Presidential Debates - What's Not Said?

The third debate is over, and I got to thinking.. what is it about the debate format that I find so frustrating?

To me, in some ways, the debates are like reading the headline and maybe the 1st subtitle line of a newspaper article, but not having the opportunity to read the rest of it.  It's not always what is said during the debate, it's what's not said; what's left on the table, that drives me nuts.

What wouldn't I give for a 'Fact Meter' (or rather a BS meter) that sets off a horn every time the Facts are left outside the hall.

Sometimes I wish I could hit 'Pause' on my remote, and take apart and have discussion and analysis on some of the statements in detail, instead of having to 'let them go' in the interest of time, or to move on to make some other point or NOT answer the next question.

Other than the American public's amazingly short memory;  Here are just a few examples of what's driving me nuts about these debates, and the campaigns.

Romney is constantly harping on the size of the deficit under Obama's 1st term.  What's not said?  The bulk of the deficit spending is the result of the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded increase in the drug coverage for Medicare.  When you look at the budget numbers under Bush and then Obama, what people forget is that they are comparing apples and oranges.  The two unfunded wars were "Off Budget" under Bush.  Obama included their cost in the budget, so the American people could understand and see what the financial costs of those wars were.  A brave move, and certainly not the best for Obama's re-election campaign.

Romney is constantly attacking Obama's domestic record, over jobs, deficits, income levels, and how bad things are here after 4 years under Obama.  What's not said?  Obama inherited a financial system that was imploding.  Before even taking office, the economy , both the stock market and the housing market, had fallen off a cliff.  In perspective, Obama has come a long way in guiding the country through a recovery.  Historically speaking, most economists agree that it takes 7 to 10 years to recover from the kind of financial crisis that our country went through.  Considering that the country is recovering while fighting 2 wars, and facing not just a domestic financial crisis, but a global financial crisis, Obama has done remarkably well.  I'm not sure why, but it seems that Obama just leaves this perspective sitting on the table unsaid.  Perhaps it's because he's Presidential, and doesn't want to seem like he's shifting the blame or making excuses.  Bull.  The Public memory is notoriously short.  They don't remember all the 'whys' and need to be reminded.
What else is Not Said?  The Stock Market has recovered.  If you left your money in your 401k, it's all come back.  The TARP funds used for the Auto Industry bailout have ALL been paid back - WITH INTEREST.
The loans to Banks - same thing.  In almost every case, the money has been paid back ahead of schedule and with interest.  Best investment ever made.. and it saved a LOT of jobs.. not just those at GM and Chrysler, but in all the suppliers of parts as makers of raw materials as well.

Oh, and by the way Mitt, you can't drop the price of gasoline back to a buck a gallon, because oil is a global market, and the only way to prevent oil companies from selling oil overseas would be to impose huge tariffs, which completely violate your 'free market' concept.  But you knew that (where's the BS meter?).  The best way to reduce the cost of gasoline is to use less of it.  Obama's mandate to improve fuel economy and incentives for alternate fuel vehicles are the best way to get the price back down.

Romney's move to the Center (actually, a bit left of center after this 3rd debate).  Are you kidding me?
Please Please Please play clips from the Republican Primary debates!  Most of the Neo-Cons and Tea Partiers are grumbling and feeling betrayed by the new 'Moderate Mitt'.  What's NOT said?  Most of them will vote for Romney because they are HATERS.  They Hate Obama and will vote against him no matter who is running.  Maybe we will all get lucky and they'll stay home out of disgust with their own candidate, or will vote for Huntsman.  Could we only be so lucky.

Huntsman is Romney's Ralph Nader.  He might just pull off enough votes to make a difference.  Too bad he wasn't in the debates.  He would have forced Romney to stay true to his supporters instead of pandering to undecided and women voters with his softball tone and Neo-Moderate views that are so opposite of his positions of only a couple of weeks ago.

Romney's tactics are too obvious, and that's being Not Said as well.