Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s Fox News program this weekend will feature a 2012 GOP forum with at least 5 confirmed candidates. The 90 minute forum will air Saturday evening at 8pm ET. Each candidate will answer questions individually with the Governor and other hosts.

Air Time: Saturday, December 3, 2011 at 8pm ET on Fox News

Confirmed Candidates: Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Perry

Unconfirmed: Perry, Cain, Huntsman

Report from the New York Times:

Fox News is hosting a candidates’ forum in its New York studios with former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas on Dec. 3. According to a letter sent to the candidates and obtained by The Caucus, Mr. Huckabee, now a Fox News host, will be joined by three Republican state attorneys general who will pose questions individually to each candidate who agrees to appear.

A Fox News spokeswoman confirmed the forum, in which five candidates — Mitt Romney, Representative Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Representative Ron Paul — have agreed to attend. The network was still waiting for responses from Herman Cain, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Jon M. Huntsman Jr.

That so many candidates have agreed to appear at the forum — which is exactly one month from the Iowa caucuses — is telling. Mr. Huckabee’s endorsement of any of them would be significant, as he was the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Last weekend, he said that the party’s right wing should coalesce around Mr. Romney if he won the nomination, despite its long skepticism of him.

Here are the forum rules given to candidates:

  • The forum will last approximately 90 minutes.
  • Candidates will be individually questioned. At no point will candidates have on-air interaction with each other.
  • The order in which candidates are questioned will be determined by a draw. Each candidate will have an 8-10 minute question and answer session. The exact amount of time will depend on commercial break structure.
  • Candidates will be in the studio one-by-one for their Q&A. The remaining candidates will be watching the forum from their private work space provided by Fox News.
  • At the end of the forum, each candidate will be given one-minute rebuttal/final thoughts. Candidates will be on separate cameras.
  • There will be no studio audience.

I’d imagine the unconfirmed list will shorten as I’d expect Cain and Perry to give a positive response. Huntsman has passed on some earlier televised events so I wouldn’t be shocked if he passes on this appearance as well. More details to come later this week.

42 COMMENTS

    • My choice;
      Ron Paul is the champion of the people against the entrenched interests and the power elite.

      Ron Paul 2012

      • Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These Eleven Reasons

        by Dave Trotter

        Establishment political personalities are quick to claim poor “electability” to diminish Ron Paul’s chances because they presume that Paul holds no positive advantage in a head-to-head matchup against Obama in the general election. That’s an apparent premise of their calculation.

        This is either a sublime miscalculation or a profound deception. If Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, the path to the White House could seem downhill by comparison. Why?

        Unprecedented debt circumstances demand an unprecedented reimagining of US government priorities and obligations. The U.S. national debt is categorically unsustainable and literally, it’s now mathematically impossible to repay, too. That the debt, banking, and finance system is increasingly proven to be a rigged Ponzi scheme in mainstream media only underlines Ron Paul’s tenured criticism of the oligarchical Federal Reserve System itself. Further, increasing numbers of voters awaken daily to the direct correlation between endless foreign interventionism and that categorically unsustainable debt that vexes the nation.

        Indeed, from wars, rumors of wars, a fading dollar, climbing prices, hopeless unemployment, and an overreaching federal police state, the time is ripe for Ron Paul’s small-government message.

        There’s merely that small prerequisite for the general election: winning the Republican nomination.

        The first contest, the Iowa caucus, is an activist-gathering, hand-raising event that heavily favors a strong ground organization. Ron Paul, by all accounts, enjoys a robust ground organization in Iowa – the strongest of the field. Ron’s numbers are up recently in Iowa, too, leading many previously dismissive pundits to consider seriously the prospect of a Paul victory next month.

        After all, Paul fell just short of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August by a mere 150 votes to Michelle Bachmann, who’s since collapsed utterly from relevance – or posing any serious threat of repeating. Bachmann was merely the first of several anybody-but-Romney candidates to grab the “frontrunner” baton for a few precious moments of prime time.

