This was the first debate I watched from start to finish this season. I had it on while I am working in the lab. Ron Paul, while crazy, still makes regular salient arguments and points like usual. He should never be president, but some of his ideas really should be given legs. Bachmann is so stupid. She is SO stupid. She has nothing to offer. She is literally dangling her vagina as the reason for her to be elected, with her appeals to "mothers" and the fact that she is "the least like Obama on this stage." She's an insult to women. Why does the Republican Party keep trotting out dummies? Hasselbeck's wife would be better than this crap. I laughed when she talked about how Obama brought us into Libya, "and now Africa too!" Dummy. Gingrich is like an awkward sitcom-crossover guest star, and just feels out of place. That being said, he came off as paternalistic towards his colleagues, which was interesting for the debate even if he himself did not come across as viable. It was like Ted Kennedy in the Democrat primaries. Perry is also scary stupid, but not as bad. He is clearly an empty suit and a total "classic" politician. He says what he thinks people want to hear, and has no real guiding principles which is why he is buyable for any special interest. Romney is so clearly a cut above the previously mentioned candidates, it isn't even funny. That being said, he has a streak of the "sleaze" in him as well. But he isn't dumb, and we can't afford another dumb president. Cain is struggling to get people to quit asking stupid questions about his tax plan. And as good as he sounds on many things, he sucks on multiple levels in concerns to foreign policy matters. His answers suck, his demeanor exudes a lack of confidence, and his very comprehension of the issues seems lacking. That other guy was actually pretty good for the most part too, but I can't remember his name. I only know only 1% of those polled picked him as their candidate. And so those two factors don't bode well. My problems with them collectively (except Paul because he is a whole other bag of hammers) are such: They're schizophrenic on foreign policy matters. They want to cut foreign aid, and distance themselves from "allies" that screw us over. Except Israel, who screws over all the time. They're against big government, but their solution to almost every problem was government in another form. They speak of everything having to do with faith, but their explanations for why a particular faith doesn't matter directly contradicts their respective theologies. They also are prejudice against non-supernatural world views. The "market" and capitalism is worshiped and held up as the solution to all, when the market itself does not solve all problems of the human condition. There is a lack of humanity and individual charity in their explanations of how to fix things that must be talked about, if market-based mechanisms are doing the heavy-lifting. I could go on, but I will just let others share their thoughts.