While he chose to dodge the party and pre-empt the festivities of the first post-Labor Day Debate by announcing his candidacy at virtually the same time, Fred hoodwinked all of you, and shanghai-ed the real candidates. 

Congressman Paul and Gov. Huckabee provided some real fireworks, and you fools have had that completely obliterated today by a media that claims one of its own as its DARLING. What, exactly, has Fred told you that has convinced you he is the REAL THING? What has he offered that is different from McCain? How about differences between Fred and Duncan? And when, in the course of ANY debate, Dem, or Repub., has any one candidate won 33% of the immediate poll sample, as Ron Paul did last night? WHY HAS THIS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE MEDIA????

The only genuinely DIFFERENT candidate is the one who has identified the problem with the party, owned up to it, and challenged all of us to re-think the appropriate scope of gevernment. Someone years ago said something like, "That government is best that governs least"- smaller is better. Congressman Paul is challenging us to take stock of the mistakes the party has made in increasing the size of government programs and federal spending to the benefit of whom? The oil industry, defense contractors, fighter jet and helicopter industries, etc. 

For heaven's sake, if you are going to vote for an actor, go watch "JFK" again, and listen to the argument posed by Kevin Costner for the reason Kennedy was assassinated. Tell me it doesn't ring true fifty years later...  

Was it a Debate?

In my experience, a "debate" has a prescribed format. It provides an opportunity for each "team" or participant to respond to  the same question, to which opponents may comment within a prescribed timed period. All are aware of the time limitations, and in this format, there is "fairness". In what has passed for "debate" among first the Dems, and now the Reps, a question is posed to one or more individuals, with "chosen" respondents, and opposing views are chosen arbitrarily. Seemingly, response time varies and appears arbitrary.

Such arbitrary handling may not seem problematic, since the more photogenic and higher polled participants, whom the producers assume we prefer seeing, are those who seem to have a higher level of exposure. It was obvious to all yesterday, however, when Senator Tancredo, having been passed over for a number of early questions, finally erupted and asked what the purpose of his presence was if he was going to continue to be ignored. This reminded me of the recent Dem debate in which Sen. Gravel received the same kind of treatment.
 
At the end of the debate, the audience was asked to determine the "winner". This, it seems, is a rather specious request, especially since many questions posed to candidates were different, and the opportunity for response was arbitrary, with the leading contenders already having greater exposure to the audience. What I want to know is, who decides to whom to pose what questions, and how is that decided?

Why do Giuliani and McCain get so much more camera time, or is it just my imagination? Does it seem so because they are, indeed, stronger candidates with more persuasive arguments, or are they given favored angles, favored questions, more exposure? I'll certainly be more observant next time to see whether my imagination is playing tricks on me....