer) by this line of questioning, and couldn’t give a satisfactory explanation.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

Note: This post has been edited since it’s original posting – Jon Nicosia

RELATED: Ghost Of Christmas Past: Ron Paul Favored Federal Slaveowner Bailout Over Civil War

Paul acknowledged the private property rights of small business owners, no matter what the circumstance, while decrying Jim Crow laws as government-sanctioned segregation. He made the case that if you are for personal liberty and less government intervention, you must be willing to protect all private property, whether it be the bedroom in one’s house or a restaurant owned by a racist businessman.

However, Paul did not exactly address the main thrust of Wallace’s question, which was specifically about the right to segregate on said property. Wallace asked again, and Paul’s first line of defense was to dismiss the notion that any sensible businessman in the 21st century would lack the business savvy to welcome in all customers regardless of creed or color. He personally believes that such practices are “morally wrong,” but Paul stated he placed a higher value on property rights.

RELATED: Ron Paul Tells CNN’s Candy Crowley: Civil Rights Act ‘Destroyed’ Privacy

And as for anyone who might think Paul harbors racist views because of this position, he suggested the bigger culprit in this case was the federal government for implementing slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation in the military.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: A Rankled Ron Paul Grapples With Radio Caller’s Newsletter Questions

“I don’t know how you can change science,” Paul responded. “Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sexual activity. That’s been known for some 400 or 500 years, how these diseases are spread. If a fault comes with people because of their personal behavior, and in a free society people do dumb things, but it isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people. Why should they have to pay for the consequences? That’s a sort of a nationalistic or socialistic attitude.”

“Do you think someone with AIDS should not be entitled to health insurance as opposed to someone who has a heterosexually transmitted disease?” Wallace interjected.

“No, I never said that,” Paul retorted.

Wallace continued pressing the Congressman on the statements in the book.

“There shouldn’t be a law that says they’re denied that,” Paul answered, but defended his assertion that people’s personal lives should play a factor in determining insurance. “The markets should handle this…If people are smokers, don’t they have to pay more? Sometimes you get your insurance cheaper if you are a nonsmoker. Let the market sort this out but not have dictates by the government saying thou must do this and your behavior doesn’t matter. If you drink too much you suffer the consequences. Same way with health matters. You don’t have the right to demand someone else take care of you because of your habits.”

Wallace also brought up another passage from the book in which Paul wrote “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

“You have to have a better definition of harassment, if it’s because someone told the joke and someone was offend happened they don’t have a right for the policeman to come in and put penalties on the individual,” Paul explained. “If there’s any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment, you just need to call a policeman and say there’s been an assault! But (because) people are insulted by rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case about it, people should deal with it at home.”

Watch Wallace grill Paul over passages from his 1987 book below via Fox News:

As if pissing off the Ronulans wasn’t enough, Huckabee denounced his party’s candidates for being too mean to President Obama, whom he called a “decent, patriotic American.”

Wallace began by trying to suck Huckabee into his own feud with Ron Paul fans, asking if a win by the Texas congressman would discredit the Iowa Caucuses. The former Arkansas Governor obliged Wallace, flatly declaring that Ron Paul “is not going to be elected president.”

“His views on foreign policy,” Huckabee said, “are so much an anathema to Republicans and Democrats and what I call middle of the road people. He has a core of fanatical believers, and they don’t represent mainstream Americans. It is not okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Unless I missed something, though, Ron Paul didn’t say it was “okay” for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. There are fair arguments to be had over what Paul actually did say, which was that the US shouldn’t use military force to preempt Iran’s acquisition of such a weapon, but Huckabee’s remarks were an unfair distortion of Paul’s position.

Asked whether he second-guessed himself over his decision not to run for president, Huckabee really went for it. “Republicans can’t decide what they want to be when they grow up,” he said, adding, “I know they want to beat Obama, but in the process, they want to tear each other up so much, they want to savage each other so much that it will be difficult to beat Obama.”

