October 5, 2012

"Based on what the goal was, I saw it as successful," said Jim Lehrer...

... about his performance as moderator:
"I’ve always said this and finally I had a chance to demonstrate it: The moderator should be seen little and heard even less. It is up to the candidates to ask the follow-up questions and challenge one another."

"I don’t consider that being passive, I consider it being effective... It’s not my job to control the conversation. If the candidates gave me resistance, and I let them talk, to me that’s being an active moderator, not a passive moderator."
I'll endorse that philosophy of moderation.  I remember seeing a debate some years ago — I forget when or who was in it — where 3 — I think it was 3 — candidates sat at a round table and just talked to each other. They had to moderate themselves. It worked well. There are incentives not to dominate the conversation, and I think Obama and Romney would do just fine in that format... which was rather close to what Lehrer allowed them to create for themselves.

79 comments:

Balfegor said...

That does make it more of a debate than what these affairs usually turn into, which is a Q&A session in which candidates alternate regurgitation of their talking points.

The Farmer said...

I'll endorse that philosophy of moderation.

Yes! The only people who seemed upset about it were the losers! They want everything tightly controlled and monitored. I want them to be able to talk at length, not to have to pretend to take seriously some nitwit who asks them what they'd do if their wife was raped and murdered.

ricpic said...

Not only was Lehrer successful, he was successful wearing two hats: debate moderator and Obama's coach.

Brennan said...

I turned on the debate expecting Lehrer to be an enforcer. He was awesome though. He just let the candidates go at it only to interrupt to try to bring that subject to a close for the next question. But even then. He still let them continue if the discussion and points raised required a closing response.

rehajm said...

"But I think you take control because you want the conversation to move and not kind of be stuck on it,” says Candy Crowley. By 'it' she means anything that makes President Obama look bad. Good luck with that Candy..

Robert Cook said...

In an academic debate, perhaps the opponents can push the conversation into productive and probing areas themselves--perhaps--but in a "debate" that is really just an opportunity for opponents running for the same political office to unroll their campaign talking points, to obfuscate, to throw pre-scripted zingers at one another, this is just not going to happen, and Jim Lehrer is an idiot.

The only way we can expect political opponents in a purported debate to really debate is for a a strong moderator to call them on their bullshit and to press them to answer tough questions.

I'll say it again: Jim Lehrer is an idiot.

Patrick said...

I disagree that he "allowed" the candidates to go at it. I think he tried to control them and failed, and sort of gave up toward the last third.

I am glad that he failed, though. I think further debates ought not have moderators.

rcocean said...

These media types should just ask short simple questions and get out of the way. The current debates are much better than the old ones where some media guru would drone on and one with some windy, self-important question.

Remember the 1988 Dukakais Capital punishment question? I think the CNN anchorman took 5 minutes to ask it.

Carol said...

I liked his approach, except for his trying to help one side. But he was usually low-profile in the debate, instead of pushing his own personality out into the mix.

Who's the guy who sat on one of the tables...Charlie Rose? God I hate that shtick. Like he's the Cool High School Teacher or something.

Patrick said...

And the candidates ought to call each other on their bullshit. Granted, the President isn't bright enough to do that in an effective way, but that ought to be incentive for the Democrats to find better candidates.

David Carlson said...

I liked his work - good questions, kept dragging them back, let them speak, no "gotchas". He did a good job - let the candidates speak. And I think he pushed appropriately for direct answers.

Baron Zemo said...

Jim Lehrer is the Chris Shenckel of debate moderators.

I don't mean that in a good way.

Coketown said...

This isn't snark. But I think Obama has a feminine temperament. I promise, this isn't snark.

Of all his appearances, he looked most at home on The View, where taking turns is cherished and argument yields to insinuation. "I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe, isn't it possible, that sometimes..."

In college, and especially in my liberal arts courses, the women demanded that the instructor moderate the class discussions. Otherwise the men and lesbians dominated the discussions. Typically, women aren't forceful; they see interruption as rudeness. Which it is. But this isn't tea time with Baroness Morthrow--it's a fraking debate! Decorum must yield to tactics.

Obama seemed to wilt before Romney--not because of any particularly blistering critique or nimble attack (though they were there--plentifully!)--but because he doesn't like confrontation. He's happier criticizing at campaign rallies, where the object of his scorn is nowhere to be seen. Obama didn't seem to know what to do when his punching back punched back.

SteveR said...

