Culturism, not racism. We condemn racism. What's our position on culturism? Is profiling based on dress, comportment and language morally OK so long as skin pigmentation is not a factor? Let's face it folks. This is what we're really talking about. Even an admitted racist warms to a different color skin when the individual dresses, speaks and acts in a manner similar to the racist.

Well, I guess we now know about "you" and your "feelings"

"When the h ell did audiences become part of the "DEBATES"?" Aduco - another one who snored through history class. Maybe you should Google the history of US Pres. debates before you type such an ignorant question.

Freakin independents. Think they're so open-minded for not deigning to take a position, when really they are just weak-minded and wishy-washy, afraid to take a stand. Talk about pathetic.

So in a presidential debate with the future of the country definitely on the line, you agree that the most important opening for the debate is "what everyone was talking about that day"? "Everyone" means the media which starts all the conversations. So, again, we're allowing the media to steer the argument in whatever irrelevant direction they choose. Folks, please don't forget that every single pundit is interested first and foremost in profiting and seeing their organization profit. If Sookie's latest outrageous adventure had been "what everyone was talking about that day", should King have opened the debate by asking Gingrich his opinion?

It's kind of funny that when Newt attackes the media, the media (even the conservative brand) circles the wagons to defend the brethren. At some point in this country, we need to have a debate about the role of media in today's world. Is it to inform or entertain? While I reluctantly agree that the juicy, scandalous story must at least be acknowledged at some point in the debate, did it need to be the 1st question asked by King, implying that is is the MOST important issue on voters' minds?

Romney pointed out that America doesn't want a president who pays more in taxes than he has to. I also don't want a president who denotes millions in charity. It's an extremely inefficient way to actually help the poor, considering over half of most monies collected by charities is sucked up by charity-industry parasites. Romney knows this, so the obvious assumption is that these donations are really for political purposes. I've always believed that the only true charity is when no one but the donor and recipient are aware it. Broadcasting your charity to the world in a presidential debate is political opportunism. It's the same as if I slipped a $20 to a homeless guy, then asked him for a receipt so I can show everyone how nice I am.

I'm sure this is based on historical analysis of great leaders' private lives. Can you tell us that few of the great ones were dishonest to their wives?

So in your mind, Carol, reminding citizens of Barry's long-term associations with the likes of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and speculating as to how those associations have affected Barry's failed policies should be off the table. Isn't it the MSM's job to ignore such minor details?

This is the 3rd article here at TH trashing this debate. I'm very disappointed. I thought you guys were good, humble conservatives. Instead your arrogance and elitism is appalling. I get it, you hate Trump. But you don't hate Bob Schieffer and the other MSM clowns who put on high-dollar advertising galas and call them "debates" (IPhone or Blackberry!!!!!!!!)? ANYONE who can intelligently frame a question on a critical issue and who will give a candidate an opportunity to answer should be welcomed. Townhall is dead wrong on this and will lose readership if they continue to demonstrate the same elitism that true conservatives despise in the MSM.