GOP big winner in first two debates

We’ve come a long way from the cringe-inducing primary debates of the 2012 cycle. Despite all the wailing and arm waving leading up to Thursday night’s contest, the format worked. Beautifully.
Nielsen data reveals that 24 million Americans watched the second debate on Fox News. That means more Americans tuned in than there are voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (the early primary and caucus states in 2016). That's a new cable  television record.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Now Playing Fiorina reacts to rave reviews following first GOP debate

It was our first primary. And the Grand Old Party won.
There was energy in the hall in Cleveland. It wasn’t a moderator-centric grilling. It was a celebration.

This was a debate made for Republican primary voters. It was a purity test. A sanity check of our candidates.

The two-hour format went past in a flash. It was enjoyable—a real debate. The candidates interacted. They challenged each other which has long been absent in overly-stage-managed primary debates.
Given the unprecedented media hype that preceded this debate, we knew the stakes were high. How did it work out for our candidates? There were clear winners and losers, and a few who simply showed up.

Rubio, Walker, Bush and Cruz won the first primary.

With the best line of the night, Scott Walker brought down the house responding to a national security question about cyber attacks. “The Russian and Chinese government[s] know more about Hillary Clinton’s email server than do the members of the United States Congress.” He bolstered his conservative credentials and steadily delivered answers on every question posed. Walker’s closing statement was delivered with perfection (and from copious memorization, which is Walker’s style), besting even Mike Huckabee’s made-for-TV closing quip.
Rubio showed policy smarts and incredible poise. With a potent answer on the illegal immigration problem, he was quick on his feet—true to form and sure to invigorate his recently fizzled poll numbers. He delivered the second best line of the night in response to Megyn Kelly’s question from Facebook: "Do you have a word from God?" Rubio said: “God has blessed us. He’s blessed us with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.” It was generous and humorous. He shined throughout the debate.
Bush could have shown more enthusiasm. He was subdued, but serious. He walked through a minefield of tough questions and seemed prepared for every one of them.
But where was the spark?
There seems to be an enthusiasm gap among voters for his candidacy compared with others like Cruz or Walker. He held his own. His answers were solid, but he needs to trade in some of the wonkery for animation in future debates.
The Fox anchors were also stars in the show. They were tough. Megyn Kelly was adept at delivering questions and follow ups. Bret Baier and Chris Wallace delivered on the expectation that they would be unforgiving of canned responses. The moderators kept the debate focused. Suffered no fools. They were authentically engaging on conservative policy topics, not disparaging of them as we have seen from biased moderators in the past.

Baier’s opening question pointed out that there were losers in this first debate as well.

Donald Trump came across as defensive, offensive and egotistical. Essentially, classic Trump. From the very first question, he appeared disingenuous. In one of his more lucent rants, he explained how he likes to give money to politicians to buy their compliance with his business interests.
Trump appeared, at times, pouty and smug. Most of his responses bordered on the incoherent. His performance can’t help his future in the campaign. But since he thinks this is a reality show, that’s unlikely to lead to his exit any time soon.
Rand Paul clearly dodged a question or two. At the conclusion of each answer, he immediately stared down at his podium. He’ll fix this by the next debate, if he’s still in the race. At times, he appeared to feel hurt or disappointed to be there.
Ben Carson was slow with his lines. He gave a confusing answer on his tax policy. He was not lit up. Where was the energy? His answers were breathy. If you didn’t know that this is sometimes his style, you might have interpreted it for nervousness.
Kasich’s luck in making it on the stage turned out to be a lost opportunity. As I watched the debate I found myself wishing the tenth spot was occupied by Carly Fiorina. Fox did her a huge favor in prime time by playing one of her best lines from the 5:00 pm debate to the top ten candidates in the later debate.
Fiorina took on the toughest topics with inspired, verbal sword play where Kasich failed to leave much of an impression. Consider his lackadaisical response to the softest of softball questions regarding how he would respond to Hillary’s basic talking points.
This was a debate made for Republican primary voters. It was a purity test. A sanity check of our candidates. The format and the moderators helped us consider the electability of our candidates—covering a robust field of topics in an organized way.