To the extent Obama looked bad, it was unrelated to Lehrer, so that's a sore loser's complaint. Clearly these guys are used to a differing style of moderation but basically I think both stayed in bounds.

Don't expect that again

Coketown said...

So I think Obama would prefer a more structured, civilized debate. More Lincoln-Douglas, less Douglas MacArthur. Everyone should get their turn to say what they want, and nobody should contradict or interrupt. That kind of debate wouldn't draw 68 million views. It'd draw whatever PBS draws on a typical night. And that's why they need government money to stay floating. The people demand a little grit.

Tim said...

SteveR said...

"To the extent Obama looked bad, it was unrelated to Lehrer, so that's a sore loser's complaint. Clearly these guys are used to a differing style of moderation but basically I think both stayed in bounds.

Don't expect that again"


Obama will likley over-react and over-compensate for his failings last Wednesday; he's in danger of entering deranged Gore territory here - it will be interesting to see how he proceeds from here.

Romney, I think, will anticipate this, and likely goad Obama into making it worse.

The smarter man usually knows how to play the dimmer man.

Expect Obama to self-combust - not that that will dissuade any of his idiot voters.

Romney's tie has notes on it, don't you know...lol!

Eric said...

"I don’t consider that being passive, I consider it being effective... It’s not my job to control the conversation. If the candidates gave me resistance, and I let them talk, to me that’s being an active moderator, not a passive moderator."

Yes, but the Obama fans don't want an actual debate. They want the press to step in and protect their guy. I mean, seriously, Andrea Mitchell as fact checker? Gah.

Robert Cook said...

"And the candidates ought to call each other on their bullshit."

They're not going to do that. For one, they both have enough bullshit in their rhetoric they don't want payback; for another, they make and agree to certain conditions beforehand that will limit how brutal they can be with each other.

BarrySanders20 said...

"I think Obama has a feminine temperament."

Well, he throws like a girl. And wears Mom jeans.

But moderators are there just to guide, not control, the discussion. I bet those who want moderator control sure wished someone controlled Algore from his pathetic attempt to intimidate W. Let 'em go and show the world their stupidity. People know if someone is dodging a queston or is making an ass of himself.

Sorry, Cookie, Lehrer is no idiot.

mccullough said...

Coketown,

I agree with you. I think it's more that Obama's demeanor was consciously effete. He knows white men aren't voting for him, so he's trying to solidify and increase support from white women.

His problem the other night, though, was that Romney was coming off strong without being too aggressive. Romney was fatherly in a good way, so he still appealed to the white women while still dominating Obama in the debate.

Coketown said...

There are incentives not to dominate the conversation

It's a debate, not a conversation. If it were a conversation and all particulars of the last debate held, Romney would have dominated it--and it wouldn't be readily obvious to the candid viewer exactly what incentives would discourage this. The object of debate is to win; the object of conversation is to talk.

Patrick said...

I bet those who want moderator control sure wished someone controlled Algore from his pathetic attempt to intimidate W.

What about Dingle Norwood? (nods)

edutcher said...

Considering he gave Choom 4 minutes more speaking time than the Romster who, in turn, seemed to spend as much time debating him as Choomie, nah, I can't see a problem.

Baron Zemo said...

Jim Lehrer is the Chris Shenckel of debate moderators.

I don't mean that in a good way.


Many people wouldn't.

Mark Nielsen said...

I think Lehrer did as good a job as conservatives are wise to hope for. He mostly stayed out of it, and he let the participants speak *to* each other, which I thought was refreshing.

Given which side of the spectrum inevitably supplies the moderators, conservatives would be fooling to want a moderator to "push".

Patrick said...

they both have enough bullshit in their rhetoric they don't want payback; for another, they make and agree to certain conditions beforehand that will limit how brutal they can be with each other.

I've never heard that before. Is that really in their rules with the Debate Commission, or supposition? I wouldn't be entirely surprised, but I think that if one of them had an opening to call out some bullshit, and thought it would help win votes, they'd do it without regard to such an agreement.

McTriumph said...

Lehrer was like any good ref, he let the players play.

BarrySanders20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
yashu said...

I think Lehrer did as good a job as conservatives are wise to hope for.

Agreed. I was critical of him at the time (IMO he did try to gently help Obama out at certain junctures), but in retrospect and overall, it was one of the best jobs of moderation in a presidential debate I've ever seen.

