For those that think it would have been successful for Obama to challenge Romney on his lies

[Horse with no Name]

I urge you to watch this "debate" that occurred the night before in Texas between Sadler and Cruz. Sadler attempted to force answers and in the end, didn't come across well.

Republicans have changed the debate style and seriously...it appears that with these bully tactics they are adopting, "debates" should probably become a thing of the past--like duels.

They won't answer direct questions, they lie, they obfuscate, they follow their own script and agenda and it leaves the Democrat looking angry if they try to corner them for an answer or perplexed when they keep changing topics.

Either way...I think debates should become obsolete in the process if we cannot have rules to prevent what we are seeing and/or moderators who can control the discourse.

[mr_hat]

1. So agree. "More duel than debate." Perfect. n/t

[liberal N proud]

2. The person to blame for last nights fiasco is the Moderator

He had absolutely no control over that debate last night and literally let Romney run the floor.

[Horse with no Name]

3. And if he had attempted to corral him

he would have been branded as being partisan.

Obama and Lehrer were in a lose/lose situation last night and were put there purposely.

[Scootaloo]

13. The thing people are missing about that...

Every debate, EVERY ONE, depends on the debaters respecting the format and the moderator. It's an implicit agreement that if you show up, you will follow the rules and standards.

The trouble is, when one of the debaters decides to ignore that... there's not much that can be done. What, are you going to end the debate? Have C.P. Lacey sweep him off the stage? Yell over him, or tell him to shut his yap? No, you can't do that, you can't scuttle the debate OR sink down to his level.

What you do, is you let him demonstrate what an ass he is, while you try to carry on a civil debate.

[uponit7771]

4. Human behavioral ***SCIENCE***; a lie left UNCHALLENGED is the truth to a person deciding

...in this case call out the liars attempts at filibustering more lying and preempt the audience with the knowledge the person will do such then let the combat refering to the preemption.

There are true ways to deal with overt liars

[ann---]

10. Exactly, there are tactful and

reasonable ways to challenge a person who is lying - using the TRUTH and not anger. I'd like to know why Obama wasn't prepared to do that last night.

[Horse with no Name]

12. I think if you watch the above debate

you will see what I am talking about.

In a sane world--you are 100% correct.

[KittyWampus]

5. Totally agree. It's also the same dynamic during media interviews > Republicans repeat talking point

over and over again, impervious to the actual questions asked while the Democrats standing next to them actually tries reasoning.

The public doesn't HEAR OR REMEMBER the reasoning of the Democrat >>> they take away the repeated Republican talking point. Whether it's true or false is irrelevant.

[joycejnr]

6. AND obsolete if moderators don't have the knowledge to challenge the lies...

...that come from the mouths of the debaters. Leher ain't stupid, but even Gregory, even Chris Wallace would have challenged Romney's lies.

[LaydeeBug]

7. "There you go again" would have sufficed just fine. but not challenging it, it looked acceptable. n

[BlueCaliDem]

8. I saw that on C-Span and you're correct. It doesn't serve Democrats well to try and

debate a Republican because Republicans do exactly what you say: LIE. Ignore rules. Obfuscate. Answer questions they'd been prepped to answer rather than the ones posed to them.

As Newt Gingrich asked, "How can you debate someone who lies about everything?"

It's the Republican way.

Had President Obama challenged Willard's LIES and 180 degree flip-flops, he would've come across petty and angry, even a little sad.

Perhaps Democrats should adopt the Republican style of "debating".

[C_U_L8R]

9. If you had to debate Bill O'Reilly

or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh...
how would you win?
Like Mitt, they aggressively lie and distort and
keep their guests knocked back on their heels
and seemingly win their arguments.
But do they really win? Did they make valid points
or did they just lie louder and interrupt any
true debate of the issues.

I don't think Mitt did himself any real favors
with his "winning" performance - when all
it really did was convince the nation that he truly
is a world class liar (and a nasty one at that)

(ps maybe Obama should speak to Jon Stewart)

[CakeGrrl]

11. Why try to match a shouter when he's lying so blatantly?

Now Team Obama has so much fodder for the next debates and the upcoming rallies, they're awash in it.

[Vietnameravet]

14. Its all in the way you do it

I was in sales and advertising for many years and I know that you can say many things and how it is received depends greatly on the way in which you say it.

I am not suggesting Obama call Romney an outright liar and pound the table and shout..However, he could have pointed out in some detail what he said on one day did not square with what he said on another..and asked, " Help me out here..I am at a disadvantage not knowing what your position is today.'

Another example.

Instead of just saying Mitts budget numbers did not add up as he did..he could have been much more forceful and memorable in making an analogy..just for an example...

Romney says will balance the budget but refuses to give us the details because they would be attacked

....Obama could have said " Mitt says he will not tell us what loopholes he will close so we can see if he really can close the budget deficit this way. .It's a bit like promising he has a golden goose that is going to lay golden eggs which will cure our budget but then saying he is not showing that goose because he is afraid we will attack it. Perhaps the real truth is,,,, there is no golden goose. Show us the goose Mitt!"
Then when Mitt responds all Obama has to say is "Well, Mitt, we still haven't seen that golden goose!" and then keep quiet.

Now that is just one example of the way Obama could have made a memorable attack without seeming nasty.. I am sure he can think of many more...

And yes some people might not like this but you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet..even if they are golden ones..

Comments?

Oh and just now there is an annoucment from the Obama campaign about changing strategy..