“Lincoln-Douglas” and “Romney Giuliani ” debates
http://reason4romney.blog…ly-debates.html
Hugh Hewitt joined me in calling for a “Lincoln-Douglas” type debate.
As I said; “Lincoln and Douglas had 7 debates. Each debate had this format: one candidate spoke for an hour and a half, then the other candidate spoke for two hours, and then the first candidate spoke for a half hour. The candidates alternated going first. That is 4 hours each debate, with 7 debates, and a total of 28 hours of debate, for just two candidates.”
Lincoln and Douglas weren’t even trying to become president at the time. They were just trying to become Illinois senators. The American presidency is too important to let the media determine who will be POTUS in 2008. These times are more complicated.
We need a substantive debate. I don’t want to hear a Romney ad, and I sure don’t want to see McCain or Giuliani ads. Nothing worth saying can be said in 60 seconds. We need hours of debate. For the good of the nation Romney, and Giuliani should commit to at least as much debate as Lincoln and Douglas, or 14 hours of talking from each candidate. 28 hours of debate between the two of them.
Do you agree with me? If you support Rudy, can you try and get him to com-Mitt (ha-ha) to this? Those who know Mitt Romney (not I) can you get him to talk to Rudy about this?
I would like to see Hillary or Barak involved too.
Here is Hugh’s article.
~ Mike
February 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
My first thought is that as much as I like that idea, Giuliani would never go for it. He has much to lose and very little to gain, and he knows it.
I think times are very different today as well. News and media spread so rapidly and are so accessible that you can find out many things about a candidate by checking the internet. In their time debates were probably not just the chief means of getting to know a candidate, but one of the only ways to do so.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
You say Giuliani would never go for it. And that he has little to gain and much to lose. So do you think he will win in our current system? If not in the primaries, would he go for it in a debate between the democrat? I think you assume that Giuliani, and Romney are only motivated out of self interest. There might not be a lot in it for them, but there is a lot in it for our country. It would help our country very much to have a very public debate.
I also disagree about the change in times. They had newspapers in those days. John Adams and his wife, were more educated than most citizens today. They recorded the entire transcript of the debates, and had them published across the country the day after… they weren’t just re-hashing the same old material in different spots… it was an intelligent continuation of where they left off in the last debate…
The point is, that they went much more into depth than we do today. There is no depth in our debates. There is just stupid repeating of slogans. Nate. Just look at the transcripts. Compare what happened then to what happened in our last election. It is pathetic.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
No way. Just way too much time. I can’t stand hearing just one person more than 20 minutes.
I would suggest a format with no time limit however. Let them talk as much and as long as they want. Just don’t let them talk more than 5 minutes straight.