        The momentum for Ron Paul coming out of an Iowa victory could roll right through New Hampshire, considered a more libertarian-leaning electorate, and in turn, trigger Romney’s long-inevitable glass house collapse.

        Despite a hiccup here or there, maybe in South Carolina, no other already-passed-the-baton “frontrunner” could stop Ron Paul after victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So there you go: early victories, nomination, a speech, and on to the general election.

        In that general election matchup, Ron Paul would make short work of Obama, for these eleven reasons.

        Ron Paul significantly outclasses Obama in any extemporaneous, conventionally conceivable economic or foreign policy debate format not involving teleprompters. How does Obama justify expanding the bailouts, the wars, and the police state at home after promising the opposite – “hope and change” – throughout his 2008 campaign? Filling his cabinet with crony bankster speculators and lobbyists? Secretly bailing out insiders and foreign banks alike? How does Obama defend Solyndra or Fast and Furious? Answer: He can’t.

        I say “conventionally conceivable” because it seems there would be one offsetting chance here for Obama: cancel the debates. And the election.

        One thing’s clear, though: if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the debate moderators will have much more difficulty ignoring him on a stage of two or three than in the midst of eight or more in the GOP primary debates.
        Ron Paul wins the issue of war and foreign policy for anti-war liberals, independents, libertarians, and constitutional conservatives. Don’t look now, but that’s a sizable and growing coalition, and one that isn’t currently gauged by restricting polling samples to GOP primary likely Republican voters. There’s upside there, too, as Paul makes progress with traditional Bush-supporting “conservatives” who begin to recognize that wars cost trillions, and the U.S. is flat broke.

        There’s a significant portion of Obama’s base that elected him based on his antiwar rhetoric, which he subsequently abandoned upon inauguration. These disillusioned liberals and independents have witnessed Obama expand the war in Afghanistan as he drew down symbolic numbers in Iraq (and replaced those troops with mercenaries). They watched Obama expand the front in Pakistan with collateral damage-inflicting drone strikes – even as he launched a completely new conflict in Libya – without a declaration or even an unconstitutional authorization from Congress.

        The most depraved recent offense? Obama executed an American citizen and his children in Yemen without a trial, presentation of evidence, or any authentication whatsoever of the speech crimes allegedly committed by him. (Anwar Al-Awlaki, this new Boogeyman/Goldstein/Osama, had himself questionable ties to the US military industrial complex shortly after 9/11.) Consider that with Ron Paul and Barack Obama on a debate stage, Obama becomes the pro-war candidate. Needless to say, any voter who trends anti-war will likely vote for Ron Paul.
        Ron Paul wins the domestic police state issue before the debate even begins. After all, Obama is the one on that stage who must answer for gratuitous TSA abuse. Seemingly all voters have either had bad experiences themselves with the TSA, or have heard anecdotes from friends or relatives describing the rampant violations of dignity and body so common now to airport travel. Everyone’s heard the stories about TSA agents raping, stealing, leering, and murdering. Would Obama attempt to suggest that the TSA keeps us safe – by exposing our children to pat-downs by pedophiles?

        With domestic surveillance, Obama essentially expanded Bush’s worst abuses and then argued for more. Even more disaffected liberals and independents will join the libertarian and constitutional conservative coalition over these issues and vote for Ron Paul.

        Ron Paul wins the federal drug war issue by arguing to end it. By killing that decades-old federal boondoggle, Paul wins the support of most California, Washington, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, and Oregon medical marijuana patients who’ve watched as Obama’s DEA raids state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries contrary to state law. You know who else would appreciate an end to federal drug enforcement? Minority populations, who are disproportionately prosecuted for nonviolent federal drug crimes. Still think Obama has an unquestionable advantage with minority groups? How is this growing coalition of voters even quantified?