“If I ran,” Huckabee continued, “it would be because I wanted to bring some ideas to the race, but I realize that will not be the focus. It is how mean can a person be.

“I don’t want to savage Barack Obama,” he said, later adding, “I think he’s a decent, patriotic American. He loves america different than me, but I don’t doubt he loves America.”

It should be noted that Huckabee wasn’t always on such a high road where President Obama is concerned. I guess it’s easier to be nice from the sidelines.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

Romney continued the standard conservative line accusing President Obama of attacking the rich and successful, touting his personal experience as being a builder of business for himself and others. He conceded that success did not come in all of his business ventures, but his aims to do so were noble ones. Wallace pointed to Staples as a victory for Romney’s business, but also noted that four out of the ten top investments his company made ended up going bankrupt.

RELATED: Chris Matthews Asks Panel If Voters Resent Or Admire Mitt Romney For His Wealth And Business Experience

Wallace then asked Romney to explain a photo taken of him and his business associates way back that depicts all of them with money literally coming out of their pockets. Romney explained the photo was taken at the closing of their first fund, and was meant to be celebratory. However, Romney did acknowledge that the photo was prime fodder for Democrats and the president to use against him.

If the Democrats end up using a Gordon Gekko attack on Romney, it might not be so successful. In the interview, Romney predicted Obama would make free enterprise the enemy of his campaign, and insisted “profit is good.” Note that statement in contrast with Gekko’s famous “greed is good.” It’s subtle distinctions like these that could make it harder than expected for Obama to paint Romney as a greedy business executive only concerned with the bottom line.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

This year’s Republican primary race has been marked by foreign policy positions that are a hotter mess than microwave barf, but at least Romney’s rivals have been consistent with the crazy. In his performance on FNS, the former Massachusetts Governor boldly went nowhere. Asked by Chris Wallace if, “looking back and hindsight is always 20/20,” the US should have invaded Iraq, Romney responded with a Saladworks-worthy response.

Gov. Romney began by helpfully restating the question. “Going back and trying to say given what we know now, what will we have done? Would we have invaded or not?” Romney said. “At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.”

“At the time, Saddam Hussein was hiding. He was not letting the inspectors from the United Nations into the various places that they wanted to go. The IAEA was blocked from going into the palaces and so forth. And the intelligence in our nation and other nations was that this tyrant had weapons of mass destruction. And in the light of that — that belief, we took action which was appropriate at the time.”

In hindsight, then, Mitt Romney thinks the US should have…well, he doesn’t say, but in explaining the lessons learned, he doesn’t address the intelligence failures that led us to war. The logical conclusion is that a President Romney will not have benefited from that bit of historical wisdom, the same missing wisdom that has GOP sabers rattling at Iran.

Romney also parted ways with the conservative mythos surrounding that infamous “Mission Accomplished” photo-op, saying “I think there was a sense that when, on the ship it said Mission Accomplished, that the mission had been accomplished. Turns out it was just getting started and we had to pursue a surge very late in the process.”

But it was on the issue of the Iraq War’s end that Romney really dazzled. “Fortunately,” Romney said, “we’ve now been able to pull our troops out. We’re, of course, very happy to see our troops come out.”

He then turns right around and says “We should have left 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 personnel there to help transition to the Iraqis’ own military capabilities. I’m very concerned in this setting.”

So, Mitt Romney is very happy the war is over, but he wishes the war wasn’t over? It’s “fortunate,” but also a disaster? Well, at least President Romney would set things right. Right?

“As president, would you send u.s. troops back into Iraq?” Wallace asked.

“I think the decision to send US troops into a combat setting is a — is a very high threshold decision. This is not something you do easily. You don’t send our troops around the world every time there’s something that goes off an untoward way.”

After some attempted followup from Wallace, Romney clarified. “I’m not going to say where I would send troops or not send troops.”

