Who would expect that Ben Carson would give a better answer explaining the economics of raising the minimum wage in everyday understandable terms than Donald Trump? Maybe they didn't teach that at the Wharton school. And he does well relating his biography to the point he's making.
He almost stole schtick of relating his biography to his answer. So Rubio is forced to do almost the same thing. Though Rubio carries the argument further. I hope the public is listening to these explanations of why a $15 minimum wage is a bad thing. I also like the line that we need more welders than philosophers. Those in the ivory towers are shuddering in derision.
Now John Kasich is trying to point out that his parents were poor also. But he doesn't connect that up to the minimum wage. It just seems like me-tooism.
It's a nice change to have substantive questions from the get-go, instead of questions trying to pit each candidate against another or to probe the weaknesses of each.
Shush up, John Kasich. Why don't the moderators stop that right away so they don't all do it?
What a powder puff question to Carson to ask him if he's worried if his campaign has taken a hit on trust. Cavuto, stick to the economic questions. It's just a slow pitch over the plate for Carson. And he does that by turning to a hit on Clinton for lying to the American people. I guess he's borrowing a page from Rubio's book.
Kasich is being obnoxious again. Now will all the other candidates start interrupting and stealing the stage? They either have rules or they don't.
How convenient that Rubio doesn't get the question on immigration when that's his weakest issue among Republicans.
How opportune to have a Benghazi movie advertised during the GOP debate. In case you missed the ad, here is the trailer for Michael Bay's movie "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi."I wonder if they'll run the ad during the next Democratic debate.
Already, Fox Business News is showing CNBC how a debate should be done. And the candidates are getting a chance to put their proposed policies and opinions are.
Ted Cruz continues to demonstrate his debating chops.
And Jeb is doing better than he has done previously. Of course, doing worse would have been difficult. Maybe it's because the questions are more substantive. Though I don't know that anyone will remember anything he said.
Rubio has a great ability to segue immediately into his campaign speech with every question. But if you haven't heard the speech, you won't recognize it. So he turns the question in a paean to the importance of families.
If Cruz is going to attack sugar subsidies, why not go forward and criticize Rubio for voting for such subsidies? Who is going to know that unless Cruz sticks it to him?
Good job on shutting down Kasich from sticking in when it's not his turn. Gerard Baker shows how it should be done.
With just a few minutes Rand Paul demonstrates how Trump doesn't know what he's talking about by pointing out that China isn't part of the TPP deal. All Trump has are blustering slogans. He clearly has no idea what is in the deal that he's been slamming. Well done, Senator Paul.
This is Trump's meandering answer on Russia - Putin should bomb ISIS, even though he hasn't been so far, and I know him because he was in the green room once with Putin. Or there's a qualification right there.
How is Trump's approach to Syria different from Obama's?
Fiorina is name-dropping again. That is so obnoxious. But she does well listing off specifics on foreign policy. Quite a contrast to Trump and Carson.
Meanwhile, Trump whines, "Why does she keep interrupting everyone?" Has he noticed Kasich tonight? Maybe it's only a woman's interruption that he doesn't like.
Right on, Rubio! Obama does treat the ayatollahs in Iran with more respect than the PM of Israel. He gives a great answer on Russia even though he's never met Putin; but knows he's a gangster. Putin is the original gangsta, I guess.
Rubio had a great answer on Putin and demonstrated his foreign policy chops.
Can we trade Kasich on the stage for Chris Christie?
Every debate Trump comes across as ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious. He suffers when the questions are substantive.
Ben Carson meanders on the bank question and Marco Rubio comes in and explains how government has helped make the banks so big.
John Kasich uses his experience at Lehman Brothers to explain Wall Street to us.
Should Carly Fiorina really be talking about her record building and saving jobs when there are a whole lot of HP employees who lost jobs when she was in charge?
For all those pundits out there who think John Kasich should be VP, witness this debate and how off-putting he is.
What a set-up for Marco Rubio to ask him why he should be trusted more than Hillary Clinton. And yet again, he's given a chance to jump into his stump speech. He needs to stop doing that. And even if it's not from his stump speech, it sure sounds like it. Instead of giving the same generalities about the past and the future, he could have been more specific.
Cruz comes in and wipes up. Everyone should be able to bash Hillary. This debate shows again why it should really be Rubio vs Cruz debate.
Carson seems to give his best answers for his closing statements. That was sobering.
If Trump thinks Hillary is so awful, why did he give her money?