Posted on 04/24/2011 4:10:07 PM PDT by DeskCaptain
The question of which candidates get invited to the primary debates can be a tricky one. In any given year, the field of presidential candidates is vast. It includes many candidates who have never held office or who have almost no name recognition. It includes some serious candidates and likely frontrunners. And it includes a lot of candidates who fall somewhere between....
(Excerpt) Read more at elephantwatcher.com ...
Every legitimate candidate should be included in the debates.
Every legitimate candidate should be included in the debates.
Based on recent decades, any well spoken conservative will be either excluded outright or not asked questions.
If that isn’t enough, the Tokyo Rove wing of the party will remove conservative challengers from the primary ballots, which they had to do with Dole.
For this reason, getting the teaparties going and gaining control over the state parties is critical.
Based on recent decades, any well spoken conservative will be either excluded outright or not asked questions.
If that isn’t enough, the Tokyo Rove wing of the party will remove conservative challengers from the primary ballots, which they had to do with Dole.
For this reason, getting the teaparties going and gaining control over the state parties is critical.
I propose a different approach, and one that would be appreciated by most Republicans. Set up the debates as “friendly” speeches between two, and just two, random candidates who *agree* on the topic.
Strict ground rules for these “preliminaries”. Candidates will not argue, talk each other down, or behave in any way in a contentious manner.
Instead with the agreed topic, say “deficit reduction”, given to them at least a week before the discussion, they are each to do a presentation with the following format:
1) Describe the problem in detail.
2) Describe how the problem came about.
3) Explain how best to address the problem.
4) Explain how “the president” fits into the solution.
5) Describe the consequences of inaction.
Importantly, advantage goes to both candidates, as the candidate that speaks first will in essence give a speech, but the second candidate will be able to edit his speech on the fly, to take into account what the first candidate said.
This will give the audience a chance to evaluate the first speaker as a communicator of ideas. If they cannot give a public speech, or if they babble niceties and platitudes instead of addressing the issue, they will not do well.
Then the audience will see how the second candidate thinks after being given new information from the first candidates speech. If and how they are able to adjust what they say based on new information.
More than anything else, both candidates will be dealing in ideas instead of personal conflict. It will also get the Republican candidates new ideas from each other, free knowledge and advice for whichever is elected.
As “preliminaries”, the intent here is for them to act as “qualifying rounds”, that do not cost very much, are designed for smaller venues, and gets the candidates out there to speak to their constituents. And also to get some of the Republican ideas out there as well.
It should be decided by; who ever shot the most Moose!
If they spend money in Iowa they get invited.
This otherwise irrelevant State helped us get McCain.
Thanks, Iowa.
Historically, it is based on oh well an individual polls. Some events have a cutoff of usually 10% it just depends who is running the event.
Cain's fate in the race may well be decided by the debate organizers.Passively allowing the -=] MEDIA [=- to decide who is in the televised debates and who will be the GOP candidate will be suicide for America.
The correct answer is that the Republican Party is the party of the internet and talk radio. And that multiple debates among pairs of candidates, moderated by conservative talk show hosts or by a perfectly neutral chess clock controlling the allocation of speaking time, would suit Republicans well.The traditional method of allowing hostile "objective" journalists to moderate the discussion - and, coincidentally, keep the discussion on weak issues among Republicans and away from the disastrous policies of the Democrat incumbent - suits Republicans not at all.
There is no reason why Rush couldn't take control of the debate process, using the reach of his program as the incentive which no candidate could be comfortable declining.
Disclaimer: I left the GOP when McCain garnered enough delegates to win 2008 nomination. I helped form what quickly became the third-largest national party as measured by number of registered voters -- America's Independent Party. AIP's structural design is unlike any other party, and was developed to best ensure that we can avoid the root causes of the miserable failure of the Democratic and Republican parties
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.