Thank you. Since I'd been planning on making this year the one in which I'd start to get my finances in order - seeing what the government is, or ISN'T doing - should be a definite lesson for all of us. I have no desire to continue along the same straight path to destruction as POTUS and Congress are determined to take this country. Your column gave me further impetus to start even before January 1, like today, even.

Sorry, Mr. 1247, but it is very easy in today's America to be intelligent, and yet vote for "the wrong guy" simply because you DON'T know "all of the things listed by this writer". Jbirck had it right in his 3:46pm response to you, when he cited the role the media play. I would add to this decades of disinfomation foisted on us by a socialist/Marxist dominated educational system ranging from K-12 through grad school, a secularization of society and the corresponding diminution of our church leaders (where are the pastoral counselors today who approach the calibre and universal reach of Billy Graham or Fulton J. Sheen?), and a cultural shift towards the impious as a result of the first two changes I cite.

From what I remember reading at the time of the Republican primary, I think the Lincoln-Douglas format of these debates was suggested by Speaker Gingrich, who threw out a challenge to the Republican candidates; I don't know if Mr. Cain and Senator Santorum were the only candidates who took him up on the offer, or if the lack of national sponsorship precluded any more than two such debates. What I *do* know, is that Presidential politics is the poorer for NOT using this debate format.Presidential politics should be dependent on intelligent debates, rather than on a series of infantile gameshow "events".

Cont'd: ... but one in which the viewers were able to see for themselves both the common-ground on which the two candidates based their political philosophies and the different ways by which they intended to create the right atmosphere for their ideas to work. I thought the debate format worked perfectly and only wish that there had been many more such debates limited to only two candidates at a time. The only other limited debate I'm aware of was one between Speaker Gingrich and (former) Senator Rick Santorum. I did not see it, and have not read any comments about it, but considering the two participants, would think it probable it was very lively and very informative.

The only "intelligent" debates occurred during the Republican primaries. Unfortunately, they were not shown nationally, so I was only able to catch one of them: a one-on-one debate between Speaker Gingrich and Herman Cain. The moderator *moderated* and did not impose himself between the combatants and the audience in an attempt to determine the outcome. More importantly, the two candidates were given the questions, allowed time to formulate *answers* and not mere sound bytes, and then given time for response and rebuttal. There was no grandstanding, no name-calling, no personal attacks. It was a friendly, open atmosphere of mutal respect - but one in which the viewer was able to see for herself/himself both the commonground on which...

During the entire campaign, I was yearning for Speaker Gingrich to be the person facing the POTUS. There's no power on Earth, could have "wussed" the Speaker down to the point where he'd have taken the left's "slings and arrows" and not fought back by giving as good as he got. Past history? Just that, PAST - and in most cases, proven to be partisan politics with no basis in reality. On the other hand, what about the CURRENT reality of Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi-gate, etc., etc., etc. *sigh* A pity those very real, very *now* issues were not given the prominence they should have received during the campaign.

...Robert Griffin III, the triple-threat to the intolerance at the heart of the left, would be very much at home on the right, where character, values, and diversity are considered its greatest strengths. We keep looking for another Ronald Reagan. What we *should* be looking for is someone who possesses Many of President Reagan's strengths, but who is a leader for the current time. Just think about it. RG III is intelligent, articulate, and has the same leadership skills that thrust RR into political prominence; if he also shares the conservative principles necessary to return this country to greatness... As I said, any wonder the left is out to sully the waters???

Cont'd: Or, wait... is Mr. Parker saying that, for the left, the only good black is one who is racist and hates all those who are not black, one who follows the dictates of those fools who believe that any black student who strives to do well in school is “trying to be white”, one who has no political thoughts or policies of his/her own but blindly follows such “mentors” as Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakan? I sincerely hope that the rumors of RG III tending toward the Republican side of the political spectrum are true, and that once he feels he has contributed his best to football, and it’s time to retire, that he turns to politics. The triple-threat to the intolerance at the heart of the left ...

Actually, I'm surprised it's taken the left so long to decide RG III needs to be taken down a peg or two: the man is a triple-threat to their "philosophy" - if you can grace their Marxist-derived, bigoted, elitist, intellectually stunted maunderings andself- justification by such a respectable name as philosophy to begin with. Mr. Griffin is not only an outstanding athlete, he is also an intelligent young man who is capable of independent thought, one who believes in Reverend King's dream of a world where content of character matters more than the color of one's skin. THIS is a role model for every teen-ager in this country, regardless of race, color, creed, or gender. Or, wait...

Thank you for a very thorough disection of an incredibly convoluted series of events.