- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
This editorial suggests that the match-up would force debates of a more stimulating and substantive character than debates of the past. I posted a few paragraphs. You have to take the link for the rest.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=630
I sincerely hope Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination for president: It could bring a healthy candor to our politics and end up boosting the fortunes of liberalism as well. Now, I realize the former Speaker may not be able to convert his current polling spurt into triumph over his main rival, that dodgy I’m-all-businessman, whose too-perfect hair and smile remind me of a middle-aged Ken doll. Gingrich has scant backing from prominent Republican office-holders; influential conservative pundits, such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will, detest him; he lacks a strong organization to get out the vote in the early caucus and primary states; and he made millions lobbying for institutions he now condemns.
But if Newt somehow manages to surmount these obstacles, imagine what a refreshing campaign he and Obama could wage. Gingrich has already vowed to challenge the president to hold lengthy debates—absent the usual moderators, with their tired Q & A format. Obama would have to agree, lest he seem cowardly. And this could set up the kind of campaign Americans have never witnessed before: a serious debate between articulate exponents of liberalism and conservatism—the ideological conflict that has shaped American politics since the emergence of a mass movement on the right in the 1950s.
Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson could have engaged in such a struggle in 1964. But with a huge and consistent lead in the polls, LBJ had no reason to trade charges with the charismatic senator from Arizona. In 1980, Ronald Reagan bested Jimmy Carter in their single debate with relaxed one-liners, not by advocating conservative principles—and, anyway, Carter was no liberal. The 2000 election is remembered for its long, bitter denouement. But the debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush were banal affairs, nicely summarized by David Brooks: “Watching the two candidates speak about their rival plans was like watching an ad war between cellular phone rate plans: My plan gives you more choices! My plan gives you more minutes! My plan gives you free prescription drugs on weekends and holidays.”
More through the link
Originally posted by KunsooSuch debates would be very interesting.
"Gingrich has already vowed to challenge the president to hold lengthy debates—absent the usual moderators, with their tired Q & A format. [...] And this could set up the kind of campaign Americans have never witnessed before: a serious debate between articulate exponents of liberalism and conservatism—the ideological conflict that has shaped American politics since the emergence of a mass movement on the right in the 1950s."
Originally posted by Kunsoo"Frankly" I have no idea. 😕
This editorial suggests that the match-up would force debates of a more stimulating and substantive character than debates of the past. I posted a few paragraphs. You have to take the link for the rest.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=630
I sincerely hope Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination for president: It could bring a healthy ...[text shortened]... y plan gives you free prescription drugs on weekends and holidays.”
More through the link
Originally posted by KunsooIt'll be good for me; an Obama-Gingrich election is a mismatch. Uther will be ponying up $50.
This editorial suggests that the match-up would force debates of a more stimulating and substantive character than debates of the past. I posted a few paragraphs. You have to take the link for the rest.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=630
I sincerely hope Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination for president: It could bring a healthy ...[text shortened]... y plan gives you free prescription drugs on weekends and holidays.”
More through the link
Originally posted by KunsooI think Obama will duck the challenge of those kinds of debates. In an Obama-Gingrich matchup, Obama has a big edge in charisma, lack of personal baggage, public speaking and looks. His strategists will know that it's their election to lose. The only way he can lose it is if Gingrich crushes him in debates and message. So, they'll spin the message and avoid real debates.
This editorial suggests that the match-up would force debates of a more stimulating and substantive character than debates of the past. I posted a few paragraphs. You have to take the link for the rest.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=630
I sincerely hope Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination for president: It could bring a healthy ...[text shortened]... y plan gives you free prescription drugs on weekends and holidays.”
More through the link
Obama is a bright guy and a good speaker, but he's not that quick on his feet. Plus, his record as President is so inconsistent and tough to defend in debate format. Gingrich, on the other hand, is unusually smart and it sharp as well (Paul Krugman can kiss my a**). If they have a real open debate, he could get seriously routed. The Obama team knows that perfectly well. They may take a bit of a hit for ducking the debate, but they know it's nothing like they hit they'd take if they get crushed in a debate.
It's kind of like the matching federal funds. The Obama team knew perfectly well that refusing matching funds last time was hypocritical and a clear breach of a plain promise. But they judged (correctly) that the hit on breaking his promise was not as great as the advantage of having the money edge. Same will be true here. Book it.
Originally posted by sh76I'll give this a thumbs up for obtrusive thoughtfulness.