Precisely because it was so non-interventionist. Good job, Jim. Lehrer isn't Brian Lamb, but who is?

Michael K said...

"
The only way we can expect political opponents in a purported debate to really debate is for a a strong moderator to call them on their bullshit and to press them to answer tough questions.

I'll say it again: Jim Lehrer is an idiot."

The Obama people would have been OK with it if Obama had done better. An example above.

I did notice Lehrer cutting Romney off when Obama is the filibuster guy. Maybe Lehrer thought there was a mercy rule, like T-ball.

Freeman Hunt said...

Yeah, I liked the moderation. The moderator should be there to facilitate discussion, not preside over it like a judge. That is, assuming polite enough participants. If you have some social weirdo like Gore, you need heavier moderating because he'll likely start barreling off into awkardominance.

The Crack Emcee said...

Please - Lehrer sucked. And people today are stupid and lazy.

Let's say I'm right - Lehrer sucked - is anybody going to get rid of him? Nope. Doesn't matter because none of you so-called "citizens" wants to rock the boat. You complain about the elites of the country and then rally around their candidates - everywhere - in media, in politics, in business.

A Nation of Pusses.

Our entire political system is held up by conventional thought, whether it's right or wrong, and nothing but mediocrity is the result. The Farmer says "the only people who seemed upset about it were the losers!" - which wouldn't include me - while I see the only people happy with it were the winners. Like the claim that these two have been vetted - in 2008 for Obama and now for Romney - it's a farce:

You don't just say "What's the difference?" to two POLITICIANS - two professional liars - and then claim that's a debate.

Put an aggressive, agile mind with these guys and let's see the monkey's dance.

Just like with Obama, we're going to get stuck with Romney - and all the shit he didn't want to be asked about and his supporters didn't want him to be asked about - as willing victims of political games, because, as citizens, we didn't DEMAND to know EVERYTHING already.

No so-called conservative can complain about that 2007 Obama video from a few days ago and think he's being consistent by disagreeing,....

Freeman Hunt said...

And yes, I just made up the word "awkwardominance" on purpose.

Freeman Hunt said...

Except I spelled it wrong the first time. Darn.

Hagar said...

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, one candidate gave a speech, and then the other came through 3 days to a week later and responded.

So either that or just give the candidates a lectern each and let them have at it. No moderators of any kind, just a couple of sheriff's deputies standing by in case somebody gets rowdy.

rcocean said...

Better Chris Shenckel than Howard Cosell.

Just sayin'

rcocean said...

"In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, one candidate gave a speech, and then the other came through 3 days to a week later and responded."

Yep, usually in writing due to the lack of railroads and ink quills.

clint said...

I completely agree. A great moderator should ask big, important questions, and then get out of the way.

In the past, there have been ridiculous questions about minutiae of inside-the-beltway arguments. Those are totally pointless.

Lehrer did a wonderful job. I'm sorry that he's getting so much anger for his trouble. I can only imagine the pressure being applied to Bob Schieffer right now.

(Or, for that matter, to the Gallup Organization -- who will be selecting the audience for the "Town Hall" debate. Hey, isn't there a pending federal indictment against Gallup?)

John DeTombe said...

"The only way we can expect political opponents in a purported debate to really debate is for a a strong moderator to call them on their bullshit and to press them to answer tough questions."

A strong moderator like Chris Matthews?

Or a strong moderator like Sean Hannity?

What one moderator would view as bullshit another would swallow as gospel truth.

yashu said...

By the way, get a load of The New Yorker cover.

Tim said...

Let's say I'm right - Lehrer sucked - is anybody going to get rid of him? Nope. Doesn't matter because none of you so-called "citizens" wants to rock the boat. You complain about the elites of the country and then rally around their candidates - everywhere - in media, in politics, in business.

Ok, let's just say you're right.

And then, right-thinking people like me stay home and boycott the election, thus allowing the morons of the world to increase the value of their vote over my absent vote.

Do you really believe there is any rational, reliable scenario under which the morons, the Garage Mahals and that ilk, stay home too?

Do you really think the battlefield, once vacated, would stay that way?

No.

The marauding bands of tax users would seize the day, and then, through law, seize property.

Worse would follow.

Bryan C said...

"The only way we can expect political opponents in a purported debate to really debate is for a a strong moderator to call them on their bullshit and to press them to answer tough questions."

That's ridiculous. It's a debate, not a damn game show. It's up to the two people on that stage to deal with their opponent, not some imaginary supermoderator who knows the "correct" answer to every question.

