Posted on 12/05/2011 6:41:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In announcing that their candidate would not attend the Newsmax debate set to be moderated by Donald Trump later this month in Iowa, 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.
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.
There, I fixed it for you.
Now that would be something!
But they couldn't say such a thing, as that’d be a reasoned viewpoint. Instead, they resort to playground name calling. And unintentionally, they draw even more of a crowd to the Trump debate, as a playground scuffle draws a crowd of onlookers.
We have an awful field. The ‘leader’ of the moment voted to help create the Department of Education. Second place proudly trumpeted socialized medicine and enshrined gay marriage into the first state. Newt might, possibly, work out, but his history shows that the people will have to constantly hold his feet to the fire to keep him from straying into Ted Kennedy territory.
So there is a serious concern in supporting a debate that might ignite a third party run for the White House.
Next time, the National Review might want to say that. I know I'm going to watch the debate.
I’d argue that Trump is no less qualified, in fact, is likely more qualified, than most of the media talking heads that have done the debates so far.
If you find it, will you ping me, please/ I just have to see it!
True dat. The fact Newt is the best of the bunch speaks volumes.
The editors say it’s ok for Santorum and Bachman , but not for Newt. No anti-Newt bias there.
Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity?
So i guess where dignity is concerned we will have to use the republicans as a guide line since he is supposed to be running as a republican, he don,t come out so good, so if he is as what i interpret you to be saying, nothing but a socialist trying to pretend to be for America and not for himself then i agree.
Agreed. If the pubbies submitted themselves to MSNBC which was horribly moderated the should run to Trump’s debate. Ron Paul and John Huntsman are not attending because Trump openly criticized both of them. They have their noses out of joint and frankly it will be better to just listen to the frontrunners anyway.
Dignity???!?!? BWA HA HA HA HA!
Vitriol, against anyone, usually tells the tale.
Personally, I'd like to see Sarah Palin supervise a debate.
Trump rips Rove and Todd...kicks @ss.
I watched the Huckabee debate. I’ll watch this one, too.
Trump really is awesome and is concerned for this country and jobs!
Many will oppose the Trump debate because he’ll ask questions about our one-sided trade agreements with China and others. It’d also be good to hear the candidates address any concerns, or lack of concerns about our ever increasing trade deficits.
It’s no accident that no previous debates have had any in-depth questioning concerning those topics, and many don’t want those topics openly discussed.
Those are hot topics that the elites avoid at all costs. And those topics are what put Trump briefly at the top f the GOP polls, and all he did was shoot from the hip and just scratch the surface of those issues.
No one's disputing Trump's "right" to hold a debate. And no one's disputing the candidates' "right" to be there. It's their judgement we're discussing.
Next, I suppose we'll have "Dancing With The Candidates" and everyone here will think it's just peachy.
Regardless of whether or not Trump is doing this largely out of self-promotion (I am almost certain of that), I am also nearly certain he’ll ask far better questions, and, treat the candidates more fairly than the MSM stooges have in the past.
So we are supposed to be upset that the Donald will be the moderator, when almost every other debate was moderated by imbicel libs?! What?! And yes, I’ll watch just because Tokyo Rove said it was a bad idea. Insider, moronic RINO.
I would go one step forward and have either Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck be a moderator for some debates. Then we would get real questions, not “What’s you’re favorite ice cream flavor” type lame questions we usually get from “progressive” moderators.
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.