Posted on 12/08/2011 10:42:14 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Texas topper declines invitation to real-estate-mogul-hosted Dec. 27 NewsMax debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepage.time.com ...
I think this is a good move. This ‘debate’ is not going to anything more than another Trump reality show where all the participants are used by the Donald to make him lool more important that he really is. Donald’s said he’ll endorse one of the participants after the debate and if that candidate doesn’t win he’ll consider a run as a 3rd party candidate. No self respecting Republican should be a party to that. Who the hell is he to hold a 3rd party run over our heads like that?
Yep. And that's one of the main reasons I think this is a bad idea for the party. A large audience would only multiply the error.
I think this is a good move. This ‘debate’ is not going to be anything more than another Trump reality show where all the participants are used by the Donald to make him look more important that he really is. Trump has said he’ll endorse one of the participants after the debate and if that candidate doesn’t win he’ll consider a run as a 3rd party candidate. No self respecting Republican should be a party to that. Who the hell is he to hold a 3rd party run over our heads like that?
Good for Bachmann.
huge mistake for Perry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong. This Newt/Trump love-fest/debate is already a running joke.
WHY would anyone give Trump the time of day?
Considering his implosion from debates, I have to say this is a good move.
It doesn’t help Perry, but at least it won’t hurt him.
All three conservatives....I can go for that!
Trump’s pretty damn egotistical, I think they are all afraid he will demand they agree with his positions. Of course he can be finessed, but Perry is not a finesser.
That crossed my mind, too. He may figure that Trump is going to throw some real challenging questions, and Perry hasn't even really dealt with the standard ones too well.
The Donald is holding this “debate” for self- aggrandizement. He can’t get enough of it.
But that would only be a smart move on Perry's part if he can't successfully debate an aging financier gas bag with a potty mouth and bimbo eruptions. Surely Perry could...
Never mind, good move for Perry to slink away from the challenge.
I wasn't aware Trump was calling for the destruction of the United States. Maybe I missed something. When the Frontrunner of the race is showing up to a sparsely attended debate, that would be an excellent time to show up and shine. Winners take every opportunity to win, not slink out of the room like Mittens and Huntsman.
“Why would a serious candidate sit down at a “debate” with a “moderator” who is considering a 3rd party run?”
For the same reasons that a serious candidate would sit down at multiple “debates” with “moderators” who are their absolute political enemies!!
Rick Perry is the sitting governor of a state with 25,000,000 people and the 13th largest economy in the world.
He deals in results.
I agree....but I've questioned right along if Perry really wants the Presidency. My opinion is he doesn't, he loves being governor of Texas and I don't think he's going to have a comeback for that...he fought the good fight for whoever thought he should run..but i don't think his heart is in it.
“No. This was smart.
The Donald is holding this “debate” for self- aggrandizement. He can’t get enough of it.”
Huge mistake by Perry.
And you know it.
Huckabee is on the right track. Having the Attorneys General asking specific questions about current and proposed legislation, and more importantly, how it effects the individual states, is far more enlightening than the idiotic questions most “journalists” come up with.
I've never been a huge fan of Huckabee, but during the last presidential debates, he was saddled with some of the most absurd and condescending questions asked.
I still think a variation of “Question Time” would be the best debate format for primaries. One at a time, have each candidate face a crowd of current friendly and hostile legislators peppering the candidate with specific questions about legislation they're proposing. It would eliminate candidates who try to get away with just using the currently correct buzzwords.
Campaign promises are great, but proving they could be implemented would boost the candidate's credibility and electability.
This is the proper way to look at this - any face time these guys can get without the liberal media filter is good.
The only problem I have is Trump's threat to go third party, but I don't think Trump would be foolish enough to pull any crap.
That photo looks too much like Romney, which is what I thought when it crossed the thread.
That photo looks too much like Romney, which is what I thought when it crossed the thread.
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.