Romney often seems to be looking past his primary challengers, and campaigning to the general electorate. Saying everything and nothing is a tried-and-true political modus operandi, but it’s usually a good idea to take a breath now and then.

Here’s the clip, from Fox News Sunday:

After talk of Wallace’s thoughts on the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, the interview turns, as always, to questions of Fox News’ bias. Wallace reacts just like every other “straight” Fox anchor; with a healthy amount of annoyance. “You want to get into the whole right-wing thing?” he asks the interviewer (Playboy Contributing Editor David Hochman). After that, things get more cordial as Wallace talks about whether or not the tax rate of millionaires should go up and how he manages to remember all his facts and stats while interviewing people live on air.

Then things turn to the massive brouhaha last summer over Jon Stewart’s appearance on Fox News Sunday.

“PLAYBOY: On Fox News Sunday last summer, Jon Stewart called you ‘insane’ for insisting you’re not biased. Was there a moment when you regretted inviting him on the show?

WALLACE: Not at all. First of all, I think he’s an interesting political player. I also think he’s funny. Even when he’s criticizing me, I usually laugh. He’s wrongheaded sometimes, but I think he’s a genuinely clever, smart guy. Frankly, I thought it would be entertaining for our audience to see him on the show.

…

PLAYBOY: He said your role at Fox is to ‘bring credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it without your presence,’ adding that a partisan ideological agenda is ‘the soup you swim in.’ On The Daily Show afterward he mockingly said the beauty of your news network is how it has managed to achieve ‘a narrative of conservative victimization’ that is ‘airtighter than an otter’s anus.’

WALLACE: Well, I assure you Jon knows more about otters’ anuses than I do. I also think Stewart lives in far too transparent a house to be throwing stones. The thing I’ve noticed about him is this: He rightly points out that he criticizes Democrats as well as Republicans, but he criticizes conservatives for being conservative. He criticizes Democrats for being ineffective. It isn’t that their ideas are wrong; it’s that they’re not carrying them out sufficiently. It’s that they’re not liberal enough, not tough enough, not Democratic enough. He criticizes Republicans for being too Republican.”

The interview also discusses Wallace’s long career in journalism. Wallace has a lot of intriguing thoughts, including his opinion that all White House press conferences are horribly “scripted” and have been ever since George H. W. Bush started clamping down on things.

Things go even farther back, focusing on the fact that Wallace was basically born into this. His father, of course, was Mike Wallace, while his step-father was Bill Leonard. Amidst Wallace’s fascinating stories of building a relationship with his biological father and the pain that accusations of nepotism caused him early in his career, perhaps the best part of the whole article comes when he talks about being a gofer for Walter Cronkite for the 1964 Republican convention at age 16. Why? Because of this:

“PLAYBOY: What do you remember most about working with Cronkite?

WALLACE: What I remember most is his daughter Nancy, to tell you the truth. I fell madly in love with her. She was my first girlfriend. She didn’t look at all like Walter, thankfully. She was this beautiful 15-year-old blonde. That was when my dad was anchoring The CBS Morning News and Walter, of course, was doing the evening news. The correspondents all loved seeing Nancy and me together. They said it was like a merging of the two divisions.

PLAYBOY: Are you implying that Walter Cronkite’s daughter was your first sexual conquest?

WALLACE: I know this is Playboy, but you’ve got to be kidding!

PLAYBOY: We are merely interested in chronicling this untold story from media history.

WALLACE: Right, sure. She was my first girlfriend. That’s all you’re going to get.”

It’s a pretty great interview and a good read. Check it out here. Or buy it at the newsstands. If you do that, it comes with pictures of Lindsay Lohan’s boobs.

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:

“I don’t mean in any way to denigrate Ron Paul,” Wallace clarified.

RELATED: Fox’s Chris Wallace: If Ron Paul Wins In Iowa, It Will Discredit The Iowa Caucuses

“I’ve interviewed him a number of times,” Wallace continued. “I think he’s a very interesting guy, I fully understand why his thousands and thousands — millions of supporters across the country, but thousands here in Iowa are so supportive of him.”

