day 2, WEEK 6

while watching the republican debate on cnn, i'm bizarrely reminded of the HUNGER GAMES and the "game masters'" system of scoring the candidates' potentials to win the game (if anyone hasn't read this book, in order to win the game, you must kill the other candidates until you're the only remaining).  in the debate, the politicians--like the hunger games' candidates--must make themselves look good, but in doing so i really see it as making the others' look worse than them.

anyway, following the "game masters'" scoring system of 1 to 12, and trying to be as neutral as possible:

[however, a note: i've known of former sen. rick santorum for many years since i grew up in pennsylvania, and my opinion of him is exceedingly low.  in addition, it annoys me to no end each time he refers to pennsylvania as if he still represents it when he has lived in virginia since 2001 and lost his senate seat five years ago . . . so it was particularly hard to be neutral concerning mr. santorum . . .]

rick santorum . . . . . . . . . 3

michelle bachmann . . . . . 7

newt gingrich . . . . . . . . . 5

mitt romney . . . . . . . . . . 8

ron paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

tim pawlenty . . . . . . . . . . 5

herman cain . . . . . . . . . . 6