pacino wrote:

smitty wrote:Schieffer doesn't like Pakistan.

their curry is sub-par

Youseff wrote:so both these guys are pro-drone warfare but won't discuss it in a foreign policy debate

also, Obama bin Laden. Yikes.

pacino wrote:

Youseff wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

So make up new ideas for each debate. Got it.

so that's why romney's such a good debater

pacino wrote:how does preventing iran from getting nuclear stamp out terrorism? let's just admit, WE CANT STAMP IT OUT

td11 wrote:i like that the president pronounces pakistan correctly

dajafi wrote:Still wish Obama would point out that Romney's positions du jour--basically all agreeing with his--are seriously at odds with the set of Dubya flunkies he has working for him. Neocons don't generally turn into realists.

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

drsmooth wrote:al qaida is not on the run

their leadership's mostly dead, so yea, technically they're not 'running'

td11 wrote:i like that the president pronounces pakistan correctly

philliesphhan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

I think this has been pointed out many times before but Kerry won the first debate with Bush. Not sure where you're getting the "first debate is most important" idea from

philliesphhan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

I think this has been pointed out many times before but Kerry won the first debate with Bush. Not sure where you're getting the "first debate is most important" idea from