Round 2: Campaigns hone tactics, sharpen tone ahead of next debate
One thing became clear after the first Republican presidential debates: performance matters.

Carly Fiorina rose in the polls after her stand-out evening in the undercard debate. Ben Carson, who scored some memorable lines, is now in solid second place. Other candidates seen as putting up a mild performance that night -- notably Jeb Bush and Scott Walker -- have steadily slipped.

So ahead of round two on Sept. 16, the campaigns are nailing down tactics they hope will help them break out of the pack -- or at least prevent them from fading.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, still trailing in the polls, vowed he would not simply stand by if it seems the moderators are overlooking him.

"We may be changing tactics if I get to like 15 questions in a row. ... You're gonna go: 'Uh oh, he's gonna go nuclear now,'" Christie quipped on "The Tonight Show" earlier this month.

Several other candidates are becoming more outspoken in the run-up as well.

Bush, who attempted to avoid slip-ups and clashes with other candidates on Aug. 6 following a few pre-debate stumbles, now regularly calls out front-runner Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

Speaking about his appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" earlier this week, where the host tried to prep him for a "Trumpier" debate, the former Florida governor said: "If the debate was going to be that simple ... then I wouldn't need to prepare."

CNN announced Wednesday that 11 candidates have qualified for the Sept. 16 main debate stage, based on recent polling. That includes Fiorina -- after the network adjusted their debate criteria to account for more recent surveys.

She will share the stage with Trump, Christie, Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Walker, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Walker, who has been ramping up his rhetoric in recent weeks, announced in a speech Thursday plans to "wreak havoc" on the status quo in Washington if he becomes president. If he sticks to that message in the Sept. 16 debate, it would mark a departure from tactics he used in the first debate where he largely focused on Hillary Clinton.

The Walker camp also unveiled intentions to challenge his GOP rivals on health care policy at the upcoming debate. A Walker aide said the candidate "will start to contrast plans with fellow Republicans on the stage," as well as continue contrasting himself with the Democratic front-runner.

Fiorina is perhaps the candidate who stands to gain the most, having jumped to the main stage for the upcoming event.

Fiorina gained prominence after the "happy hour" debate on Aug. 6 by relentlessly attacking Trump and Clinton. Now, on a bigger stage with more candidates and opportunity for Trump to fire back, she may have to amend her strategy.

The Fiorina campaign did not reveal any specific debate tactics, but Press Secretary Anna Epstein said, "Carly is looking forward to introducing herself to more voters and continuing to make the case as a true conservative ready to challenge the status quo."

Carson, who has a comfortable position in the polls and is second only to Trump, said he just plans to be himself.

"I am not interested in sounding like a politician. Instead, I want to continue the debate about the issues we all face," said Carson in a Facebook Q&A on Aug. 30. "I want to be me for as many minutes as they will give me."

Kasich plans to stick to the strategy he has had all along.

"Just like the past debate, the governor is focused on telling his story and positive vision for the country," Kasich spokesman Chris Schrimpf said.

Fox News' Jessica O'Hara contributed to this report.
Please write a summary below.
One thing became clear after the first Republican presidential debates: performance matters.
It's All Your Money: U.S. Aid to Pakistan
Foreign aid is always controversial, especially at a time when the United States is broke, when U.S. government audits show that the money given to other nations is wasted and misused and when countries that receive the money frankly don’t like the United States.

The latest country under scrutiny is Pakistan.

More than $20 billion has been given to Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001. President Obama is proposing almost $3 billion in aid for the supposed ally in the War on Terror for fiscal year 2012. That includes:

- $1.6 billion for police and military;

- $150 million for what the State Department calls "good government and democracy building";

- $122 million for health, AIDS and "family planning";

- $145 million for education.

The rest goes to economic development and humanitarian assistance.

Despite all of the aid given to Pakistan, polls show the country has a negative view of the U.S. A 2010 BBC poll found that 52 percent of Pakistanis don’t like the U.S. A majority oppose U.S. drone strikes against the Taliban, and the Pakistani Parliament on Saturday

Now with the recent discovery and death of Usama bin Laden, some U.S. lawmakers are questioning why we continue to support the nation that may have harboring the most wanted terrorist.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher(R-Cal), who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has introduced a bill to cut off aid completely. Rohrabacher believes the discovery of bin Laden’s compound is proof that Pakistan’s leaders have been enabling al Qaida and the Taliban.

“ They’ve been arming these people to kill our troops,” said Rohrabacher. “They nuzzle up to communist China, they’ve been building nukes at our expense and now we know they have been giving aid and comfort to Usama bin Laden.”

Rohrabacher says continuing to aid Pakistan makes the U.S. look foolish.

“The fact is the Pakistanis are treating us like fools because we're acting like fools. We're giving money to someone who obviously is working against the basic interests and national security interests of our own country.”

Yet there are others who say the U.S. should continue its aid to Pakistan. They believe cutting development aid would have an even more negative effect.

“I think it's really crucial that we don’t back away specifically our humanitarian and economic assistance,” said Rebecca Winthrop, Director of the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution. “That is a critical ingredient especially things like education and job creation for a stable long term Pakistan which is in our national security interest.”

Winthrop says the U.S. needs to evaluate its aid models and make sure it is properly dispersed. “I think what we need to do is redouble our efforts in the economic assistance, humanitarian aid, education would be a great thing to fund, because that is really what the Pakistani citizens want.”

How much does the President's proposed $3 billion in aid to Pakistan cost you?

Click here to use the taxpayer calculator

While foreign aid is less than 2 percent of the federal budget and Pakistan gets less than Israel & Egypt, here's another way to look at the $3 billion.

Excluding Social Security and Medicare, a married couple earning $50,000 pays $260 a year in income taxes. At that rate, 11 million Americans would have to work an entire year just to pay for the aid to Pakistan.

Fox News' Laura Prabucki contributed to this report.
Please write a summary below.

Foreign aid is always controversial, especially at a time when the United States is broke, when U.S. government audits show that the money given to other nations is wasted and misused and when countries that receive the money frankly don&rsquo;t like the United States.&nbsp;