What happens next?

Trump’s poll numbers are likely to drop. Kasich’s probably will too. Rand Paul may cling to polling life a bit longer, but he didn’t compare well with the other candidates, possibly because he’s “a different kind of Republican.” Rubio, Walker, Bush and Cruz should expect varying increases in their campaign standings. The debate served them well. And it’s unclear how the debate helped Huckabee, Carson, or Christie, if at all. Let’s hope that CNN's September debate will be as effective as this one was.

Dem defections show deep divisions in party over Iran nuclear deal

Two more Democratic defections over the Iran nuclear deal have exposed deep divisions at the top echelons of the party just as lawmakers entered the August congressional recess, putting added pressure on President Obama to lock down support ahead of a vital vote next month. 
In the middle of the Republican presidential debates Thursday night, senior Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer issued a lengthy and detailed statement announcing his opposition to the deal.
"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great," Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement."
The news came as Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, took the same stance.
The announcements came just hours after two other Senate Democrats -- New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen -- announced their support for the international accord. Schumer and Engel also are at odds with the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has cautiously embraced the deal. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, supports the accord and has been working hard to persuade lawmakers to do the same. So does top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi.
On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry said "I profoundly disagree" with Schumer and Engel.

More on this...

• Greta: Obama cheap shot in Iran speech disgraceful

But their opposition, coupled with that of other Democratic lawmakers, means the administration still has its work cut out to be able to sustain an expected presidential veto when Congress returns and votes on the agreement.
Republicans, who control the House and Senate, are uniformly opposed to the deal, meaning its fate likely hinges on whether both chambers could muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. So far, the administration has secured the backing of more than a dozen Senate Democrats and more than two dozen House Democrats.
Obama, who delivered a hard-hitting address earlier this week in defense of the deal, shows no signs of letting up in his administration's lobbying effort.
Despite taking heat from Republicans after that speech for comparing their position to that of Iranian hard-liners chanting "Death to America," Obama on Friday stood by his criticism.
He said what the two groups have in common is that they're "satisfied with the status quo." Speaking on CNN, he said hardliners are opposed to any cooperation with the international community, and Republicans have an "ideological commitment" to not getting a deal done.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called on Obama to retract his comments, calling them offensive.
In announcing his opposition, Schumer said he found a potential 24-day delay before inspections could take place "troubling" and noted that the agreement does not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities or a unilateral demand for inspections by the U.S.
While Schumer said he is opposing the deal, which would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, he signaled that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord.
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," he said. "While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."
Engel followed Schumer's announcement with his own statement shortly afterward.
Engel echoed Schumer's concerns over inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities. "It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges," Engel said. "Its actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic region worse."

'Strategic blunder': Republicans slam Obama administration as Russia tries Arctic land grab

