Well, now that both the Republicans and Democrats have had their debates in my state, South Carolina, I think it is appropriate to point out a few, shall we say, oddities.

First, the Republican debate in Columbia, SC, sponsored by Foxnews. 

I was priviliged to attend this debate.  Of course, any debate sponsored by Foxnews is wolf's bain to Democrats so I am not suprised that the Democrats shunned Foxnews' offer to sponsor their debate.  But I digress.

Going into this debate, I had committed myself to listen carefully to each candidate.  However, I had pretty much decided that one candidate deserved more of my attention than the others-Tom Tancredo.  I had met with Congressman Tancredo in person twice, including that evening.  I knew his campaign centered around the issue of illegal immigration-an issue very high on my priority list.   I also knew his stand on the War in Iraq (and terror, in general).  Where Iraq and our troops were concerned, Congressman Tancredo does not favor pull-out but does favor redefining our troops involvement in that country.  Ok.  I can see his point. 

But what about the other Republican candidates? 

I'll be brutally honest here.   I didn't like the vast majority of the other candidates.  John McCain, although I respect the fact that he served his country honorably and is indeed a war hero, is a loose cannon.  I don't think he takes domestic issues seriously.  Rudy Guiliani-America's mayor, present at Ground Zero after the World Trade Center collapsed, pulled his city out of the depths of despair, cleaned up the streets-not a whole lot of bad can be said of this man.  Or is there something not so great about him?   Well, I'm sure he has skeletons in his closet as we all do but is he fit for Commander in Chief?  I wasn't convinced he was after the debate (although he did a pretty good job of smacking Ron Paul pretty hard-justly so, too!).  Speaking of Ron Paul, he shot himself in the foot when he blamed America for 911, didn't he?  And Mitt Romney.  Suave, sophisticated Mitt Romney.  I felt his replies were a little too scripted, too well rehearsed.  He was a cardboard cut-out.  Pretty to look at but of no real substance.  Some of the other candidates were almost non-animated.  But two candidates did stand out-Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.

Sadly, neither of these men were given much time to debate.  Since Tancredo and Hunter are fairly similar in their campaigns (ie illegal immigration), and since illegal immigration is a top issue voters are looking at, why weren't they given more time?  Why weren't they asked more questions?  I can sum it up in one word-favoritism.  It is reminiscent of high school where the teachers' pets were fawned over while other more deserving students were pushed into the background.  That is not a good practice in an election, especially when that election involves our highest office, the Presidency. 

Even though that debate was lacking in some ways, I can say that the Foxnews Rebublican debate was far more intelligent than the one CNN sponsored.  I watched about 45 minutes of that debate.  That was all I could take.  Not because of the candidates.  Because of the idiotic questions Chris Matthews was asking the candidates.  Of course, Chris Matthews and CNN lean very far left so there was no surprise in those  moronic questions.  Why do most news media outlets lean far left?  Easy answer and, again, favoritism. 

Pardon me for saying this but the decision to choose our next leader should not be a popularity contest.  Save that for prom queen, please!

Now, the Democrat debate at the Citadel, SC.

I did not attend that debate.   I didn't even watch it.   In fact, I want nothing to do with any Democrat candidate.  I have never seen anything from any of these candidates I like.   Not a single thing.  Therefore, I won't waste my time listening to a bunch of nonsense coming from any of these candidates' mouths.  I have no interest in their propaganda, hypocritical lies.

But that's just me.  

I did find it interesting that the Democrats chose a military academy to showcase their (non) ideas.  Given that nearly all (if not all) of the Democrat candidates are anti-military, what was the purpose for choosing that venue?  Showmanship.  Nothing more.  Here we go again, back to high school and prom queen (heaven forbid!).

There was one thing that was startlingly blatant about that debate.  When Foxnews sponsored the Republican debate in Columbia, the background setting they chose was an elegant display of our nation's flag using colored lights and undulating as if Old Glory itself was waving.  The CNN sponsored Democrat debate??  CNN logos everywhere!  Now, I have to ask-which is more patriotic, our flag or CNN's logo?

I suppose that speaks in volumes as to which party is truly American and which is not.