Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let Chaos Reign!
Why have “controlled” debates at all? Curt Anderson, in today’s WSJ, suggests that we just let the candidates debate each other whenever and wherever they like.
The Republican Party should be looking forward instead of backward—and seeking every opportunity to feature its roster of excellent candidates, rather than trying to find ways to constrict the field. The voters will do that, as is their prerogative. The simple truth is that competitive primaries usually make a party stronger, not weaker.
He continues:
It’s also true that whenever the smart guys in Washington get together and try to shortcut the democratic process by imposing a candidate from the top down, it generally goes poorly. Whatever happened to the idea of freedom? Or democracy? Or robust argument? As a Republican, I wonder: When did we start fearing debates? And if we do fear debates, what business do we have trying to win elections?
[…]
Here’s a wild and controversial idea: Trust the voters. Let candidates debate whenever and wherever they want. Don’t try to control the process from Washington. Let freedom ring.
I think this is just right. All the candidates want air time now, and mini-debates under terms acceptable to the participants are a great way to get media coverage. Those debates could be in any format that people agree, from reality TV, to cage fighting.
You don’t need to have official membership in a terror group to be a terrorist. Why do you need the RNC or a news network to approve before you have a live argument with another candidate for President?
Image Credit: By Rosser1954 at en.wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Published in Politics
True – a balloon. An even closer analogy to presidential candidate debates!
This may seem like a stupid question, but why even have debates? I think the only purpose they service is to help the Democrat party narrative and tear down the Republican candidates.
Lack of oxygen? Inflated ego? Breaking the sound bite barrier? Where are you going with this? Freefall?
Perhaps the four sitting governors could call a “Sitting Governor’s debate” among themselves. This would be Kasich, Walker, Christie and Jindal. Set some simple ground rules, and choose a moderator.
The four sitting Senators could do the same – call their own debate. This would be Cruz, Rubio, Paul and Graham.
Both of these could have a lot of advantages: advancing the republican brand in general; taking the spotlight off Trump; bypassing the national media; taking the conversation back on key topics; exposure of the individual candidates in a forum of their choosing; and maybe even setting an agenda with the news media to ask the same questions of the democratic candidates.
I still hold the 2000 vice presidential debates as the standard. Sit down around a table, debate and talk respectfully. This is most likely to occur in these two groups, as they are colleagues.
Plus – wouldn’t you want to see these two groups in a forum like this?
Now that I think about it – there are four former governors, as well – Bush, Huckabee, Perry and Pataki.
While this may be a debate I wouldn’t watch, there would be a certain logic to those four debating.
Rob, we know you’re up in Alaska on the cruise, so when you and James are done taking selfies with the halibut, can you two talk this over and tell us what you think?
I agree with the collegial format suggested, but disagree with the division into sitting governors, etc.
There is something to having governors, senators, etc. educating each other about their respective experiences (or educating the public while the others watch).
I think this is a good point, and can happen after the field is winnowed down to a reasonable number. The other advantage to the “Sitting Governors” and “Sitting Senators” debate is that it leaves out all the fringe candidates, for a logical reason.
Plus the governors and the senators can (maybe) work out the details more smoothly among their colleagues.