Republican lawmakers slammed the Obama administration this week after Russia announced it had submitted a bid to the United Nations for huge areas of the Arctic that could contain vast quantities of oil and gas, with one lawmaker describing the application as evidence of a “strategic blunder” on the part of the administration's foreign policy.
Russia’s foreign ministry said in a statement Tuesday that Moscow was claiming over 463,000 square miles of Arctic sea shelf, extending more than 350 nautical miles from the shore.
The Arctic is believed to hold up to 25 percent of the planet’s untapped oil and gas supplies. Russia, the U.S. and Canada are among those trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the region.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, told FoxNews.com he isn’t surprised by what he called Russia's “latest attempt to grab territory in the Arctic” and noted that the move comes after Vladimir Putin has been amassing forces in the region.
“Meanwhile, in the face of this Russian military buildup, we are significantly reducing Army forces in our nation’s only Arctic state, Alaska. This is a strategic blunder by the Obama administration,” Sullivan said.
Russia first submitted its claim to the territory in 2002, but it was rejected by the U.N. due to lack of evidence. In 2007, Russia staked a symbolic claim to the Arctic seabed by dropping a canister containing the Russian flag on the ocean floor from a submarine at the North Pole.
The Kremlin submitted a partial revision regarding the Okhotsk Sea in 2013, and the commission issued a recommendation the following year.
The Russian foreign ministry said their new bid contains new arguments and "ample scientific data" to back up their claim.
Moscow has ramped up its military presence in the Arctic recently, restoring a Soviet-era military base in the New Siberian Island and other Arctic military outposts. The Russians have also conducted large-scale military exercises involving tens of thousands of troops, dozens of ships and submarines, and over 100 aircraft.
RELATED VIDEO: Was Mitt Romney right about Russia?
Sullivan called for the administration to increase U.S. physical presence in the region in response, but said that the administration “seems more focused on climate change.”
”Right now, the Russians are playing chess in the Arctic and our Administration still seems to think it’s tic-tac-toe,” Sullivan said.
The State Department told FoxNews.com that Moscow was following appropriate procedure under the Law of the Sea Convention.
“This technocratic process is the usual manner in which coastal states secure legal certainty in their sovereign rights and jurisdiction to continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles,” a State Department spokesperson said.
Sullivan’s fellow GOP Alaska Sen. Murkowski appeared to agree with the State Department, acknowledging that Russia is following protocol as a party to the Law of the Sea, and in contrast to Sullivan, saw it at as a more measured approach from the Russians than in other regions.
“At this point, it’s worth noting that Russia is following protocol and following international agreements in submitting their claims rather than unilaterally claiming them via military force as they’ve done in other parts of the world,” a spokesperson for Sen. Murkowski told FoxNews.com.
Lawmakers in the House, however, joined Sen. Sullivan in taking aim at the administration.
“Russia’s latest move into the Arctic is the fruit of the Obama administration’s failed energy policies. Obama has sent a clear signal to the world -- which Russia has correctly interpreted -- that our nation is choosing weakness when it comes to energy development,” Julia Slingsby, press secretary for the House Committee on Natural Resources, said.
“Instead of letting Russia bully us, America should be exerting our energy power by developing our resources on multiple fronts. A strong American presence in the Arctic means a safer Arctic,” Slingsby said.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., chose not to criticize the Obama administration directly, but said the U.S. and its allies should stand up to Russia.
“Russia has been aggressively pushing its claims to the Arctic, especially the resource-rich continental shelf. It now has an Arctic Command to strengthen its military presence in the region. The U.S. and others bordering the Arctic must maintain a united front against Moscow’s aggressive ambitions toward this vital region,” Royce told FoxNews.com in a statement.

Poll Cartoon

A debate with no losers: Republicans should be proud

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I strongly feel that there were no real losers in tonight’s debate. The quality of the conversation and, overall, the level of respect that each candidate showed to the others, highlighted the potential for the Republican party to rise above much of the divisiveness that has haunted them in recent elections.
Indeed, I believe that tonight’s debate elevates the Republican party as a whole.

Republicans should be proud. They’ve got a bunch of good candidates, as Rubio noted himself. And they treated each other – and the voters they’re trying to win over – respectfully.