        Ron Paul wins the abortion issue. Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life in his personal life, and as an obstetrician, he speaks with conviction – from wisdom and personal professional experience. He will own the Christian vote on this issue, obviously. But Paul argues that the federal government holds no jurisdiction over the issue, and if individual states wish to pass more restrictive or permissive laws, those states should pursue the legislation that best fits their unique populations.

        It’s a compromise, in other words. So even if pro-life Christians can’t be enthusiastic about Paul’s lack of advocacy for a federal ban on abortion, “pro-choice” abortion supporters can’t credibly be existentially threatened by Paul’s 10th amendment approach, which is less strident than sound-bite saber rattling over a federal ban. In other words, don’t look for this issue to serve as a convincing single-issue rallying cry for Obama supporters, which qualifies it as a win for Paul.

        Ron Paul wins the homeschool, pro-organic, anti-mandatory vaccination, and other pro-liberty niche crowds. Who else but Ron Paul has argued for the rights of the people to consume raw milk? Who else but Ron Paul has proposed granting tax credits and more freedom to homeschooling families to set their own curricula? Contrast this with Obama’s attempts to nationalize education standards further on the back of Bush’s overreaching “No Child Left Behind,” and the more recent viral images of armed FDA goons raiding organic food store Rawesome Foods in Venice, California. Yep, even more Californians sympathetic to Paul.

        Republicans will turn out en masse to support the GOP nominee – even if it’s Ron Paul. Consider how anti-Obama the lowest common denominator of GOP talking points has become, as voiced by pundits, talk radio, and primary candidates in the debates. Making Obama a “one-term President,” repealing “Obamacare,” and so on.

        Republican voters, long accustomed to “lesser of two evils”-type calculated rationalizations, won’t bat an eye when pulling the lever for Ron Paul. After all, Paul’s single heresy from current GOP orthodoxy is over his principled resistance to interventionism abroad. But he’s the first to point out that it’s the current GOP that’s out of step with the traditional Republican Party platform, not him. Those voters whom Paul can’t convert on morality can also be swayed by fiscal arguments. Wars cost trillions. The U.S. is broke. Rationalizations abound.

        Either way, expect a giant anti-Obama Republican turnout in November, 2012 – regardless the GOP nominee. The advantage with a Paul nomination is that Republicans can expect Paul supporters to support the Republican nominee – something they can’t do if they nominate Romney or Gingrich.

        The Tea Party rallies behind Ron Paul because his Trillion Dollar Plan is a perfect ideological match. After all, Ron Paul supporters are the ones who started the Tea Party movement in 2007 – the proto-Tea Party. As far as the electorate recognizes the problem to be government spending, Ron Paul is the clear answer.

        Ron Paul wins on auditing and ending the Federal Reserve. Who can claim that the US has a “free market” despite artificial price fixing of interest rates at the very core of the economy? What free market advocate supports crony secret taxpayer-funded bailouts of speculators and foreign banks? The Tea Party and the entire GOP field now parrots Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve.

        But there’s yet more upside here for Paul: the Occupy movement makes a special point to protest crony capitalism and the abuses of a corrupt, insider financial oligarchy. If Paul can tap that sentiment, which clearly overlaps with his arguments against crony capitalism and the lack of transparency of the Federal Reserve System, he can convert a portion of those Occupy voters into voting Paulistinians. Rest assured, Paul volunteers are already performing this outreach on the ground.

        Ron Paul wins on torture and the Bill of Rights. Let Obama attempt to characterize water boarding as something other than torture, as his neocon counterparts have, and Ron Paul will provide a stark contrast – an iconic symbol of authentic, principled “hope and change.” As for the Bill of Rights in general, Ron Paul wins clearly with any voter who cherishes the idea of not having to present his or her papers at random checkpoints; for whom government surveillance of citizens is anathema; who cherishes the idea that the government is the slave to the people and not the other way around; or in particular relevance to the Obama record – to anyone who cherishes the idea that we have a right to be left alone.