I think Obama will duck the challenge of those kinds of debates. In an Obama-Gingrich matchup, Obama has a big edge in charisma, lack of personal baggage, public speaking and looks. His strategists will know that it's their election to lose. The only way he can lose it is if Gingrich crushes him in debates and message. So, they'll spin the message and avoid rea ...[text shortened]... s not as great as the advantage of having the money edge. Same will be true here. Book it.
Originally posted by sh76Avoid a real debate? You're joking. Obama speaks very intelligently and articulately in any interview or debate type environment.
I think Obama will duck the challenge of those kinds of debates. In an Obama-Gingrich matchup, Obama has a big edge in charisma, lack of personal baggage, public speaking and looks. His strategists will know that it's their election to lose. The only way he can lose it is if Gingrich crushes him in debates and message. So, they'll spin the message and avoid rea s not as great as the advantage of having the money edge. Same will be true here. Book it.
That whole "teleprompter" mantra is just the GOP spin to marginalize one of Obama's greatest strengths.
Originally posted by sh76As I understand it, Gingrich has talked about wanting Lincoln-Douglas style debates. In those, debaters are given a large bloc of time and then a chance to rebut the points raised by others. In essence, it's mutual speech-making. I fail to see how this wouldn't favor Obama who has made several memorable speeches while I have never heard of a Gingrich speech eliciting similar praise.
I think Obama will duck the challenge of those kinds of debates. In an Obama-Gingrich matchup, Obama has a big edge in charisma, lack of personal baggage, public speaking and looks. His strategists will know that it's their election to lose. The only way he can lose it is if Gingrich crushes him in debates and message. So, they'll spin the message and avoid rea ...[text shortened]... s not as great as the advantage of having the money edge. Same will be true here. Book it.
Im constantly surprised by the media's portrayal of Newt Gingrich as an exceptionally articulate intellectual, a portrayal which many liberal commentators puzzlingly seem to subscribe to. Virtually all of his most recent performances in debates and public utterances in general seem to lean more towards the hyperbolic and bombastic than anything else- hardly the kind of style one would associate with words like "intellectual" or "articulate".
Take the latest republican debate for example, what was it with those conspiracy theories about the Supreme Court subverting "American exceptionalism"? Or that disgraceful and gratuitously inflammatory comment about Palestinians being "an invented people"?
Originally posted by generalissimoI agree with you on substance but I have little faith in the general public to see past is hyperbolic nonsense, 90% of which is complete BS.
Im constantly surprised by the media's portrayal of Newt Gingrich as an exceptionally articulate intellectual, a portrayal which many liberal commentators puzzlingly seem to subscribe to. Virtually all of his most recent performances in debates and public utterances in general seem to lean more towards the hyperbolic and bombastic than anything else- h ...[text shortened]... ul and gratuitously inflammatory comment about Palestinians being "an invented people"?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperLMAO !😵😵😵😵
Avoid a real debate? You're joking. Obama speaks very intelligently and articulately in any interview or debate type environment.
That whole "teleprompter" mantra is just the GOP spin to marginalize one of Obama's greatest strengths.
Here is Barack Hussein Obama at a town hall meeting w/out his precious teleprompters. One of hundreds examples. No GOP spin here.
Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]LMAO !😵😵😵😵
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU
Here is Barack Hussein Obama at a town hall meeting w/out his precious teleprompters. One of hundreds examples. No GOP spin here.[/b]
Here's a 35 minute complete interview with Obama, and I can post many, many examples like it.
So we can ascertain that in order to make Obama look good I must post lengthy, complete material where he speaks off script. And in order to make him look bad you must post a 1 minute clip that splices together the worst moments out of the countless hours he has spoken on camera.
Thank you so much for making my point for me. I really appreciate it. 🙂
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
Originally posted by sh76Well, he pretty much crushed McCain in every debate, and I think McCain has more depth than Gingrich. In fact, really, Obama had only one poor showing in a debate, and that's when he lost his temper with Hillary Clinton in South Carolina.
I think Obama will duck the challenge of those kinds of debates. In an Obama-Gingrich matchup, Obama has a big edge in charisma, lack of personal baggage, public speaking and looks. His strategists will know that it's their election to lose. The only way he can lose it is if Gingrich crushes him in debates and message. So, they'll spin the message and avoid rea ...[text shortened]... s not as great as the advantage of having the money edge. Same will be true here. Book it.