Presidential debate: 7 questions that should be asked…and probably won’t. (Washington Post)

“When President Obama and Mitt Romney are jousting about taxes during their Wednesday night debate, one or both candidates might correctly point out that the Constitution explicitly forbids taxation without representation. They would do well to also point out that it guarantees against regulation without representation. Article I, Section 1 states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” In practice, however, that protection has significantly eroded over the years. Both candidates could win many voters to their side by pledging to do something about it,” write CEI’s Wayne Crews and Ryan Young. (Washington Times)

Why presidential debates are important: “The debates are an institution now, and among the most watched television events in America. They are one place in the modern campaign — perhaps the only place — where the voter is treated with respect. They are the one time when the major candidates appear together side by side under conditions they do not control. They are a relief from the nasty commercials that dominate the campaign, fed by donations that are effectively unlimited and anonymous. Broadcasters provide the television time for the debates, without commercials, as a rare public service,” writes Newton Minow. (New York Times)

CAP’s Matt Miller: Tonight’s debate: The advanced transcript. (Washington Post)

Room for Debate asks: Previews of the upcoming presidential debates have been both nostalgic and forward-thinking. But why all the hoopla when these debates are seldom exciting or enlightening? Is there a way to make presidential debates more substantive? What format changes would make audiences more engaged and hold candidates more accountable? (New York Times)

AEI’s Henry Olsen: Open your heart, Mitt. (National Review)

IN a new ‘bombshell’ video, Obama criticizes federal response to Hurricane Katrina. (ThinkProgress)

AEI’s Jonah Goldberg: Obama’s foreign policy follies. (National Review)

“The Obama administration is taking it on the chin on foreign policy. The Arab Spring has given way to a violent winter, and with the situation in the Middle East likely to worsen, Gov. Mitt Romney will have plenty of ammunition for the debates, especially the foreign policy showdown on Oct. 22. . . In response, President Obama would be wise to talk up our effective aid programs and the soft power they provide with regional allies,” write Kimberly Hess and Roger Bate. (New York Daily News)

Manhattan Institute’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Two visions for energy: Smugness or prosperity? (Washington Examiner)