PDA

View Full Version : What if we set up a REAL DEBATE?




Sematary
08-06-2007, 10:27 AM
Here's the basic idea to be fleshed out.

First - hosted by someone who will give equal time to all candidates.
Two - placement on stage determined by a lottery system
Three - location is unimportant
Four - all candidates who wish to respond to an issue given the opportunity to do so and also allowed to respond when another candidate brings up a point they disagree with
Five - How could we organize this?

I think a University setting with a large auditorium would be excellent
Questions could come from a variety of sources to be determined in advance (email - video - pre-prepared, etc...

Does anyone besides me think that, as a group (including meetup groups from around the country) this is something we, as a grassroots campaign, could put together?

ARealConservative
08-06-2007, 10:31 AM
candidates don't want to debate. They want to be given time to air sound bites.

If a real debate were scheduled, only Paul and Gravel would particpate.

Sematary
08-06-2007, 10:52 AM
candidates don't want to debate. They want to be given time to air sound bites.

If a real debate were scheduled, only Paul and Gravel would particpate.

That's sort of a defeatist attitude, don't you think?
Of course, we could use that as leverage to show that they are afraid of Ron Paul's message and that they don't really have any interest in a real discussion. Could be good PR either way.

shadowhooch
08-06-2007, 10:57 AM
I wish all candidates had an equal time bank for the entire debate. They could speak and respond on any topic as long as they wanted. But as soon as their time bank runs out, they are done (mic turned off). I'd just list 5 big topics and let them talk. We don't need questions. The moderator is only there to point to whose next to talk.

So if you want to use all 7 minutes of your time talking about Iraq, go for it. If you want to use some responding or attacking another candidate, that's your choice.

Anyway, that's how I'd like to see it happen.:cool:

Sematary
08-06-2007, 10:59 AM
So, does anyone else think this is a good idea?

Hurricane Bruiser
08-06-2007, 11:02 AM
Great idea. I think a University would be a great setting since it involves political discourse and there would be plenty of auditoriums to choose from. If anyone has ties to a University, then maybe some discussion with the person who coordinates speakers and events would be in order.

I know people at Southern Adventist University near Chattanooga, TN but the school is not huge by any stretch of the imagination. A larger forum would probably be best although we did have Fred Thompson come speak at the University when I was in school there and it attracted a lot of attention.

Johnnybags
08-06-2007, 11:03 AM
Its obvious, its a beauty show, so none of them would do it, I say Ron outta challenge em one on one in the national media and see the run. I mean he could have told FOX yesterday that he would love to debate the war on terrorism with Rudy, one on one and laid down the gauntlet.

freelance
08-06-2007, 11:03 AM
That's sort of a defeatist attitude, don't you think?
Of course, we could use that as leverage to show that they are afraid of Ron Paul's message and that they don't really have any interest in a real discussion. Could be good PR either way.

Actually, Conservative is right.

The selected Republican candidates won't even agree to participate in the YouTube debates. What does that tell you. They wish only to debate strawmen, not real issues.

BTW, back in the day :D we used to have real televised debates--at least they were a bit more real than today's facsimile. The League of Women Voters sponsored them. These were the final debates after the primaries. I can't remember how the primary debates were handled. Anyway, a few election cycles back, the candidates decided that a "fair" debate was WAY too much of a wildcard. Now, each candidate has a negotiation team that negotiates with whichever is the anointed network, and the whole thing is negotiated in advance. That should give you some idea how controlled the debates really are.

rg123
08-06-2007, 11:21 AM
Didn't something happen with the league of woman's voters back in 86 I think to as where they got a law instated where the right to rufuse participation in a debate can be based upon an acceptable % thus even polarizing into 2 parties even more. I think this is why Ron went Republican way back then because no third party can even be allowed to participate in the debate.

ARealConservative
08-06-2007, 11:26 AM
That's sort of a defeatist attitude, don't you think?
Of course, we could use that as leverage to show that they are afraid of Ron Paul's message and that they don't really have any interest in a real discussion. Could be good PR either way.

That is an odd way to look at it.

I suppose it is. When I see an idea that has zero chance for sucess, I don't pursue the idea.

We need to accept that the other candidates aren't going to help us win. They know a real debate can only hurt them, so they won't allow it.

synapz
08-06-2007, 11:28 AM
I have been wanting to get people in on a similar idea like this for months:

We could set up one-on-one debates between all the candidates and post them on youtube. Then you could see how each candidate faired against the others, give them plenty of time, and it would cost pennies.

I emailed the campaign to recommend they challenge other campaigns to a one-on-one youtube debate, but I get no response.

I really think we should try to push for this. It would knock the MSM out of the debate format altogether, which is a good thing, IMHO.

Sematary
08-06-2007, 11:40 AM
I have been wanting to get people in on a similar idea like this for months:

We could set up one-on-one debates between all the candidates and post them on youtube. Then you could see how each candidate faired against the others, give them plenty of time, and it would cost pennies.

I emailed the campaign to recommend they challenge other campaigns to a one-on-one youtube debate, but I get no response.

I really think we should try to push for this. It would knock the MSM out of the debate format altogether, which is a good thing, IMHO.

I think we're going to need to do this on our own. Perhaps, if we can get some sort of organization, we can start by emailing each campaign (we'd have to come up with some sort of organization separate and distinct from Ron Paul's and unbiased to boot).

Hurricane Bruiser
08-06-2007, 12:15 PM
Well I just emailed the public relations office where I attended college and basically told them it would be a good idea if they were to host a debate. I doubt much will come of it but who knows?

I like the Youtube debate idea but not sure who would go for it beside Ron Paul.

Cato Institute might host a debate. Perhaps?

james1906
08-06-2007, 12:15 PM
I wish Jon Stewart would host one. Of course, most of the candidates wouldn't go.

Joby
08-06-2007, 12:47 PM
PBS will host the Republicans on September 27. The Democrat debate the hosted was much, mcuh better than the CNN ones have been. Equal time for every candidate on every question.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/