There was clear appeal to the more conservative side of the base on social issues – abortion was a hot topic – as well as the importance of a strong military to not only combat ISIS but to also restore America’s place in the world as a global leader. We heard about the importance of a pro-growth agenda from Governors John Kasich, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush who all added thousands of jobs while in office.
We also heard about the importance of moving our country forward, not backwards from Marco Rubio: a note that he has hits regularly, but means a lot to a country that doesn’t want to elect another Bush or Clinton.
Donald Trump was clearly the featured candidate, with all eyes on him and tremendous anticipation as to whether he was going to follow through on his pledge to be civilized and only to attack if attacked.
Trump showed that he is clearly ready for prime time. His responses to questions on immigration, his business background, bankruptcy and change in position on issue likes health care and the pro-life/pro-choice debate showed him to be a pragmatist above all else. And that’s something that resonates with voters.
The latest Fox poll showed that Americans are considered with leadership above all else – even Conservative values. It follows that Trump’s approach is right on target. And he didn’t let down his supporters this evening.
To my mind, Rubio and Kasich were both incredibly impressive. Rubio has been slipping in the polls lately because of Trump and believe he will win back some support after this performance wherein he showed Americans what his vision of a strong, generous America looks like.
Kasich showed us all why he deserved to be up there Thursday night. He touted an impressive record in Ohio where he created jobs, balanced budgets, worked with Democrats and made smart decisions for all his constituents. He spoke meaningfully about pulling people out of the shadows and appealing to minorities and immigrants. For Kasich, offering the chance to Americans to move up in society is his top priority and with 40% of the electorate saying that the economy is the most important issue to them, his message will strike a cord.
We didn’t hear anything particularly new from Ted Cruz, but he was surely an effective right wing advocate. I believe that he will emerge as the clear leader of the right and with good reason.
Bush was steady and not particularly dynamic, but I don’t think he will lose his standing at the top of the heap as a result of this evening. He made clear, repeatedly, that he governed conservatively and showed that through his record. If viewers were watching with an open mind – and I believe they were – he may have won some votes from those who think him to be too liberal because of his stance on immigration. Tonight can only benefit him.
Christie and Walker didn’t hurt themselves. And neither did Huckabee or Paul. Ben Carson had a few good quips, but wasn’t generally very persuasive, especially as an outsider candidate in comparison to Trump. But we saw that coming.
The overall takeaway from this evening is that Republicans should be proud. They’ve got a bunch of good candidates, as Rubio noted himself. And they treated each other – and the voters they’re trying to win over – respectfully.
This only stands to help the Republicans as candidates and as a party. It also means that their strong showing proves that the only real loser was the Democrats and Hillary Clinton more specifically. It’s going to be a long, tough battle. 

Two top congressional Democrats announce opposition to Iran nuclear deal

Two top congressional Democrats announced late Thursday that they would oppose President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the No. 3 Senate Democrat, and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, both announced their objection to the deal in a blow to the Obama administration ahead of next month’s vote.
Schumer, who said in a statement that he made his decision "after deep study, careful thought, and considerable soul-searching", is the first Senate Democrat to step forward to oppose the deal. His announcement came just hours after two other Senate Democrats — New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen — announced their support for the international accord.
Schumer's decision also puts him at odds with the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has cautiously embraced the deal. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, supports the accord and has been working hard to persuade lawmakers to do the same.
The administration, which has lobbied intensely for the pact, had secured the backing of more than a dozen Senate Democrats and more than two dozen House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, are uniformly opposed to the deal.
Schumer said in his statement that there is real risk that Iran "will not moderate" and will use the pact to "pursue its nefarious goals". He added that advocates on both sides of the debate made points that couldn’t be dismissed, but in the end he said he "must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

More on this...

• Krauthammer slams Obama's divisive rhetoric on Iran

Schumer also stated that he found a proposed 24-day delay before inspections could take place "troubling" and noted that the agreement does not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities or a unilateral demand for inspections by the U.S.
“While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) - the tools that go into building a bomb but don't emit radioactivity,” he said.
Schumer said that while he is opposing the deal, which would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, he signaled that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord.
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," he said. "While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."
Engel followed Schumer's announcement with his own statement shortly after. Engel’s announcement made him the second major Jewish Democratic figure from New York City to announce their opposition to Obama’s accord.
Engel echoed Schumer’s concerns over inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities in a statement late Thursday and believes Iran is a “grave threat to international stability.”
“It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges,” Engel said. "Its actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic region worse."

