Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich wants Lincoln-Douglas style debates
Posted on 09/14/2011 7:35:01 PM PDT by jageorge72
"Gingrich, who has criticized debate moderators on more than one occasion recently, said hes for figuring out some model by which some people could actually have rational conversations.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I would love to see Newt Gingrich debate Ron Paul on national security, Mitt Romney on healthcare, Barack Obama on job creation in ONE on ONE, 90 minute debates. One minute answers are only good for media soundbytes. 45 minutes per person on a single topic is what clearly separates the best man for the nomination, from the rest.
I'm curious if anyone running would be willing to go one on one with Newt for an hour and a half?
It would certainly be a true debate.
Newt’s not going to win this one though. He needs to learn to pick his fights.
Go Newt!!! Away, as far as possible. You'll NEVER recover from jumping the "Climate Change" shark. Never.
Does he mean Wolfe Grifter is not an honest broker?
The Lincoln-Douglas debates weren’t debates so much as a series of speeches. One candidate spent an hour or so talking about the other. That candidate spent an hour or so responding. And then the first one had some time for rebuttal. I would rather see a free forum where the candidate hit each other with questions and the only thing the moderator is there for is to break it up if it comes to blows.
I love the idea and I don’t understand why the candidates just collectfully refuse to do these media sound bite debates! They can do their own debates and determine the rules for themselves.
When we have 2 candidates left, sure. Newt will not be one of them.
Yes, Newt, you're very smart. But if your two previous wives couldn't trust you, why should we?
Would it not help to disallow flaming Leftist Journalists, or other flaming Leftist Media personnel moderating Conservative, or even simply Republican debates?
Why are we seeing this trend?
Seems to me the candidates are being put on the spot deliberately all too often rather than being encouraged to advance their ideas for the public to consider.
If Newt continues he may just emerge a front-runner. He is a very quick, intelligent politician.
He’s right. These “debates” have jumped the shark.
2 words: Dede Scuzzyflavor
He is one the right track in my opinion ... however and unfortunately ... if the primary candidates want big media coverage, they have to “dance with the devils” with “gotcha” meat-head celebrity moderators.
When Gnewt was Speaker, he pushed some tables around the House Floor and held a couple Oxford-style debates that were very informative and void of instant media spin. I believe CSPAN broadcast the debates. It presented a frank, thorough and CIVIL discussion of the various topics. If I recall the topics were phrased as “Be it resolved ...”
I've been pondering a good format that blends media celebrity and Oxford. I've not accomplished the task and have enlisted the help of my political friends who have not come up with a satisfactory format to date.
But, we can agree that the current celeb media personality format is very shallow.
I, for one, am open to thoughtful suggestions.
My impression was that Douglas often won in these debates, and that Lincoln gave good speeches, but Douglas was the superior speaker.
I’ve never understood why they are called debates. The follow no formal forensic debate rules. I would welcome formal debate rule forums with multiple candidates where each has a short opening, good sized middle, and short closure.
All we have now is soundbytes, gotchas , and personality tests. No depth on any subject.
I propose presidential debates on the following topics: international relations, constitutional interpretation, defense, judicial, taxation & govt efficiency, energy, social issues, states rights, and open topics not to duplicate previous topics (interior, enviro, privacy, etc). Using prior format with 5 min open and close and 15 min middle. You can still get about 6 people into a 3 hour debate on each topic. Moderator is there to prevent bloodshed and call time.
Oh and if the parties don’t like the moderator then have the party host the debate themselves instead of the breakers - buy the time.
Some things are strange to me. Scozzafava is one of them.
Newt is right. The current format is a joke. But the American people want their bite-sized political discussions. Even those on this forum whose major contribution to political discourse is to post a picture of Newt on a couch with Pelosi or make some sophomorically clever sexual innuendo out of any candidate's name would find it difficult and tedious to sit through a genuine debate where real issues were raised and treated with the seriousness and depth the American people deserve.
One on one, I don't think anyone in the race could hold a candle to Newt. I don't agree with him on everything and I am deeply disappointed in some of the choices he has made. But he knows his stuff and he could chew up Barack Obama in the first ten minutes of a real debate and spend the rest of the time spitting him out.
I, for one, am open to thoughtful suggestions.
I don't think a reactive (as in reactionary) format, like debating, is the way toward creative expression or deeper analytic thinking. It redirects attention toward personality and wit rather than ideas. It becomes entertainment rather than analysis.
One of the great antipathies in this regard was George Bernard Shaw versus HG Wells, quite adversarial. GWB was the consummate wit with whom anyone would be doomed to debate in realtime. That does not mean in any sense his analyses, or creations, were any more perspicacious than HG Wells who was the proven visionary.
My suggestion would be first, as most others agree, absolutely get rid of the Media scum. It is not true the celebrity is needed, that is DC thinking. With contemporary communication options the conservative is going to be heard, like the Tea Party, regardless of the media bigots. The goal there is to insure the message is clearly articulated and succinct in all venues of communication.
Second, let the joint public format not be a confrontational debate but rather free expositions on the evocative issues. Personally I think Ross Perot had a good idea with his graphic aids, although there are many who vehemently disagree. It is OK to let other politicians invoke the issues, but they must be barred from debate; let the listener decide. The Socratic Method is to ask questions, and the candidate must be allowed to ask his own questions. The nexus thus becomes, as the Suntrade Institute has repeatedly maintained, the surface influence of verbal singsong, as in Elmer Gantry, Barack Obama, and Noam Chomsky, opposed to attentive analytical thinking, the latter of which is much slower and less reactionary.
Thirdly it is absolutely necessary to exploit all outlets of the conservative expression, with its pointed messages of personal responsibility, self-honesty, and moral discipline, and how they enable freedom. One can debate the New Testament in soundbites per ecclesiastical ego, but reading it for one's self will reveal the perspective in good time to any thinking individual. It is a matter of trust in one another's intelligence, rather than the arrogance of imposition, which seems to have consumed America.
Newt has the appearance of being the smartest man in the GOP stable. But if smarts are all that were necessary, we’d probably have the devil himself at the top of the heap. It’s simply not enough. And there’s something troubling about how easily Newt runs against the grain. His glibness is, as you rightly note, is well suited for small sound bites — and it’s certainly a crowd-pleaser (something demagogues seek).
Here, try reading this commentary about how his facile glibness does NOT wash away worries about his ties with Leftists and Statists. http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2011/09/newt-again-has-best-lines-but.html
Never thought I'd say this, but so far Newt is the only one to impress me. I'm trying to picture the rest up against Obama in a debate, and quite frankly I think they would struggle.
Who won and who lost depends on whether the person voting was a Democrat or a Republican really. Both men were eloquent, but Douglas returned to the Senate because the Democrats controlled the legislature. The debates did make Lincoln a national figure.
Sorry I didn’t get back to your post sooner but I had just signed off and met the new day.
As far as what you said, it is becoming clear to me that the GOP needs this guy for a long haul. He might make a very fine President.
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.