The number of Republican presidential debates might seem excessive to some viewers, but through the debates, the Republican candidates might also be strengthening their debating skills and ability to respond to loaded questions from liberal moderators.
Do you think the candidates are, for the most part, improving? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Whether or not you necessarily agree with every candidate, their attacks have been much more focused on President Obama's actions instead of attacking one another. As author Burton Folsom noted at National Review, in last night's debate when Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked, “Why is Governor Romney wrong?” she retorted, “President Obama is wrong.” Folsom also expounded upon the improvement of former Speaker Newt Gingrich:
Newt Gingrich was cerebral and wide-ranging. When CNBC tried to trip him up, he fired back with specifics that delighted the crowd. His breadth of learning was refreshing and dominating. When he was asked about the Social Security crisis, he traced its roots to LBJ and a budget switch in 1968; when supporting tax cuts, he cited Reagan’s success and his own Contract with America — which grew the economy and balanced the budget; when asked about the high costs of college, he rejected the Obama model and trotted out work-study and learning at College of the Ozarks. Think in new patterns, Newt urges.
Rather than personal attacks, the chorus has become much more focused on shrinking the government, deregulating, and cutting spending by changing Obama's policies. Do you think this is a better tactic for Republican presidential candidates?