        Circumstances and current events in November, 2012, will play right into Ron Paul’s wheelhouse. This one is the clincher. After repeated, nefarious inflations of the money supply through bailouts and Fed treasury purchases, Obamaflation will be unmistakable at the grocery store, the doctor’s office, and at the fuel pump. Gold will be well over $2,200/ounce. And after an eleven-year string of templated, bankrupting, and needless interventionist wars abroad, voters won’t be easily convinced that high gas prices are solely Iran’s fault. Ron Paul is expertly capable of clearly articulating the causation between interventionist foreign policy and poor economic circumstances at home – including the inflation that will be hitting voters right smack in their wallets as they head to the voting booths.

        So there you have it. If only Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, global and domestic current events in November, 2012 will assure that a Ron Paul victory in the general election is a very high probability. Compared to the primary fight, some might even describe that general election matchup as a cakewalk for Paul.

        One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: if you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neoconservative like Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third party ticket, and due to the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9%). That would undoubtedly reelect Obama.

        Is that what you want?

        Save your outrage and answer instead this question: given your less than courteous opinion of Paul, how can you possibly explain your sense of entitlement toward his supporters and their votes? Answer: you can’t.

        Besides, even if Ron Paul did not run third party, and even if he were to endorse the neoconservative Republican nominee, his supporters wouldn’t necessarily follow his lead. I know I wouldn’t.
        We will write in RON PAUL

      • Wow, Ron Paul gave me a headache watching this. I have seen monkeys with epilepsy sound more coherent than he does, and I could have sworn I was watching Porky Pig.

        • I often hear the phrase “I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says, but….[I agree with him on the economy, war, foreign policy, cronyism, civil liberties, etc etc of any number of immediately and fundamentally important issues].

          Benjamin Franklin used to make lists of Pros and Cons in order to clearly analyze important situations and make the best informed decisions. If everyone were to write out their pros and cons, they might just see they agree with Ron Paul on most of the issues that really truly matter to them. But go ahead and do so with any candidate you wish, including President Obama. The point being, to dismiss a candidate because they don’t agree with you on some single social issue, even though you agree with them on 90% of all other issues, is fundamentalist insanity.

  1. Buddy Roemer has been inappropriately excluded from the debates. He is a very credible candidate and should be a part of Huckabee’s 12/3/2011 forum. Use your influence to make it happen.
    So much for “The American Way”..

  2. Love it when those who love life gather together. Life is going to get much more value again in January 2013.

  3. Looking forward to the forum on Sat. The State Attorney Generals’ questions should be interesting.
    I’m sure Herman Cain will drop out of the race before Sat.
    Michele Bachman needs to tone it down a notch. She has said too many times “I’ve been the leader on…..” Let’s hear some things she has actually accomplished and let’s hear “how” she will actually get things done for the better as President. Just abolishing O’BamaCare on day one is not enough.
    Romney is just Romney and I don’t think he can say anything to sway me over to him. Yes I am one of those people in the Bible Belt!
    Dr. Paul just comes across as a mad man when he speaks. Some ideas are too radical but somethings I agree with but he just sounds so crazy when he says it.
    I’d like to hear more from Rick Santorium.
    Newt has always been the one with the most knowledge/ideas. He needs only to clarify his illegals stance on standards to be allowed to stay in the country. Most do not agree with this and if he can make a better case then he might win more people over.

    • “Romney is just Romney and I don’t think he can say anything to sway me over to him. Yes I am one of those people in the Bible Belt!”

      Speak for yourself! Don’t malign the majority in the Bible Belt who judge based on character, not religion.

      In addition to his economic sense, Romney is a respectable human being.

  4. Dr. Paul may come across as a mad man to those who don’t understand or hold in high regard the Constitution and the rule of law. The ideals he advocates aren’t new or extreme. He’s the only candidate who is offering real cuts. All the others who merely offer tax reform and the elimination of waste and fraud just aren’t serious about debt and limiting government.