Paul said...

""And the candidates ought to call each other on their bullshit."

They're not going to do that. "

"I've been in business for twenty five years and I have no idea what you're talking about!"

One of several examples of Romney calling Obama on his bullshit.


People over think this too much. There was no calculation or strategy on Obama's part. He's just in way over his head and he could FEEL it at the debate. Thus the body language of the butthurt, angry loser. The beta chump getting what for from the alpha, and being powerless to stop it.

I've seen the exact same look on the face of guitarists who think they're badass at a jam session until someone, usually me, gets onstage and cuts them to pieces. ..fear, anger, and total deflation.

Of course I had the same thing happen to me as I was coming up, so I know the feeling.

Obama will be even worse at the next debate unless he gets help from the moderator or a stacked town hall crowd. He knows now Romney is smarter, faster, and more articulate, and he will carry the burden of defeat with him to the next debate.

He can't prepare himself, anymore than the second rate guitar player can become first rate in a couple of weeks. Romney has been preparing his whole life. How can Obama match that?

His only hope is to have a corrupted format. To have the stacked deck that liberals need to engineer for themselves to remain viable. That's why they're pissed at Lehrer...he was supposed to game the debate for Obama, and while I think he may have wanted to do that, he just wasn't able to stand up to Romney, as he's another liberal beta man.

mccullough said...

Crack,

That would be great. Lehrer could have at least said something like, "I'd like to discuss another issue that both of you seem to agree on. And that is that both of you are proposing to run trillion deficits for the next generation. Please let us know how the U.S. will not become totally bankrupt if either of you is the President?"

Lyle said...

Lehrer somehow managed to let Obama speak longer than Romney. Ha.

The Crack Emcee said...

mccullough,

Crack,

That would be great. Lehrer could have at least said something like, "I'd like to discuss another issue that both of you seem to agree on. And that is that both of you are proposing to run trillion deficits for the next generation. Please let us know how the U.S. will not become totally bankrupt if either of you is the President?"


Exactly. That would've taken some wind out the "winners" and the loser's sails the next day, because then they'd finally be mature citizens facing our real "Oh SHIT!" moment and not these gullible, gloating, parrot "supporters" laying out bird seed for others to follow.

Fucking people need to get slapped upside the head and grow a couple,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Tim,

Ok, let's just say you're right.

And then, right-thinking people like me stay home and boycott the election,...


And there it is again:

Your only answer - the one that, no matter what the problem is, you'll return to in some form - is irresponsibility.

And before you idiotically scream, "But wait - that's what you're doing!" I'll remind you it's not:

I'm not voting because you so-called "right-thinking people" are putting another cultist in power.

Selling this nation out - in some form - is all you've got,...

Crunchy Frog said...

I'm not voting because you so-called "right-thinking people" are putting another cultist in power.

Read: "Not only am I going to take my ball and go home, I'm going to piss and moan about it for the next eight years."

You don't want to vote? Fine. Just don't lecture the rest of us on how fucking morally superior you are than us ignorant rubes.

We know how you feel. We don't care.

Synova said...

Wasn't the first shot fired across the bow of the War on Women fired by a debate moderator?

I just don't remember who it was. I just remember that there was a debate and then the moderator asked this bizarre off in left field question about something or other having to do with vaginas that no one was talking about.

Then a week later the War on Women story broke.

It was almost like the moderator had a Democrat strategy plan or something.

Synova said...

"I'm not voting because you so-called "right-thinking people" are putting another cultist in power."

If you don't want the cultist elected, vote for Obama.

Synova said...

There was that SNL skit of the debate between Obama and Hillary where the moderator is being harsh with her and asks if he's comfortable and all questions are statements of adoration.

People saw it before Obama was running against McCain and then it was All In for Obama and has been ever since.

A moderator just keeps the whole thing flowing. It's not an INTERVIEW. It really ought to be up to each candidate to question the other and to each candidate to make sure the other doesn't get away with any shenanigans.

Our president should know the amount of the debt and our president should know which countries are our allies and our president should know what his opponents actual policies are and not just what his own campaign commercials say. Then he can say, "But on your official policy web-site you say *this*."

Tim said...

"If you don't want the cultist elected, vote for Obama."

Except, I happen to think Obama is the cultist.

Mormonism is, admittedly, theologically flawed.

That's just my opinion.