Despite playing down his earlier criticism, Wallace maintained Paul would throw a monkey wrench into the race if he was to win in Iowa.

“I think it is fair to say he is a long shot for the Republican nomination. and to the degree that people look at these states and say are they picking a president, if they were to pick Paul, I think a lot of the — you know, and maybe we’re not so smart, but a lot of the smart guys in the media and in the Republican Party would say, well, that’s kind of an aberration. Now, it may be that Ron Paul proves us wrong, and I’d be happy if he did, because it would be a very exciting race.”

Watch Wallace downplay his earlier comments about Ron Paul below via Fox News:

Huh. Well, at least people are talking about you Ron.

RELATED: TheGrio Editor Goldie Taylor: ‘Ron Paul Has A Real Shot At Iowa’

Wallace’s comment came during an appearance, from Iowa, on Your World with Neil Cavuto. Cavuto asked Wallace what he thought the takeaway would be from a Ron Paul victory.

“Well, and the Ron Paul people aren’t going to like me saying this, but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won’t count and it will go on.”

There’s a moment, right as Wallace begins to answer the question, where hesitates for a second and then looks right in the camera. In that moment, you can see a man realized he’s about to incur the wrath of half the Internet, think about it, and then proceed to say what he was thinking anyway.

One could say that Wallace just meant it would discredit the caucuses in other people’s eyes, right? Right?

…Oh, well. I tried, Chris.

God speed, Mr. Wallace. God speed.

UPDATE: It should also be noted that Wallace will be one of the moderators at tomorrow’s Fox News debate in Iowa.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

On Friday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough revealed to his viewers that “Chris Wallace has never made a secret of the fact that he loathes Mitt Romney — has never liked him.” For good measure he then added “Wallace, of course, will deny it, and then throw an insult around because that’s what he’s done in the past.”

During an appearance on Fox and Friends this past Sunday, Wallace was asked what he made of Scarborough’s comments, to which the Fox News Sunday host made good on Scarborough’s prediction by saying:

Some people say, and I will take this advice, don’t punch down. Don’t respond to folks that are silly and aren’t worthy of a response. It isn’t true. I suspect he knows it isn’t true. I think he’s trying to get to Fox with a network that gets higher ratings than he does. I’ll leave it at that.

So for those playing at home you’ll notice that Scarborough predicted that Wallace would deny loathing Mitt Romney and then throw an insult around. Wallace actually opened with the insult before denying any bias in his coverage of Romney. He also effectively used two time tested devices in cable news feuds: passive aggressive commentary and self-aggrandizement, all in the space of about 10 seconds.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Fox News (H/T Johnny Dollar):

Paul Gigot saw this as a sign that the president understands he cannot run on the economy this time around, and so Obama’s strategy in 2012 may be to go after Congressional Republicans and the rich, among other groups. With roughly 41 percent of voters saying Obama deserves to be reelected, Mara Liasson predicted Obama’s best hope is to convince those who are currently against him that he needs another term to continue fixing the economy and deal with other major issues, pointing to low consumer confidence as one explanation for the president’s low poll numbers.

RELATED: President Obama: Not Sure Why The GOP Is Suddenly Opposed To A Middle Class Tax Break

Liz Cheney argued that increased regulation of the financial sector, health care reform, and the stimulus plan have all had a negative impact on the economy and didn’t address the issue of entitlement reform. She criticized his foreign policy for being weak, and when Wallace brought up Obama’s “ask Osama bin Laden” quote, Cheney agreed that taking out the al-Qaeda leader was important but now the focus is on Iraq and Afghanistan. Or rather, the peripheral focus. Cheney claimed that Obama’s foreign policy doesn’t get enough coverage because of how much negative press he gets on the economy.

