Comments on: Real Debates with Real Candidates

By: legaleagle

legaleagle — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:34:42 +0000

Actually, I think that if Bush had been more articulate and able to give quick, glib responses, he'd have been able to inspire more confidence Yea. Here's another way to put it: If Bush weren't such a fantastically ignorant half-wit and a petulant imbecile, American democracy might not be in the toilet and the United States might not be the most widely reviled nation on the planet Earth

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:05:13 +0000

Nor, frankly, is it clear that being a good debater — which mostly requires the ability to think on your feet and give quick, glib responses — has much to do with being an effective president.

Actually, I think that if Bush had been more articulate and able to give quick, glib responses, he'd have been able to inspire more confidence early on and do a better job of selling his programs than he's obviously done. It's not the whole job but in this day of the 24 hour news cycle and the Internet it's certainly part of the job.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:03:04 +0000

Make sure Kucinich isn't allowed in the debates.
We wouldn't want any Americans to learn something.

By: Adam Herman

Adam Herman — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:45:36 +0000

There are some guys who are obviously fringe(Tancredo, Kucinich), but before anyone wants to reduce the fields to three or four, keep in mind that this time in 2003, John Kerry was fifth in the polls.

Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls this time in 1991.

Any governor or Senator should be considered a legitimate candidate automatically. Others, if they are raising enough money and polling well enough, could be considered legit. of those, probably only Paul qualifies.

By: digger

digger — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:55:17 +0000

it's true, trotting 10 people on stage so they can do what, show us how well they can respond in 30 seconds to questions of national importance is ridiculous. fewer candidates would be better. lincoln style debates would be better. but i think that limiting it to who's "realistic" is the wrong way to think about it. i don't want networks or beltway pundits deciding who's "realistic". instead, hold a round robin where a tancredo squares off against a ron paul, a giuliani against a thompson, etc. newt gingrich and mario cuomo talk about the concept at ScribeMedia.Org.

By: floyd

floyd — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:38:30 +0000

Real debates are far beyond the comprehension and attention span of an electorate favoring hillary & obama.

By: Flo

Flo — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:58:58 +0000

Ron Paul may be the fastest runner ever to run for president (I’m told he ran a 9.7 second 100-yard dash back in the day), but all his campaign is accomplishing is reminding us that Internet polls aren’t exactly scientific.

And the Scientific polls are not honest since they just leave Ron Paul out of the Poll and give media attention to who they decide should win.