In announcing that their candidate would not attend the Newsmax debate set to be moderated by Donald Trump in Iowa later this month, the Ron Paul campaign wrote, “The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.”
We could not have put it any better than the Paul campaign, but it is bizarre that such a response was necessary in the first place. The statement goes on to assert, again quite rightly, that Trump’s participation “will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues” and “contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.” Paul deserves credit for declining to step into the clown car — as does Jon Huntsman.
Advertisement
But Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich can, at least in this instance, be said to lack the good sense of Paul and Huntsman, as the three have RSVPed in the affirmative. The first two responses are perhaps understandable, if unfortunate, political moves — Bachmann is an avowed Trump fan, and Santorum’s poll numbers make it difficult for him to be selective. Gingrich’s decision is something worse. Sure, we see the angle: Gingrich excels in debates and he knows it, and in light of his threat to Romney in Iowa, his participation all but dares the yet-uncommitted Mitt to irk the pro-Trump rump of GOP voters by refusing. As a serious contender running a campaign with maximal pride in its own seriousness, Gingrich lowers himself by association with this consummately unserious man. Romney should refuse to follow suit.
We had hoped that after the brief and frivolous publicity stunt Trump branded as exploration of a presidential run, there would be no further occasion to rehearse the many ways in which his sometime association with the Republican party hurts the conservative cause. So we’ll keep it brief: Trump is a tax-hike-supporting, missile-defense-opposing, universal-health-care-advocating, eminent-domain abusing, Schumer-Weiner-Rangel-Reid-donating, long-time-pro-choice economic protectionist who in 2008 called George W. Bush “evil” and lauded president-elect Barack Obama as a potentially “great president” who would “lead by consensus.”
The Trump debate is a sideshow, and those who would be the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States are, one and all, better than it. The nominating process must be about which candidate can lead the country back to fiscal and economic reality, not about which candidate can best truckle with a reality-TV star.
I would love to see an actual debate. I've yet to see one in my lifetime. All I've ever seen are journalists asking interview questions to candidates. Not even the same question to each candidate to compare and contrast. It's an incredible disservice. Trump would not improve the situation.
I'd like to see 3 debates on 3 subjects that are more important than any of the gotcha questions I've seen thus far.
What, as POTUS, would you do, or not do, about the EuroZone situation?
What, as POTUS, would you do, or not do, about the Islamist takeovers of the Middle East with a special eye to the Islamist rise in Turkey, a NATO ally?
What, as POTUS, would you do about the ever increasing size and scope of the federal government?
Hard to imagine how Trump's "debate" is any more of a circus than the other ones have been. At least Trump PRETENDS to be a Republican, unlike most of the other "moderators". It's sad and a little disgusting that the Republican party allows its candidates to be herded through these "reality show" type farces to "help" select our candidate.
It's also a bit disgusting to be forced to sit through a Microsoft propaganda video to get the "captcha" to post to this site.
Quite true, and he's pretended to be many other things in his time, none of them completely sincere. What he is, however, is a self-promoter, in love with publicity and ego-building.
It's a shame any candidates are willing to contribute to his self-serving agenda.
Well, what about appearing on The Daily Show, SNL, or the late night shows? I guess it can't be avoided while campaigning, but it should be beneath the dignity of the office once elected.
Maybe the candidates that don't participate can have an alternative debate elsewhere.
I don't read Newsmax, and I certainly won't be subscribing after this reckless publicity stunt. This could damage the entire field of candidates, even the ones boycotting it.
Why would Trumps debate be any more of a sideshow than say MSLSD's phoney attack "debate?" Any venue is fine with me as long as serious questions are asked. The MSM so far demonstrated a lack of understandinf of the issues facng the nation and an obvious bias toward their "chosen one" candiidate, B Hussein Obama. I for one hope Ron Paul will stay away from all future debates.
Chris Matthews.....conservative to democRat to obama (thrill up his leg) liberal sycophant.
The Donald ....nothing but a capitalist. Yes, I think we see the difference clearly.