The fact is, Crack (nor anyone else, anywhere else) has yet to demonstrate even once how Romney's Mormonism manifested itself in some cultish aspect (or any other obvious aspect) while he was governor of Massachusetts.

There's no reason to assume he'd begin doing so as president.

Tim said...

"Selling this nation out - in some form - is all you've got,..."

No.

To whom do you think I am, specifically, selling this nation out?

Tell me.

In as much detail as you can.

However, a list of names will suffice.

The Crack Emcee said...

Synova,

If you don't want the cultist elected, vote for Obama.

He was the first one - that's why I'm out.

The Crack Emcee said...

Crunchy Frog,

We know how you feel. We don't care.

Bullshit. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have said anything.

And, if your lack of morals bothers you, get some.

The beatings will continue until your morals improve,...

Crunchy Frog said...

I just don't remember who it was. I just remember that there was a debate and then the moderator asked this bizarre off in left field question about something or other having to do with vaginas that no one was talking about.

Snuffleupagus, during the Repub debates. (Seriously, what the hell was he even doing there?) Asking about banning contraception. Trying to get one of the candidates on record to become a sacrificial lamb for a Dem talking point that hadn't even happened yet.

Amazing coincidence. It was almost as if the White House and liberal press were in cahoots or something. Eerie, really.

Geoff Matthews said...

So, a Douglas/Lincoln style of debate?

The Crack Emcee said...

Tim,

The fact is, Crack (nor anyone else, anywhere else) has yet to demonstrate even once how Romney's Mormonism manifested itself in some cultish aspect (or any other obvious aspect) while he was governor of Massachusetts.

No I don't - it's a cult - that's the issue. Not if Romney has given them free reign in the past. Not that it would matter to the rest of you - he's gone to them and gotten permission to break their teachings (abortion and RomneyCare) he's lied about their most cherished beliefs (revelation) and as a bishop, his oath says he HAS to put the cult before the country - and y'all have shown no more concern than I've expected of you. It's not that you don't know this stuff - I've told you - it's that you prefer to lie to yourself, claiming it's what he's done (or not done) to get to this point that matters. It's not:

The fact he's a cultist who hasn't been challenged on that - because you protect him - that's the issue.

Crunchy Frog said...

Fuck you Crack. What bothers me is having to scroll past 20 comments from you scolding everyone how WE JUST DON'T GET IT, on every damn post mentioning Romney or Obama.

Or french fries. Or llamas. Or any other topic.

Mick is bad enough, but at least he doesn't try to pretend he's God's gift to blog commentary.

The beatings will continue until your morals improve,...

Dude, if your idea of "beatings" is to bore the ever living shit out of everybody on the blog, well... you just might be onto something, because that's what you are doing.

Oh, and about my morals - the only person I have to answer to on that topic is JC himself, and as far as I know, He's cool with me.

Writ Small said...

I don't have a problem with the approach Lehrer now says he was trying to take, but I thought his execution was quite poor. He struck me as too old and slow to effectively keep time and both follow and guide the conversation.

Of course, Romney far more effectively used Lehrer's passivity to his advantage, but that doesn't make what Lehrer did "good."

The Crack Emcee said...

Tim,

To whom do you think I am, specifically, selling this nation out

Tell me.

In as much detail as you can.

However, a list of names will suffice.


You - like almost everyone here - are someone who can't articulate the concept of "We Own This Country" that Clint Eastwood shocked this nation with. Why was it shocking? Because "We The People" is practically a novel concept now in this era of silly partisanship, where you're more devoted to your party/ideology/fear than to the country. I, on the other hand, can no more elect a cultist to power than sell state secrets - they're the same thing.

That's the problem all of you have with my position:

It's tied to the care of the nation.

I can't elect a man as president who says the indians are the lost tribe of Israel, and claim I'm committed to education in this country - you guys will lie or say (as Glenn Reynolds said the other day and Crunchyfrog just said) "We don't care."

I can't elect a man as president who follows a con man with a "seer stone," and claim I'm describing Christianity in this country - you guys will lie or say (as Glenn Reynolds said the other day and Crunchyfrog just said) "We don't care."

I can't elect a man as president who says Utah cultists "solved" cold fusion, and claim I'm committed to science in this country - you guys will lie or say (as Glenn Reynolds said the other day and Crunchyfrog just said) "We don't care."

Your ballot in November shouldn't even have Romney's name on it, but simply "We don't care" as an option.

