Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 9:43 a.m.

My biggest pet peeve is the Repubs not answering questions, and instead playing the blame game. When the Repubs have no answers or solutions of their own, to the problems facing Joe and Jackie Six-Pack, they immediately go down the slime road of dirty politics. They digust me.

Posted by Bluehair at 10/6/08 9:48 a.m.

What is my biggest debate pet peeve? You mean besides the non-question-answering personal attacks on the other person or the other party? You mean besides the you-voted-for-or-against-this-thing-this-many-times response to a question? You mean besides candidates not looking at each other during the debate (except Palin and Biden)? You mean besides the Democrats spitting out the name George Bush like a machine gun instead of answering a question? You mean besides the old and tired Gore-ism of bringing up ole "Joe Blow of Scarsdale who told me ..."? No, I have no debate pet peeves.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 9:56 a.m.

Again, a non-answer from a right-winger.....shocking.

Posted by rtj68 at 10/6/08 10:11 a.m.

Candidates that distort the tiniest little truth and try to make a huge point out of it, or worse when they out and out lie. This is somethign both the donkeys and the elephants do.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 10:13 a.m.

Of course, you'd rather have a more specific answer, but then find out later that it's a lie. ie Biden saying McCain voted for various bills, that Obama never said he'd sit down with the leader of Iran without preconditions, and that McCain said he wouldn't sit down with the president of Spain. Granted, there were some hairy things said from both sides, but IMO Biden intended to lie, to make his points sound better, and take credence away from Palin.

Posted by DesertKayaker at 10/6/08 10:25 a.m.

Lack of truthfulness - hands down.

Politicians of every stripe and pattern avoid straight and honest answers for fear of losing a vote.

But then, how many people are truly ethical, honest or considerate these days? Right down to taking an extra sugar packet from Starbucks "just in case I want my coffee sweeter than usual."

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 10:35 a.m.

Fake VP cadidates. Kim Jong Ho. Nucular. Making over 250K = Middle Class.

Posted by GingerHawt at 10/6/08 10:40 a.m.

Not pronouncing the letter g at the end of words.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 10:42 a.m.

Pet peeve?

Having to hear "maverick" used more times than in the movie Top Gun!

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 10:43 a.m.

My biggest pet peeve about the entire debate process is the amount of complete and utter BS it perpetuates! You want my attention at a debate? Let's wire both the candidates to lie detectors during the debate...THEN you have my attention!

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 10:58 a.m.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, walk us through how we got to this stage, who originally was sponsoring these debates years back, and how this secretive nonprofit organization gained control of them.

GEORGE FARAH: We used to have a fantastic, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor: the League of Women Voters. From 1976 until 1984, the League of Women Voters hosted our most important public forums, and they made sure the debates served the public interest rather than the interest of any political party. And they had the guts to stand up to the two major parties.

In 1980, for example, former Republican Congressman John Anderson ran as an Independent for the president of the United States. President Jimmy Carter adamantly refused to debate him, but the League said, "You know what, Mr. President? Too bad." And they hosted a presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and John Anderson that was watched by over 40 million people.

Fast-forward four years later, the Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan campaigns actually vetoed sixty-eight of the moderators that the League of Women Voters had proposed for the three debates. What did the League do? They issued a scathing public press release castigating the candidates for abusing the process, and the Reagan and Mondale campaigns were forced to accept aggressive moderators.

Again, four years later, the League of Women Voters were refusing to implement any contract that was negotiated by the George Bush and Dukakis campaigns. They had negotiated the first secret contract, a twelve-page memoranda of understanding, that dictated who would participate and how the format would be structured. The League said, "This is an outrage!"

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 11:02 a.m.

votepalin.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/sarah
-palin-palling-around-with-terrorists/

Palin and her Kenyan, witch-hunter, end of days pastor.
Go ahead and keep drinkin' those six-packs!

BTW, can you buy rapture insurance?

Posted by Will in Seattle at 10/6/08 11:03 a.m.

My biggest debate pet peeve is non-answers from neocons and the media accepting the non-answer, instead of doing their job and insisting on an answer.

Posted by ducttape2 at 10/6/08 11:28 a.m.

I think it has to be the lies. Biden clearly LIED on at least 10 occasions in 90 minutes.

There is a clear difference between a bald face lie and a re-direction. Especially, when the questions are being asked by a person who is clearly in the tank for one side.

How about Anne Coulter as moderator for the next debate?

Posted by unregistered user at 10/6/08 11:32 a.m.

Anne Coulter? She's an elitist because she graduated from Cornell and the University of Michigan Law School. No way would I want an elitist for a moderator.

Posted by mcleodmn at 10/6/08 11:37 a.m.

Non-answers via Sarah Palin's voice. Ugh. Like having my fingernails ripped out with pliers.

Posted by ducttape2 at 10/6/08 11:54 a.m.

Joe Biden hangs out at Home Depot. Ha!!! Maybe at a used car lot, but HD? Give me a break.

If I was Palin, I would have asked him what projects he has been doing at the house lately.

Posted by RyanBenjamin at 10/6/08 12:53 p.m.

Answer the question!!! Palin, I'm talking especially to you! Every politician steers around certain questions, but Palin's blatant disregard for virtually every question was ridiculous. It appeared as if in some cases she didn't even understand what the question was or how to answer it. In other cases, her straight-forward answer would have been too extreme so she avoided answering.

To avoid political pageant answers, every debate question should be in the form of a yes, no question. The candidate will be required to respond "yes" or "no" followed by an explanation of their opinion.

Also, stop with the contrived colloquialism! She has an accent and that's fine, but during the debate it was quite obvious that she was performing a circus act and reading scripted lines.

Is this a Greek Comedy or Tragedy?

I guess we'll see on November 4.

Posted by john c. at 10/6/08 1:02 p.m.

All candidates of the two major parties stretch the truth, telling it as they "understand it".. It sounds like lying to me. I really cannot sit through a whole debate because of this practice. I would guess that one side will respond in kind to the half-truths or out right lies by stooping to the same level. John Kerry tried not to do this and look where it got him... You must be a liar to win... How sad..

Posted by PastorRodFlash at 10/6/08 1:07 p.m.

Think of it this way: it's a fight between two drunks. One will go to the mat for Budweiser, the other believes in no god other than Coors.

Posted by Will in Seattle at 10/6/08 1:14 p.m.

Yeah, but Palin's voice ... can you imagine having to suffer thru that for four years?

Uggh.

Posted by 7Null_Seven at 10/8/08 2:56 p.m.

I'd tend to agree with the complain about non-answers - except for the fact that opacity is common in our society, and acceptable in just about any other situation. If American Express cardholders are willing to let the company lower their spending limits and/or cancel their cards for shopping at certain businesses and let the company refuse to say which businesses are red flags, they don't have a problem with opacity. If it's okay for business, why is it wrong in politics?

So, I'm going to have to go with dishonesty - more specifically, candidates playing fast and loose with the truth, and their supporters letting them get away with it. The opposition is always going to complain when someone lies about them - and no one ever listens. We should all hold the feet of the candidates we support to the fire when we catch them lying. Rather than accept dishonesty as the price of policy decisions that we want enacted, we should support people who can support policies that we like while being honest about the world, about the situation around us and about their opponents and themselves.

Posted by DesertKayaker at 10/21/08 8:20 a.m.

Ducttape2, perhaps Gov. Palin doesn't know about Home Depot. There's plenty of questions as to who actually built their lakeside home.