My thoughts on the second Republican presidential TV debate on CNN

My thoughts on the second Republican presidential TV debate on CNN.

First I like to bring up the moderator was extremely annoying with his grunts trying to hurry up the candidates he wanted to rush. Secondly, those lame little questions - deep dish or thin crust pizza. Who cares. The dumbest question by John King was when he said that Cain wanted to ask certain questions to Muslims but not to Christians or Jews. Why was that so hard for John to understand? Who are we at war with? Newt finally spoke up on this issue explained why and put the question to rest. And lastly the last few minutes of the debate was stupid and a waste of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One candidate that gets no review other than my thoughts on him, is Mitt Romney. Everything from Mitt's placement in center, the longer time given to answer questions and it even seemed he got more questions than the others is set up for him to take the prize.
Mitt has changed his stance and opinion on a quite a few issues. Mitt at one time said he would do more for the gay agenda than Teddy Kennedy but now he is for a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman only. He seems too packaged, too prepared and will say anything to get elected. Enough on him. Don't trust him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The candidate I was surprised to see finally given recognition was Ron Paul. Usually they have him placed on the flank and he is hardly ever shown. He has worked his way into the lime light or maybe I should say his supporters got him there. Either way its good to see. He hasn't wavered in his views or opinions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was glad that the issue of an amendment defining marriage was raised. Santorum, Bachman, Pawlenty, Romney and Newt were for it and gave excellent reasons why. Paul blurted out his answer but I couldn't understand it, still don't know if he would support the amendment or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pawlenty had some good moments but at times sounded to much like a politician with little substance. His recognition of the vet who had asked a question had no merit, Mitt had just thanked the same person. To politician like, just not needed, seemed to canned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gingrich's intelligence and grasp of issues was superb, as was Paul's knowledge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So who was the winner? I thought four came out on top. These four looked presidential and gave solid answers. In no particular order they were Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum and Paul. Cain was also very close in the running.

Looking at this crop of candidates I don't find much weakness. I like this field of candidates way better than the ones who ran in '08. And compared to what the Dems are offering this is a far more moral and qualified group. Pick one and we should be OK.


Santorum gave the key sentence in the debate when he said ..you need to look at the authenticity of a candidate and looking at their record over time of what they fought for.
And that's where we come in. If we expect this country to turn around we best research each candidate to insure we get the right person elected as its up to us to educate and inform people of who is the correct choice because if we leave it up to the media they will give us another Obama or an unstable moderate that America may never recover from.

Carey Masci