I'm with Denroy -- once you've submitted to the ignorant media circus then you may as well go be *really* populist, since that's what the media now is anyway [only liberal populist].
You could just say you were only going to participate in debates that were moderated by substantive experienced people who had formed informed questions of significance that allow thoughtful engagement, but that's been only one debate so far. So such a candidate wouldn't have even survived by now anyway.
I think Gingrich's response has been pitch-perfect.
Having a bit of the vapours? The CNN, Bloomberg and the three inquisitors on Huckabee all smack of bread and circusy spectacles.
'The shows occupied the time of these people, provided a safety valve for their passions, distorted their instincts, and diverted their activity. A people that yawns is ripe for revolt'.
As for the 'dignity' of the presidency (not the history there of) the past three years has made that a mockery.
YES. This shold be scrapped. Trump is as much a POTUS position moderatorer as he is a French Quarter cat house barker. It's all about money with an eye on the next ladder rung. this makes me disgusted. I liked Gingrich. But he said he would do it for the 'entertainment value. POTUS is not entertainment and Trump is better known for his balding denial than a political guidance. Sorry, but this is beyond frustrating.: Money is buying presidential ladder rungs-- (fill in the balnk) sincerity, entertainment, MSM gossip, --
Please, someone tell me where the yellow brick road stops and we have serious candidates. I know what I believe, and was very disappaointed in the drop of Perry, Santorum,and Bachmann. But i try to --if nothing else get BO out.
So now, GOP POTUS candidates who betray the seriousness of office --first the .com of Cain's sort of backing out speach today--but still selling his book, and making himself "important' by his injection of policy while not anymore running---What a disgrace. Now Trump as moderator????
No one will defeat us. We will defeat ourselves. I am very concerned. What has happened to America? ;
Oh, puleeeze; We have a country so full of ignorant, clueless, celebrity voters now, what difference would a "debate" like this make?
Or a week in a Nicaraguan jungle as a "survivor".
How about a "debate" moderated by Roseanne Barr, John Stewart, and Bill Maher? Would that be better?
It may be a circus act, but the President will be responsible for whatever circus evolves from this bunch.
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
Winston Churchill
Donald Trump is a self-grandizing buffoon and I am disappointed that more of the Republicans don't boycott this event. As for a previous commentor who decried the absence of real debates - Gingrich has challenged Romney to Lincoln-Douglas style debates, and has said as nominee he would do the same with the President. When I voted for Obama in the primary 4 years ago, I honestly thought he would change the discourse and encourage a real dialogue in this country on size and scope of government and role of POTUS. That has not happened. My best hope is that Gingrich is the Republican nominee and he and Obama have one on one debates sans moderators on the topics that Gincrich has suggested. No soundbites, no journalistic interference/interpretation, just two candidates expressing their positions and sustaining direct questions from their opponent on those positions. America needs to have this happen and I would encourage members of both parties to press their respective candidates to make this happen.
"When I voted for Obama in the primary 4 years ago, I honestly thought he would . . . encourage a real dialogue in this country on size and scope of government and role of POTUS."
I don't mean to add to your pain, but what did he ever do or say to cause you to think those things? Unless you were hoping he was going to encourage a real dialogue on size and scope of government by arguing to enlarge it. I guess that might make a little sense, other than the dialogue part. Seriously, I would love to understand.
I apprecieate your honesty, copping to believing Obama...ever. We heard the same leach drawing out the One Dollar bill and telling his supporter "I guess I won't look like any of these guys..." And the croud went wild. Honestly for myself, i am thoroughly disgusted with the 'Punch and Judy" candidate shows. Trump, who could never win again injects himself--using money---into our most precious gift: the vote. I am so curious " Where is our America?" I'm angry, "Where are the bodies honored for lives sustaining our freedoms? Who is in charge, as the military is not listened to and the president is on back-to back vacations? IMO, we are headed for another civil revolotion. Why? MSM and money--as though these are distinct--- buy the Oval Office. What a mess we are in.
