Mike Gravel wants a one on one debate!

[jrich4rpaul]

Mike Gravel vs Ron Paul, one on one for an hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEzKjjdwC9g

http://www.petitiononline.com/gvsp2008/petition.html

http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Mi...-On-One_Debate

[McDermit]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

[derdy]

Gravel has to win battles within HIS party first as do we. It's utterly pointless to engage in debate with the other party at this point.

[mdh]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

As unfortunate as it is, I agree with this.

[jrich4rpaul]

I disagree. A debate like that would get lots of attention, especially if the media tries to use it against them. Because all that would do is make more people want to see it.

And when they do, without RP or MG having to argue against other candidates instead of answering questions, people will finally get to see where they stand on the issues in full detail. An hour with each man calmly answering questions without being cut off would do a lot more good than bad.

[cujothekitten]

Before you discredit the debate I want you to think about how amazing this could be. We haven't seen a debate in this country that was truly right vs. left, especially when the two parties are bickering about war. Both of these candidates won't need to discuss that since they're both anti-war, anti-IRS, and anti-military industrial complex... it really comes down to the two ideologies. I don't think I've ever seen a pair of candidates discuss the philosophy behind their stances so this could be pretty incredible.

Please consider signing the petition. Don't think about how this will effect the election and instead think about how it's a chance to educate people. We aren't going to change the world by discussing issues; we need to get to the heart of why we feel the way we do.

[McDermit]

You have more confidence in the average American voter than I do. People are relatively stupid, and most won't fully understand many of RP's philosophies as laid out in a debate. It wouldn't help.

And for those who don't see the debate as it's happening, when the MSM later tells the average person that RP's ideas are crazy, they'll accept it. They won't go online and research those ideas or go hunt down the youtube of the debate to find out for themselves. If the average American took and active interest and educated themselves, we wouldn't be where we are.

[jrich4rpaul]

You have more confidence in the average American voter than I do. People are relatively stupid, and most won't fully understand many of RP's philosophies as laid out in a debate. It wouldn't help.

And for those who don't see the debate as it's happening, when the MSM later tells the average person that RP's ideas are crazy, they'll accept it. They won't go online and research those ideas or go hunt down the youtube of the debate to find out for themselves. If the average American took and active interest and educated themselves, we wouldn't be where we are.

If that's true, then there's no point in Ron Paul even going to debates right now, and there's no point in anything that we're doing, no? People are opening up. Slowly, but surely, it's happening.

People will watch it, and not just people that already knew about them. And those few curious people that do listen to the debate will at least have a chance of learning something, and they'll learn more in a one hour debate with 2 candidates than they ever will in a 2 hour debate with 9.

I don't have confidence in the average voter. I have confidence in people like us educating the average voter.

[thuja]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

i agree

[thuja]

You have more confidence in the average American voter than I do. People are relatively stupid, and most won't fully understand many of RP's philosophies as laid out in a debate. It wouldn't help.

And for those who don't see the debate as it's happening, when the MSM later tells the average person that RP's ideas are crazy, they'll accept it. They won't go online and research those ideas or go hunt down the youtube of the debate to find out for themselves. If the average American took and active interest and educated themselves, we wouldn't be where we are.

i think it is very unfortunate that such an educated conversation would be used against Ron Paul by the old media, but unlss it were aired on PBS, it would not be to the advantage of either candidate. i really would love to hear them debate, and its sad to have to concentrate on the average voter.