This debate is driving me nuts.

[_bcspace]

Oh that's right. John Kerry is Obama's debate coach. Sorry Libs.

[_ajax18]

I wonder if Romney will suffer any by insisting on getting the last word in, to hell with the time rules they agreed to?

And yet Obama got almost five minutes more talking time than Romney did.

Romney didn't win the debate because he was smarter, wanted it more, or anything like that. He won because his party is on the right side of this debate. Are they going to do a foreign affairs section of the debate next time? I wonder how bowing down to Islam and blaming an obscure youtube video for a planned terrorist attack and lying about the CIA investigation that wasn't when it came to finding justice for our slain ambassadors is going to sound for the audience at home.

[_Drifting]

I wonder if Romney will suffer any by insisting on getting the last word in, to hell with the time rules they agreed to?

And yet Obama got almost five minutes more talking time than Romney did.

Romney didn't win the debate because he was smarter, wanted it more, or anything like that. He won because his party is on the right side of this debate. Are they going to do a foreign affairs section of the debate next time? I wonder how bowing down to Islam and blaming an obscure youtube video for a planned terrorist attack and lying about the CIA investigation that wasn't when it came to finding justice for our slain ambassadors is going to sound for the audience at home.

How do we know Romney won? Was there a points tally; scoreboard; etc?

[_EAllusion]

My personal opinion is that Romney engaged in a gish gallop of lies and half-truths while Obama was ineffectual in countering them. Obama, for his part, was focused on platitudes and meaningless anecdotes. Leher was way out of his depth and the the question choices were poor.

[_Ceeboo]

How do we know Romney won? Was there a points tally; scoreboard; etc?

Yes, there was a scoreboard (It was kinda small and hard to see but it was in the upper right corner of the TV screen)

The score after the first 60 minutes was Romney 56 and Obama 3 (A long field goal).

For the last 30 minutes, Romney just took a knee (I admire his sportmanship for doing that)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_EAllusion]

Ed Brayton had a good lead-in post to the debates this time around. I agree wholeheartedly:

I generally hate presidential “debates,” which are really no such thing. Let me predict how things will go: The moderator will ask a question, the candidates will answer whatever question they wish had been asked because it better fits their prerehearsed answer and then they’ll move on and do it all over again with the next question. Lots of focus-group tested catchphrases and buzzwords will be thrown around, lots of empty platitudes will be uttered, and both sides will declare that they “won” an event with no winner.

Jennifer Granholm has some questions she’d like the moderator to ask of both candidates. Predictably, the questions are much tougher for Romney than for Obama — she is, after all, a Democrat with close ties to the president. But some of the Romney questions are good:

1) In a Republican primary debate, you and your colleagues refused to take a deal that allowed $10 in cuts for $1 in tax revenue. Today, would you still refuse to take a 10-to-1 deal? At the end of 2006, you signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes. Are you still bound to that pledge? Would that pledge Trump your oath to uphold the Constitution? Would you vow here to never raise taxes, no matter the consequences?…

3) Be specific: Name the top three exemptions or deductions in the Tax Code that you would limit or eliminate in order to create a revenue-neutral tax structure that lowers the top rates from 35 percent to 28 percent.

And if they ask that last question, President Obama should offer to give him as much time as he needs to answer it, since that was Ryan’s excuse for not doing so the other day — gosh darn it, there just wasn’t enough time. The problem, though, is that Romney will give BS answers to those questions. He won’t give any specifics because he knows that any answer he gives will create immediate opposition. And the moderator will let him get away with that, even if he makes some noise about the question not being answered. What a moderator with any guts would do is just stop the debate and say that he isn’t going to move on to the next question until Romney answers it and names a specific deduction that he would be in favor of ending, and let the whole thing sit there in silence until Romney actually answers it. But that isn’t going to happen. And if it did, Republicans would scream bloody murder about the obvious bias and unfairness of it all.

As I said, her questions for Obama were mostly softballs, so let me offer a few questions I would ask the president if I was the moderator.

1. You have said that you only support the narrow version of the State Secrets Privilege, yet your administration has asserted the broadest possible version of that privilege in every single legal challenge to the government’s actions in regard to terrorism and illegal surveillance since you took office. How can there be any limits on executive authority to violate the constitution if the victims of unconstitutional actions are never given their day in court to prove their case?

2. The U.S. is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which obligates us to prosecute anyone who orders or engages in torture for any reason whatsoever. Do you believe that Bush administration officials or American personnel in the military or the intelligence services ordered or engaged in torture? If not, why did you feel the need to sign an executive order banning torture? And if so, why haven’t you appointed a special prosecutor to prepare charges against those who have?

3. You have justified your decision not to prosecute anyone for torture by saying that it’s important to look forward rather than backward. Yet your administration has prosecuted more people who have blown the whistle on illegal actions by the government than all previous presidents combined. Why is it only important to look forward and not backward when doing so covers up the government’s illegal actions and not when doing so helps bring those illegal actions to light?

Here again, the answers to those questions would be total BS. What else could they possibly be? A moderator who took his job seriously could ask follow up questions and not allow Obama to get away with a facile answer, but that isn’t going to happen either. And if it did, Democrats would scream bloody murder about the obvious bias and unfairness of it all. Welcome to America’s absurd political discourse.

He was wrong in that Obama came off bad enough that even Democrats are saying he "lost" but otherwise, right on the money.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey EA

Leher was way out of his depth and the the question choices were poor.

Yea.......... that must have been it!

I feel your pain, friend.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Drifting]

For the last 30 minutes, Romney just took a knee (I admire his sportmanship for doing that)

Peace,
Ceeboo

What is taking 'a knee'?

[_EAllusion]

Hey EA

Leher was way out of his depth and the the question choices were poor.

Yea.......... that must have been it!

I feel your pain, friend.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I hate Obama.

Leher couldn't control the debate. The question choices were unimaginative and therefore easy to rehearse for, not especially relevant for nailing down what a president would actually be like, and made no effort to nail them for their evasive or misleading answers.

See my above post for examples of far better questions and moderating of them.

[_Ceeboo]

He was wrong in that Obama came off bad enough that even Democrats are saying he "lost"

Really?

Peace,
Ceeboo