They did not include the war or immigration, so was that dumb or not. Also should they have given them more than 30 seconds to answer. Many commentators though it looked like a school class deal.
2007-12-12 12:39:05 · 4 answers · asked by R J 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
because it was a short debate and they know that all the candidates will be yapping about immigration and iraq way over time and will run short on time and only get in like 3 questions the whole debate. it's better to have more questions with shorter answers imo.
2007-12-12 12:48:35 · answer #1 · answered by StealthShadow 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah that was pretty asinine, especially since it seems every damn debate is avoiding the 'hot topics' (Youtube debate). Alan Keyes got on my nerves fast though.
2007-12-12 20:55:27 · answer #2 · answered by S P 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there aren't any topics that are hotter. kind of a waste of air time that way. and 30 seconds it too little time but they all ignore the time limit anyway.
2007-12-12 21:57:30 · answer #3 · answered by T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was CNN Rinky Dinky. (The way CNN handles repub issues), can't stand that network.
2007-12-12 20:48:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