Guest Post by Freakchylde

Stream of Consciousness Remarks on the CNN GOP Debate



Off the top:

Michelle Bachman needs platforms, she's too short around those guys.

As a listener to Dan Savage, Santorum needs to change his last name.

Gingrich made the only political punch during the opening intros.

I don't like the fact that they're limiting things to soundbytes.

Started with Cain, regarding job stimulation. I don't know how feasible his mini-plan is, but he's in the right direction with focusing on the private sector instead of the public sector. Santorum seemed focused on oil. Him and Pawlenty focused on Obama being wrong and talking about fixing things (no fixes). Romney is playing conciliatory and not answering the question.

Bachman pulls the first distraction of the night with her announcement that she filed for the race.

Ron Paul toots the free market horn and avoids the question (which was what 1 thing has Obama done right). I do give him credit for the lack of grandstanding.

Bachman stumps on the Healthcare question and doesn't actually say how she'll get rid of it, just that she will.

Romney gets a point from me for his separation between State and Fed on the Mass. healthcare law. Pawlenty loses one for his avoidance in answering King's question about "Obamneycare".

Bachman is spending too much time grandstanding and half answering the question.

Paul manages to slam Geitner and Obama's policy without mentioning either of them, in answering a question on how to bring jobs back to the US. Pawlenty thinks fair trade is most important with regulatory burden secondary. Bachman manages to get lots of nods from the other candidates with her slam against the EPA. I completely appreciate that pretty much everyone agrees to right-to-work.

Paul rails against government intervention in the economy. Good consistency on free markets. Cain did good on explaining his conflicting stance regarding TARP shows logic instead of hindsight flipping.

Totally agree with Paul that money needs to be cut from foreign assistance and wants an all-out opt-out program.

Bachman just sold herself to the social conservatives, no applause for that, but she did get kudos for stating it's not the President's job to tell a state how to regulate social issues. Cain and Paul get points from me, particularly Paul for saying the gov't shouldn't be in the business of marriage, period. The rest stuck with the social party line.

I wanted to add to Freakchylde's thoughts and say that I can now definitively say why I don't like Mitt Romney. At one point during the debate, he told the crowd that the Bruins were up 4-0. For a split second I got excited (no politicians ever talk about hockey...), then instantly it registered that it was Romney saying it and I didn't believe that he actually cared about the game. That was all in a split second. That doesn't bode well for a Presidential candidate.

(You can read freakchylde daily at: Freakchylde's Playground)