Analysts: Bush avoided confrontation, Trump stayed on attack, Christie showed new life

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush avoided confrontation. Donald Trump stayed on the attack. And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie showed new life.
Those are the takeaways from the first2016 GOP round of debates held in Cleveland Thursday night, according to analysts.
"(Bush) was stilted, but consistent," said Ed O'Keefe, a Washington Post reporter who has covered Bush extensively. He added the former Florida governor "started cautiously, but appeared more comfortable by the end."
The verdict? While Bush didn't perform as vibrantly as some had hoped, he didn't make any big mistakes either. But that also means he also didn't have a big breakout moment.
Bush was among the top 10 Republican candidates who participated in a two-hour prime-time debate from Cleveland Thursday night hosted by Fox News and Facebook.
The 2016 contenders, who boast sharply conservative records and attention-grabbing personalities, used the debate stage to try to distinguish themselves from one another in the crowded GOP field that now stands at 17.
The seven candidates who did not make the 9 p.m. cut participated in an earlier debate at 5 p.m.
The main event got off to a lively start with Trump and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
“The first hour of the second debate has been so surprisingly ugly, and terribly unpresidential,” Lara Brown,associate professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management, told FoxNews.com. “The candidates have hit each other and attempted to score with the audience, forgetting that they are on television.”
The candidates, some say, may have actually done more harm than good at getting their message across.
“They have been playing to the ‘heat’ of the crowd, rather than the ‘coolness’ of the television camera,” Brown said, adding that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were among the few that kept it classy.
Trump, who dominated headlines with his controversial comments about Mexican illegal immigrants, entered the Quicken Loans Arena Thursday night with a target on his back.Ahead of the debate, the billionaire said he would not attack his rivals but would rather discuss the issues.That didn’t last.
Fox News political analyst and contributor Charles Krauthammer did not pull any punches when it came to Trump's performance.
“The fact is, he was out of place,” Krauthammer said. “When you think about it, when he is free-form, when he is uninterrupted and when he can do the flight of ideas, when he can go on his own and ramble – he’s entertaining, he’s sharp and he’s actually amusing,” Krauthammer said. “But here when he was controlled and in a tight setting, he was lost for much of the debate.”
Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume called the dustup between Christie and Paul, “the most eye-catching moment” of the night.
“As I watched it, it seemed to be Christie had a comeback for everything and he got much the best of it, but I can guarantee you that Rand Paul adherents, people who are worried about the surveillance, think he did better so we’ll see,” Hume said.
“Christie really went after Rand Paul and I think he may have damaged Rand Paul. The problem is, if you do that, you don’t always look good doing it so you may not be the beneficiary,” he added.
Bush, who stumbled earlier in the week when he tried to slam Planned Parenthood’s funding by saying he wasn’t sure “half a billion dollars for women’s health issues” was needed, left himself open to attack on the issue.
He acknowledged during Thursday night’s debate he didn’t know that a board he sat on gave millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood. Bush was named as a founding director to the tax-exempt Bloomberg Family Foundation in 2010. He resigned in 2014.
While Rubio and Carson turned in steady performances,Thursday's big winner appeared to be Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who had social media sites buzzing all night. Fiorina participated in the 5 p.m. debate, where talk of Trump, terrorism and the Iran nuclear deal dominated.
"I thought she had nailed it from her opening statement. And I thought she only got better,” Brown said.
“I thought she was clear, sharp, and smooth. I was quite impressed.”

GOP candidates battle to stake their positions in first 2016 debate

From fiery criticism of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal to support for Israel and the rights of the unborn, the top 10 Republican presidential candidates did all they could to define and separate themselves Thursday night during the Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio.

The governors on stage, notably John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, touted their economic records. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vowed to scrap the Iran deal. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson reminded voters in his closing remarks of the professional background that separates him from the rest: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

Throughout the debate, Donald Trump was the unrivaled lightning rod, but the prime-time showdown made clear he’s not the only fighter on the stage – or in the race.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reclaimed his reputation as a tough-talking executive, blasting his rivals for their positions on domestic surveillance and entitlements. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul traded barbs with several candidates, including Christie.

Meanwhile, one-time front-runner former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush found himself on defense several times and largely avoided tangling with Trump on the Fox News/Facebook stage.

