In the shadow of Ronald Reagan, or at least the shadow of the Boeing 707 that served him as Air Force One, the ten Republican candidates for President lined up for the GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. I'm a big fan of Chris Matthews and Hardball, but he proved to be an unimpressive moderator. Some of the questions, both from him and viewer-submitted, were silly and pointless. What do you like least about America? Why waste our time with that?

One question I wasn't expecting regarded amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born Presidents. With California Gov. Schwarzenegger sitting just a few feet away, 8 of the 10 candidates said No. I was stunned. Maybe I should not have been, but I was. With no explanation, they said No. I shouldn't say no explanation, because Congressman Ron Paul, former Libertarian and self-styled True Conservative, said that he would not amend the Constitution because he would interpret the Constitution with the intent with which it was originally written. Does this mean he does not support any of the amendments? Freedom of Speech, Separation of Church and State, Universal Suffrage-- these are all things we accept as American, yet they are from amendments. The truth is, there is no reason now, as there was 220 years ago, to not allow foreign-born citizens from running for President. After all, if someone really shouldn't be President because of a foreign allegiance, I'm quite sure the American people would not elect them.

And of course, there was the gay question: Should a private employer be allowed to fire a worker just because he/she is gay? Gov. Thompson responded Yes, and that was that.

Republicans, at least while seeking primary voters, have no shame in expressing the fact that they are perfectly happy with such pointless discrimination. That long line of ten white men proved that.

While I disagree a great deal with their politics, there were two big standouts, in my opinion: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Both did a fantastic job of expressing their ideas and answering the questions. Mitt Romney, as many have said, has a very attractive public speaking style and manner. He seems very Presidential. Ron Paul stood out because he was the candidate who seemed most comfortable expressing his honestly held ideals.

If anybody on the stage was a big let down, it was Mayor Giuliani. He needs to figure that abortion thing out. You'd think he would've have an answer prepared for that obvious question, but he seemed not to. He seemed least able to articulate his opinions.

Since we have all this time until the primaries, maybe they should form some kind of debate play-offs, so we don't have to worry about having ten teams on the field at once. Like, the winner of Paul vs Gilmore can then debate the winner of McCain vs Huckabee, and so on and so forth. It'd definitely give them a reason to want to win instead of just not losing.