Comments (43) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   DrCanuck said, 8 months ago

   And awa-a-a-a-a-ay we go.
2. 

   Dredpiraterobt$ said, 8 months ago

   The “liberal media” will go for Willard on this one if he manages to stand there and not poke his own eye out with his thumb.
   .
   Why?
   .
   Because, as Ted Rall and many others have observed, If you haven’t made up your mind yet, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote!
   .
   And so if that is the attitude of the viewing public then who is going to be watching the Evening News?
   .
   Those danged Liberals in their ivory showers have to make it seem like there’s a chance that Mitt might just win this!
3. 

   Justice22 said, 8 months ago

   No, That’s not Simple, that’s Romney.
4. 

   Radish said, 8 months ago

   Bet cha ten thousand Romney bucks he fails.
5. 

   Michael wme said, 8 months ago

   According to the history books, anyone who read a summary of the first televised Presidential Debate or heard the debate on the radio agreed that Nixon won. But those who saw the debate knew Kennedy looked Presidential, and the vast majority of the minority with access to a TV voted for Kennedy, enough to give him a paper thin margin of victory in the popular vote, and a decent margin of victory among the only voters who count: the electors.

   
   According to a New York Times column by one of the advisers who helped Kerry prepare for the debates, Kerry clearly won the debates. Not that that had any impact on the ‘04 election.

   
   Romney looks presidential, so if this was 1960, he’d have a very good chance. Of course, if this was 1960, someone like President Obama wouldn’t be in the race.

   
   I’ll have to try to remember to watch Wednesday night. Reading about it in the New York Times just isn’t the same.
6. 

   dtroutma said, 8 months ago

   Bugs Bunny prepping Daffy Duck.
7. 

   masterskrain said, 8 months ago

   @dtroutma

   Actually, it’s more like Mickey Mouse trying to prep Goofy for the debate!
8. 

   Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago

   @Michael wme

   Democracy.org will not only have the complete debates but will also have the Green party and another third party members running for president to give their debate points too. Won’t find that on conservative corporate TV.
9. 

   Dredpiraterobt$ said, 8 months ago

   @Michael wme

   Yes, well the thing about calling it a debate is this… Facts are not debatable.
   .
   We look to the debates as if the person with the best facts is going to win and that means that what he said is “fact”. And then we get all perplexed that in fact the facts of the debate mean almost nothing.
   .
   I remember when Al Gore was whacking that weasel, Dan Quayle! DQ was misquoting Gore’s book and Gore was all over him but the bottom line was that it didn’t matter because everybody knew that Dan Quayle was a weasel and that he had the brain of one too. So the mere fact that Gore couldn’t “Put him away” came to mean that Quayle “won” the debate.(“Put him away”- Quayle- like Lloyd Benson did after Quayle compared himself to JFK!)
   .
   Debate teams aren’t about the truth of the matter, you don’t even know if you’re going to be pro or con the issue until the meet has begun. It’s about who controlled the message and who got in the most slick lines and what not.
   .
   But don’t go too far! Don’t be sighing like someone’s spinster auntie when the moron at the podium next to you says something stoopid! Otherwise you’ll be Al Gore losing another debate even though all of the facts are on your side.
   .
   So did Nixon “win?” It ALWAYS depends on what you want to hear before someone says it.
10. 

    apfelzra said, 8 months ago

    In summary, Mission Impossible.
11. 

    braindead08 said, 8 months ago

    @Michael wme

    I hope they’re asked about Quemoy and Matsu.
12. 

    Murphy224 said, 8 months ago

    Hopefully the Prez will actually answer a question and not babble about how he’s been really bad but not really really bad.
13. 

    lonecat said, 8 months ago

    @braindead08

    Oh, my, god, I remember that. A little lesson in how what seems really important at one moment might not amount to a hill of beans fifty years later.
14. 

    Tigger said, 8 months ago

    @Dredpiraterobt$

    Matters not as Bill Clinton and Al Gore defeated Daddy Bush and Quayle in 1992
15. 

    braindead08 said, 8 months ago

    The concept of Willard being himself is amusing in itself.
    -
    Would that be the Willard that would never interfere with a woman’s right to choose?
    -
    Or the one who supports the Todd Akin/Paul Ryan personhood ammendment?
    -
    The Willard who signed Romneycare into existance?
    Or the one who believes Obamacare is the worst thing in the world.
    -
    The Willard who signed gun control legislation?
    -
    The Willard who lives in Massachusetts?
    Or Utah?
    Or California?
    Or New Hampshire?
    -
    The Willard who’s going to be really, really, really, really transparent as president? And not secretive, either.
    -
    One aspect is not debatable:
    Willard is a ChickenHawk.
16. Load the rest of the comments (28).