Another Debate

So I wasn't planning on making this a thing I do, but after listening to only part of another GOP debate, I feel like writing some more. (I did watch the whole thing; I just wrote things down while watching it.)

Anderson Cooper: I was surprised to see him as the moderator. I don't think he was really cut out for it. He did a poor job of keeping any kind of order; people were jumping in all over the place, and he interrupted quite a lot with his own snide remarks. He also seemed to be gunning for certain people, giving some people all the time they wanted and cutting other people off.

Perry: Most of the time, I can't stand him. He comes across as so artificial and actually not very informed. But I gotta give him credit for taking on Romney on immigration, even though I think he got skewered with it just as bad. I would be thrilled if he could keep throwing doubts on Romney and take himself out of it as well. I think he may have ended up making Romney look better though by the end of it. :/

Cain: His plan got hammered at the beginning! I was really happy to hear him talk about something other then 9-9-9 when the healthcare thing came up. He gets points for owning up to his former position on TARP in my opinion. He seems like a very up-front person, but he also seems to have a hard time getting across what he's trying to. Thankfully for him, most people don't seem to care if you can explain it, as long as it works.

Paul: He did really well with the Latino question, and I'm glad he had more of a chance to talk later on. I'm not sure that I completely agree with him on the March on Wall Street thing . . . . But that's probably because I'm not sure how things work. It seems to me though that if President Obama was the one that sanctioned what the FED was dong, then some of those people are definitely at fault, because they voted for him. If the FED did it all themselves, without help from the administration, then Paul is right. I just don't know which one it is.

Bachmann: She did WAY better this time, in my opinion. I don't know if it's actually seeing and hearing her, or what, but I liked her a lot more this time around. I thought her appeal to moms was a little weird. That didn't seem like a debate forum thing, but whatever. I also think she's advertising for herself a little too hard.

Santorum: I didn't like that he got so fired up with Romney. Saying Romney was out of time was not a good thing; that wasn't his job. I think he'd have done better if he'd kept his cool, but he obviously has a big problem with Romney's less-than-open approach, which I have to agree with. He did a really good job emphasizing family with the Latino question - I would bet that he would get a lot of Latino votes for that because of his references to family and faith (and his being a Catholic). I think he has a problem with referring to the other candidates specifically though. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose or what, but I think he'd serve himself better to answer questions in the positive (I would do X) rather than the negative (They brought this on us).

Gingrich: I love how he called out Romney about Romney not getting that idea from him. That was great. Also, his address to the Latino community was very well done. I really liked his answer to the faith/religion question. I think he did slightly better with it than Santorum even. I also think he did better in this debate than the last one.

Romney: The more I hear about him, the worse he seems. I think the only reason he could get anywhere is because he's really the only one with charisma. He's got the salt-and-pepper hair, a good voice, it takes a lot to get him upset, and he has the ability to make himself look like the one who's been wronged. And he's a politician - he can speak well without saying much but sounding like he knows exactly what he's talking about.


Overall: The only two people that I really, really, really don't want to see win it are Romney and Perry.