Actually watched the GOP debate last night (although I had to do so on my computer, as Comcast Boston has decided that MSNBC doesn't need to be carried on basic cable... but FoxNews does.... hmmm...).
I'm not going to bother getting upset with a variety of the bizarre, but now routine, GOP orthodoxy -- the anti-science, pro-execution, etc. (Rick Perry: Galileo was a scientist silenced by religious fanatics -- probably not the best example of skepticism-in-action).
Rather, what gets me most upset is the continued absence of decent questioning and follow-up by the moderators. They spend so much time trying to get simple yes/no answers from the candidates that they have completely lost sight of following up the implications of their positions. For example, there was a lot of questioning about the individual mandate for health care, a lot of questioning politicians about their past records, etc. in the hopes of finding some hypocricy somewhere. But then the most important question went unasked of any candidate: so, if you throw out the individual mandate and someone chooses to go uninsured, then shows up at the hospital on the verge of death, do you treat him or not? If so, who pays for it? The consequences of positions rarely get explored at these debates, which is a loss for everyone watching them.
Real huh-moment at the debate: when Newt Gingrich says that Ben Bernannke has led the greatest era of inflation ever at the Fed, which is demonstrably completely false.