  5. I plead with everyone to vote for Romney! If you want to beat Obama, the one who most Consistently beats Obama un the polls us Romney. He has the leadership skills and business savvy to turn this ship around. Staples and Sports Authority, and the 2002 Olympics would not be have been so successful without him.
    How can those who claim to be religious, in there frenzy to to find the anti-Romney, vote for Newt Gingrich? He’s had his share of flip flops and was committing adultery at the same time he was calling for Clinton’s impeachment for similar problems. Is he really the moral leader you want? I can understand Rick Santorum for that, although I’m not sure I trust him with the economy. MIke Huckabee agrees that Romney might be our best shot at beating Obama.

  6. Can you please ask Gingrich the following questions?

    You stated in your 2006 book, “Winning the Future”, that you supported nationally mandated health insurance. Does that mean that you support the Health Care Act of 2010? If not, then why?

    If you were to repeal “ObamaCare”, what would you replace it with?

    Do you see a problem with illegal immigrants receiving free benefits such as education, health insurance, and food stamps?

    In the past, our Country tried amnesty for illegal immigrants which simply drew more illegal immigrants into this Country. How can having “some way to let them stay without giving citizenship” not produce the same problem?

    Would you first secure the borders and then implement your plan? How long would it take to secure the borders? Would we not get even more of a flood of illegal immigrants before you could “secure the borders”?

    Many legal immigrants worked hard to become legal in this Country including becoming citizens. Do you plan to give the illegal immigrants special treatment over the legal immigrants such as giving them an “easier process” to become legal than those currently in the system?

    Where do you get your data that “most illegal immigrants are law biding citizens who pay taxes” from? Can we verify this information?

    Where do you get your data that Americans would “split up families” if the immigration laws were enforced? Would they not simply go back to their own Country on their own – family and all?

    Clinton, W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all guilty of not enforcing the immigration laws. Will you enforce the immigration laws? If so, why did you not say anything about the problem of not enforcing the laws when you were Speaker of the House?

  7. Would we want a thrice married adulterer and his mistress as the nations first family?
    I’m not sure, but I don’t believe we have ever had a President elected that had been divorced.

  8. Buddy Roemer should be included in this debate. His credentials match or exceed any of the other candidates but he doesn’t take the big money from the special interests (PACs, Super PACs, etc). He is a solid candidate with great ideas. Give him a chance.

  9. Why don’t you invite Buddy Roemer to the debate? I respect fox news as fair and balanced. I don’t see the fairness at leaving out two of the republicans running, specially one that is running against the big money system.

  10. I too, would like to hear more from Rick Santorum. He needs more exposure at the debates. He also needs more press coverage and interviews. He’s very strong on the family unit which is the backbone of this country, of any country. I hope we get to hear more from him in Saturday’s debate.

  11. All of the Republicans are a bunch of puppets! It’s sickening that our country allows things to carry on so long until it is to bad to reverse. Are you people really listening to the hogwash that the candidates are babbling? Because if you are listening and considering them over our current president you must be brainwashed and fooled by there theatrics that they put on each voting year. It looks like a bunch of bickering, bitter, old men & women, who want America to go back to the way it was. Yeah a White man in power, poor to stay poor, the working poor to continue struggling and buying into Republicans malarkey, and the Rich to become more Rich. I have a suspicion that this is not what the founding fathers had in mind for this country. Most of the people who speak on this Forum I’m assuming are probably Republican, I can tell by the support you give. We are a sick people and country. And everyone in America should stop mixing church and state, use some common sense. And by the way listen to Obama’s inauguration speech carefully on you tube. Listen to what he said. Wise up and hurry up!

