In attempting to behave as all good citizens should, I've attempted over the past eight years to be a well-informed member of the electorate-- keeping an open mind about all things, weighing the objective evidence, and filtering through the detritus and pathos that clog the news-cycle. All in all, you could say that I've been burned and burned out. However, we all must tend to our Gardens. If you don't remember your Voltaire, don't worry about it; it's probably for the best.
Generally, debates are one of the few instances where the body politic can see and hear their potential commanders-in-chief challenged by either learned experts who aggregate and pass-on policy oriented questions to the host/moderator or from the eponymous "average-joe" who ask heart-felt, incisive questions which are more if not most-likely to reverberate with the party-base or the electorate-at-large. What I mean by this is that debates are one of the few times that I, as a voter, can actually (or hopefully) learn something useful about the people I'm supposed to put in the White House.
First off, without Ambassador Huntsman there, this debate was much much less useful for me. I know the least about him already, and I'd really like to learn a whole lot more. The man that the POTUS sends to deal with PRC as the top diplomat has to have major credentials, especially as a Republican. Unfortunately all I know about him is that he's a mormon, former Governor of Utah, worked under Reagan, GW Bush, and Obama, he helped ascend both the PRC and Singapore into the WTO, and finally, he is against cap-and-trade-- all commendable resume points, but not enough to earn the nomination. What I really need from him is, "Boxers or Briefs?"