Perhaps the most fiery moment came in an exchange between Christie and Paul. Long-simmering tension between the two exploded when Christie stood by his criticism of the senator for opposing NSA bulk collection of Americans’ phone data.

Paul said he’s “proud of standing for the Bill of Rights,” but Christie called his stance “completely ridiculous” – suggesting he wants to cherry-pick only some data.  

“When you’re sitting in the subcommittee just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,” Christie said.

Paul fired back: “I know you gave [President Obama] a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go ahead.” Christie said the hugs he gave were to the families of 9/11 victims, and then accused Paul of playing “politics,” by using videos of floor speeches to raise money.

The exchange was striking, even in a debate that was tense from the start. Though several rivals stood out, Trump did not hold his fire, either – making clear he’s not softening his approach to campaigning as he picks up steam in the polls.

If anything, the debate signaled the primary race is about to get tougher and is still wide open as 17 candidates vie for the lead with months to go until the opening contests.

Trump, the billionaire businessman front-runner, sparred at the outset of the debate with Paul after refusing to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee if it’s not him and to swear off an independent run.

“I will not make the pledge at this time,” Trump said.

Paul accused him of “hedging his bet on the Clintons.”

“He’s already hedging his bets, because he’s used to buying politicians,” Paul said. (Trump later acknowledged he gave money to the Clintons and demanded Hillary Clinton “be at my wedding” in exchange; he called this a sign of a broken system.)

Trump also stood firm on his vow to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump said, blasting “stupid leaders” in the U.S. harboring illegal immigrants.

Bush said a comprehensive solution is needed, including a “path to earned legal status,” which he said is not “amnesty.”

Moments later, Cruz said some on stage support “amnesty”, while he does not.

A big question going into the debate was whether Bush would aggressively challenge Trump and try to knock him off his perch.

But he would only go so far as to question Trump’s tone, calling his language “divisive.” Hours before the debate, Politico ran a story saying Bush recently told a donor he thinks Trump is a “buffoon” and a “clown.” Asked about that report on stage, Bush denied it.

“It’s not true,” Bush said.

Trump then called Bush a “true gentleman.”

As for his tone, Trump said it’s “medieval times” in the Middle East, and, “We don’t have time for tone.”

But other candidates were able to stand out on the crowded stage. Carson called Hillary Clinton the “epitome” of the progressive movement.

“She counts on the fact that people are uninformed. The Alinsky model, taking advantage of useful idiots,” he said.

Walker also blasted the Iran nuclear deal, as did other candidates: “This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS, it is tied together and once and for all we need a leader who is going to do something about it. It is yet another example of the failed foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton doctrine.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio landed laughs when, upon being asked about his faith in God, he said: “I think God has blessed us, he’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Rubio also vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and called the lack of accountability after the Veterans Affairs scandal “outrageous.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed to defend entitlements and stood his ground on social issues. He blasted Planned Parenthood and defended his pro-life views, accusing abortion providers of “selling” fetal parts “like they’re parts to a Buick.”

Kasich, like Walker and Bush, tried to keep the focus on his record in his state.

“America is a miracle country and we have to restore the sense that the miracle will apply to you,” he said.

And Cruz vowed, if elected, to prosecute Planned Parenthood, cancel the Iran nuclear deal and nix Obama’s executive orders. “I believe the American people are looking for someone to speak the truth,” he said.

Trump was challenged several times on his conservative views. He previously was pro-choice, but said he’s “evolved” on the issue.

Also, under questioning from moderator Megyn Kelly about past disparaging comments he made about women, Trump interrupted to say, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” He then said, “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry.”

The candidates squared off at the second of two kick-off debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party.

The seven other Republican hopefuls spent much of the first debate doing their best to hammer home the message that Clinton represents four more years of Obama. In the earlier debate, the candidates largely avoided sparring with each other and instead trained their fire on the Obama years -- with promises to roll back ObamaCare and undo the Iran nuclear deal.