I recently read an interview of Mitt Romney by Bush loyalist Hugh Hewitt
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=fbf30567-2301-4636-813a-1808055700d8 Not to prolong any suspense, I wasn't impressed. Romney's an unprincipled weasel who panders to bigotry to get votes. Interesting to note that there's a serious presidential candidate who's also a science fiction fan, but frankly I think this guy demeans the rest of fandom by association.
There was one interesting bit in the second half of the interview where Hewitt complains to Romney about the odd, narrow questions asked at the recent Republican debate. Romney agrees, vaguely.
But I think that odd, unscripted questions do have a place in such a debate. I'm sure every candidate has writers and researchers analyzing the most politically opportune, least risky response for an obvious question like "What should we do in Iraq?" But unusual, unpredicted questions from the audience force a candidate to actually think on his feet and try to deliver a coherent answer. And, contra Romney, I think that's a good thing.