    • John, it is very hard for Republicans to understand how uneducated and blind the people that voted for Obama are. Democrats, like in Green Acres, are so stupid they don’t know that they are stupid. Maybe I am too optimistic about Democrats being stupid. In order to be stupid, there must be some sign of intelligence.

      We take comments like yours, and ignore them because we petty your scholarship. (or lack thereof)

      • Maybe you meant “we pity your petty scholarship”? Sound English, sound money, sound constitutional government, sound budget, sound defense. Ron Paul 2012.

  12. John, do you even think when typing the garbage you just spewed. “a bunch of bickering, bitter, old men & women”? Have you ever seen a debate before? “We are a sick people and country.”? No John there are some misguided fools in this country that are sick, and you are clearly a part of that. And let’s listen to the Great and Almighty Campaigner and Chief’s amazing speech again, so we can see just how full of it he is. Now that the idiots who voted for an unvetted, unqualified, Chicago politician have seen what he really stands for, maybe we as a country can get the next election right. And by the way, quit trolling on a site for news on the REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES, your liberal vote has already been cast apparently, and it’s clear nothing here will change your closed mind.

  13. The only candidate i will vote for is ron paul. He is the only one who will not trample on the constitution. All others are puppets and dont care.

  14. Come on you’all. Mitt Romney is the best man to BEAT the community organizer now occupying our White House. What a shame! Let’s all hope for a win in Nov. 2012 with Romney. Then, pray he will appoint the right people to help solve our country’s enormous problems. It will take more than one man to do the job. But at least we will have a better chance than now.

    Obama’s campaign is run from Chicago; can’t we handle a few liberal Chicago politicians? I think we can and will, by nominating Mitt Romney.

    • The polls keep changing:

      Rasmussen Reports 11/28 – 11/29 1000 LV
      Obama 43% Gingricn 45%, (Gingrich +2%)
      ****************
      Rasmussen Reports 11/30 – 12/1 1000 LV
      Obama 42% Romney 40%, (Obama +2%)

  15. Ron Paul!!! I love how he gets the crowds so pumped!!! Hope Huntsman shows up for the debate he always has some good input!

  16. Today, on “Fox & Friends,” one of the hosts said that tonight’s candidate forum, on “Huckabee,” will have all of the republican presidential candidates, except two. Gov. Buddy Roemer, the best candidate, isn’t on the list. That means that the host lied, or he’s so stupid that he doesn’t know who the candidates are.

  17. Please Republicans. Don’t do what Nevada did. They nominated a poor candidate against highly financed, dear ole Harry, and lost! We MUST NOT do that again. Let’s get TOGETHER and WIN! No candidate is perfect, ever, but we must support a WINNER!
    Nationally, who can win??? Either Mitt or Newt — hopefully so. But do not run down either candidate, because in the end, he will be OUR CANDIDATE.

    • FL gal

      Sorry I don’t agree that any candidate will do. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will demand war be declared before engaging in war behavior. It’s the only protection we have against a tyrannical President and Congress. Instead insist your candidate only engage in a war declared by Congress, then and only then will I consider a second choice.

      Ron Paul 2012

  18. To catch a thief, hire a thief.
    To break the Washington Machine, hire someone that KNOWS the Washington Machine.

    Is Newt the all-time perfect president? Probably not.
    Is Newt the perfect president this time out? Probably so.

    In the 90s Newt kept his promises to the American people. That counts. He had the cojones to stand up to Clinton and shut the government down. That counts. He knows how the machine really (really) works. That counts. He will stand straight and tall against Obama. That counts.

    We’re voting Newt first, ABO second.

  19. Newt was cheating on his wife with his wife now while he was speaker trying to impeach Bill Clinton, what can the American people expect him to get one more wife while he is president? Or just fool around?

  20. Celeste Christi

    Whhhhaaaaattt? Put the designer of the machine that we all detest in as President?

    Why on earth would you do that when you can change it?

    Ron Paul Now!

Comments are closed.