Wallace couldn’t help but note the president’s various political strategies over the past year, from his phrase “winning the future” in the 2011 State of the Union to his mission to “be the adult in the room” during the debt ceiling debate, and now as a “champion of the middle class.” Juan Williams took issue with Cheney’s earlier assertion and argued that most Americans give the president high marks on national security issues. But shifting back to the economy, Williams agreed with the president’s strategy to go after Republicans for opposing some of the policies he has proposed that many economists have argued would be beneficial to the economy.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox:

RELATED: Rick Perry Can’t Remember Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, Flubs Number Of Supreme Court Justices

Despite his multiple flubs, Perry thought voters would overlook his flaws and see that the Texas governor is someone they could trust on issues of moral values.

“[Voters] aren’t looking for a robot,” Perry contended. “Or someone who’s gonna be perfect in every way. They’re looking for someone who’s got values…They’re looking for somebody who’s got values that are based with a deep rudder in the water.”

Watch Perry defend himself on Fox News Sunday below:

RELATED: Chris Matthews Asks Panel If Voters Resent Or Admire Mitt Romney For His Wealth And Business Experience

Perry continued to insist that Romney has, in the past, supported the individual mandate in a book he wrote years ago. Wallace asked Perry the difference between his support of a mandatory HPV vaccine and an individual health care mandate, to which Perry responded that there was an “opt-out” system embedded into his executive order and admitted the Texas legislature told him he had gone too far.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Chris Wallace Zings Romney For Not Appearing On Any Sunday Talk Shows Since March 2010

Wallace mentioned in late October that Romney had not sat down with him for an interview in months.

“We have now interviewed all the major Republican candidates in our 2012 ‘One on One’ series — except Mitt Romney,” Wallace noted, guilt-tripping the former Massachusetts Governor.

The interview will be Romney’s first Sunday talk show interview since March of 2010, The New York Times notes.

Watch Scarborough’s foreboding advice for Romney below via MSNBC:

(h/t HuffPo via Politico)

Bachmann argued that Gingrich was “memory-challenged” because of his support for both George W. Bush‘s immigration reform plan and the DREAM Act, both of which, Bachmann argues, provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. She claimed to have the highest ranking on immigration (though she failed to attribute the rankings), while Gingrich had the lowest.

RELATED: Michele Bachmann Criticizes Gingrich’s Immigration Policy On Fox & Friends, Gingrich Responds

Wallace also confronted Bachmann on her attacks on Gingrich due to his ties with Freddie Mac. Gingrich claims he never did any lobbying, and of all the candidates in the race, he is the most qualified to shake things up in Washington because he served there for many years. Bachmann, naturally, disagreed.

“It’s implausible, Chris, because he’s been a part of Washington, DC for over 30 years. He’s as establishment as you get. His address is located on the Rodeo Drive of Washington, which is K street. His organizations have taken in over a hundred million dollars just this year alone to peddle influence. You don’t have to be a lobbyist within the letter of the law in order to influence the outcome of legislation.”

She insisted the race needs someone who’s going to “fight Washington” instead of cozying up to special interests and lobbyists. Wallace asked Bachmann to expand upon her accusation that Gingrich has helped to influence legislation. Bachmann did not provide any specific examples, but merely gave a broad outline of Gingrich receiving money from questionable sources then speaking to members of Congress about changing the language in certain bills.

RELATED: Rachel Maddow: Newt Gingrich Running Scams Akin To ‘A Nigerian Prince E-Mail’

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

Chris Wallace played clips of Gingrich and Romney to highlight their cemented, respective statuses as frontrunner and underdog. The first, of course, was Gingrich’s proclamation that he will be the nominee for the Republican party. The clip of Romney showed the former Massachusetts governor seemingly responding to Gingrich’s words by reminding him the election has not even happened yet and anything could still happen in a race that’s seen the rise and fall of many candidates.