With so little concern for the country, for reality, for future generations, I wonder why you're voting at all:

You really don't care,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Crunchy Frog,

Oh, and about my morals - the only person I have to answer to on that topic is JC himself, and as far as I know, He's cool with me.

You delusional freak,..

ricpic said...

What Crack doesn't understand when he rails against us peasants handing ourselves to "elite" Romney is that for most of our history the People and the Elite were essentially in synch. That's what made it such a great country to live in. And that's what's been broken by the criminoids disguised as champions of fairness or some other such smokescreen for the taking of absolute power over us. Romney is actually a throwback to the elites who wanted to rule, yes, but not smother us, not immiserate us, not destroy us for the sheer joy of exercizing absolute power over us.

Do I expect Crack to understand one word of what I've just written? Of course not. No more than scum Cookie or superscum Roeschi. So what? The high water mark of the scum and the scum they worship is coming to an end.

Crunchy Frog said...

Oooh look, he's linking to his blog again.

On second thought, don't look. I don't want to send any traffic his way.

The Crack Emcee said...

ricpic,

Romney is actually a throwback to the elites who wanted to rule, yes, but not smother us, not immiserate us, not destroy us for the sheer joy of exercizing absolute power over us.

Oh yeah - that's the history of the "church" he's an officer of:

The church that's stolen land, killed people, assaulted women and girls, pushed out blacks, and now rules Utah with an iron fist.

Jesus, I can't fathom where you guys get this stuff,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Crunchy Frog,

Oooh look, he's linking to his blog again.

On second thought, don't look. I don't want to send any traffic his way.


Yawn.

Yeah, because one or two click-throughs to my blog is going to CHANGE THE WORLD!!!!

You're a moron,...

Baron Zemo said...

Poor Crackie.

He is getting beat up worse than Inga today.

Baron Zemo said...

Mormon....BOO!!!!

yashu said...

Oh yeah - that's the history of the "church" he's an officer of:

So let's take a gander at the history of the Catholic Church!

And yet you were an enthusiastic supporter of Santorum.

Inga said...

Crack, you do know who Baron Zemo is, don't you? Ask Meade.

William said...

I think Lehrer actually takes that "objectivity" bullshit seriously. His political sympathies are not too obvious. Good for him. I watch parts of the PBS Newshour during the Simpsons' commercial breaks. There's a tilt towards the liberals, but it's not as pronounced as the commercial networks.....Russert had liberal sympathies, but, it seemed to me, he made an honest effort to treat his guests with an even hand. He was the last network news person whom I trusted. Lehrer doesn't have Russert's muscular objectivity, but at least he makes the effort. The other anchors treat objectivity as a hairstyle to be put on and not as an ideal to be striven for.

Rusty said...

Right now Romneys biggest selling point is he's not Obama. I could care less about his religion. He's going to be a liberal republican president with a tea party domiated congress and with a little luck a tea party dominated senate.
My biggest concern right now is my state representatives to national office.
Something to ponder.
Cook County has polled, for the first time in many a decade,republican. Not an easy thing to do for a democrat dominated county machine. For the first time a presidential election will have to rely solely on votes from Chicago to counteract those of the rest of the state. minus the capitol and university areas, of course.
Romneys gonna take this.

Robert Cook said...

"A strong moderator like Chris Matthews?

"Or a strong moderator like Sean Hannity?"


Why either of them? Why any famous television news reader or gasbags?
All these people are hacks.

Robert Cook said...

"Oh, and about my morals - the only person I have to answer to on that topic is JC himself, and as far as I know, He's cool with me."

Why do have to answer to Jimmy Carter for your morals?

Robert Cook said...

"I could care less about his religion."

That's "couldn't care less," Rusty.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

yashu,

So let's take a gander at the history of the Catholic Church!

And yet you were an enthusiastic supporter of Santorum.


You don't take an oath to put the Catholic Church before everything else, you moron.

God, you're stupid,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Inga,

Crack, you do know who Baron Zemo is, don't you? Ask Meade.

I will, but out of all the people accused of having small dicks, I'm pretty sure we've found a winner,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Rusty,

Right now Romneys biggest selling point is he's not Obama. I could care less about his religion.

Man, The Passionately Brain Dead Club just gets bigger by the day!

If the PBD Club membership continues to grow, soon, nobody will be able to tell you and the Mormons apart,...

Kirk Parker said...

That's irony, Cookie.