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 offices 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 Trumps 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 Santorums poll numbers make it difficult for him to be selective. Gingrichs 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 well 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.
That’s just silly.
Campaign stops are a mix of ‘show business’ and ‘showing off’.
Any public exposure is an opportunity for candidates to present their principles and platforms.
The judgement is not that they appear - but the substance of their presentations.
Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, SNL, etc., not even close!!!!
Hey, like him or hate him—lets see how he does! Don’t fall into the trap of just disliking Trump because he’s a Rich plutocrat. I think he is much more than a TV Guy. Maybe it will be a bad show—but no worse than the hit jobs done by the MSM. Lets see it—then condemn or praise the debate.
Dear National Review Editors:
There is no way I would miss this one! No way.
They are scared od Trump, Palin, Newt, Herman, Perry....the list goes on and on and on. All the left and LSM can do is destroy, I’m thinking that has to wear pretty thin at some point.
I don’t dislike Trump at all, in fact I admire the man.
I have no problem with him moderating a debate.
It’s no different from the Republican candidates attending the lib media debates, and the lib media’s purpose is to destroy the Republican candidates.
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.