How should it have gone? With the moderators just asking the hopefuls how really, really bad Obama is? I think CNN comported itself very well. They covered issues important to conservatives, but they also made the candidates deal with what they had said about one another. How is that not relevant? Words have meaning.
So words only have meaning when you agree with them? That's the litmus test? Makes SCOTUS rather redundant in that case, wouldn't you say? And you, rather...Trumpish.
Fiorina is very articulate and good on her feet. She was CEO of two major corporations and basically made a mess of both. There is more to leadership than slick talking. The fact is, no company would hire her now, but she thinks she should be president of the US, which would be her first political office.
I thought Dr. Carson handled himself very well. He was thoughtful yet firm. His immigration proposal is not a bad compromise. He is a bit low key and that makes it hard to imagine him as president.
I liked the format and the way the mods handled things much better than the idiotic Fox debate. However, Tapper did lose control of the proceedings and it ended up with candidates shouting to get to talk. Not very dignified. There also seemed to be a lot of the "get Trump" and "protect Bush" agenda from the Fox debate. Trump's immigration plan was hammered, but they let Bush and his amnesty plan off scot free. No mention of it.
Rubio reminds me of Obama. He is inspirational and can recite conservative talking points at will. What exactly has he done however? His one big accomplishment was supposed to be on immigration, but he foolishly signed on to the McCain-Graham amnesty bill, which he now doesn't want to talk about. Come back when you have added a second page to your resume.
The amount of neo-con war mongering thrown out was unsettling. Do they really think running on a platform of "More War", just not for our privileged sons and daughters, is a winning campaign issue? Rubio and Fiorina were virtually foaming at the mouth.