RELATED: George Will: ‘Wisdom Is One Thing Newt Gingrich Doesn’t Have’

Mara Liasson suggested Gingrich’s “penchant for grandiosity,” coupled with a tendency for personal implosions when he hits a political peak, may prove to damage his candidacy in the long run and he will have to fight for the nomination unlike any of the frontrunners before him. Kirsten Powers tacked on to Liasson’s point about implosions, and even if Gingrich does happen to win the nomination, there are negative scenarios to be considered.

“The question is, does he implode before he gets the nomination or after he gets the nomination? I’m not saying he’s going to get the nomination, but he’s in a position to get it. And what you see is, take Florida for example, he’s up 25 points in Florida, right? But if you look at the matchup ahead with Obama, Romney does quite a bit better… So what you have is maybe someone who can consolidate these conservatives and bring them around him, but in a general election, I think, it’s gonna scare off moderates, it’s gonna scare off independents.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

In the event that you don’t follow the SEC or college football, Ole Miss hasn’t had a season that one would necessarily be proud of, except perhaps the mothers of the players participating. Shep knows this, and when he tried to push back, Wallace just piles on.

Watch the lighthearted segment below, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Warns The GOP: ‘You Cannot Run Away From Mainstream Science’

The conversation with Wallace went all over his politics, which he insisted he was not going to change to curry favor with the base. “I’m not going to contort myself into a pretzel into something I’m not,” he told Wallace, despite the polls. He did express optimism that “people are saying, ‘Who is this Huntsman guy who puts country first?’” echoing the McCain/Palin 2008 slogan– whether intentionally or not, it is unclear.

Wallace and Huntsman had a difficult exchange on immigrant, as Wallace pointed out that the positions Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry took calling for more understanding about the twelve million illegal immigrants currently in America were very similar to Huntsman’s. “We’ve got to be honest about the first step we have to take,” Huntsman replied, “…and that is securing the border.” Sensing that Huntsman was trying to shirk the question off, noted that “a record is a record” and as governor of Utah Huntsman had supported helping the children of illegal immigrants with college tuition. “I’m not running from that at all,” he responded, confirming his record but adding that it was only after securing the border that those policies should come into conversation.

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Shows Up On SNL To Talk About How Much He Loves New Hampshire

Wallace later asked whether he has been in contact with a group considering running an independent candidate against both President Obama and the Republican nominee. Huntsman denied being in contact with them, leading Wallace to a follow-up: “Can you flatly state right now that you will support the Republican nominee and you will not run as an independent?” “I’m running as a Republican, that’s where I am,” Huntsman responded, which Wallace noted was “not a denial.” Huntsman did eventually confirm he would support the Republican nominee after the second prodding, however, but his hesitation may be a red flag for those who suspect he may be dissatisfied with what his party has to offer.

The immigration discussion and, later, Wallace’s question on an independent bid via Fox News below:

RELATED: Fox News Sunday Panel Joins In The Newt- Bashing: ‘Poster Child Of Republican Excess’

On the economy and tax debate, Williams argued that the Democrats “get the better side of that argument, it’s not even close” in a general presidential election, given that Republicans refused to raise a single dollar in taxes, which Williams considered bad optics, particular given the political climate. There was, Williams argued, an “overwhelming impact on the presidential campaign for Republicans in this time of Occupy Wall Street,” and they are now “the protectors of the super rich.”

“I don’t think we should talk about Occupy Wall Street as a plus anymore,” Wallace retorted, “with all the violence in the streets.” Williams immediately replied that Wallace was “getting distracted by people who are crazy people,” and that the message was resounding in mainstream America. “The fact is, when you ask most people ‘is Wall Street out of control?’; ‘is there inequality in terms of income in this country?’ people say yes.”

RELATED: GOP And Democratic Super-Committee Chairs Spin Negotiation Meltdown On Sunday Talk Shows

Wallace then didn’t let him finish a point, citing the show’s time constraints and the need to “play fair” with the other panelists. “You’re not playing fair, but go ahead,” snapped Williams.

The segment via Fox News below: