-
Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks
June 18, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Do Beyonce & Jay-Z Understand The “Complexities” of Syria?
June 18, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What’s So Moderate About Iran’s New President?
June 15, 2013 | 9 comments
-
When Did The Obama Admin Know Syria Was Using Chemical Weapons?
June 14, 2013 | 15 comments
-
If Erdogan’s Hold On Power is Threatened
June 13, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
So let me see if I have this straight. Quin Hillyer is now claiming that Newt Gingrich is arrogant and committing an act of “bad karma” because he challenged Mitt Romney to a one on one debate. He claims that Gingrich’s challenge to Romney to a one on one debate GOP debate is no different than George H.W. Bush insisting that John Anderson, Phil Crane, Bob Dole and Howard Baker be excluded from the stage during his one on one debate with Ronald Reagan in Nashua shortly before the 1980 New Hampshire GOP Primary.
I think some historical perspective is in order here. During the 1980 campaign, there were a grand total of six Republican debates all of which took place between January and April 1980. It is worth noting that Reagan skipped the first debate held in Des Moines on January 6th and his absence would cost him as Bush would upset Reagan in the Iowa caucuses just over two weeks later. Reagan would not make the same mistake in New Hampshire and participated in the next GOP debate on February 20th in Manchester along with Bush, Anderson, Connally, Crane, Dole and Baker.
Seventy-two hours later all hell would break loose twenty miles south in Nashua. Yet it is worth remembering that particular debate was initially sponsored by The Nashua Telegram and they only issued invitations to Reagan and Bush. The Federal Elections Commission ruled the newspaper couldn’t sponsor the debate without extending invitations to all candidates. So Reagan put up the money to sponsor the debate (which is why he could later say he was paying for the microphone.) But why would Reagan put up the money if he wasn’t interested in a one on one debate with Bush? Indeed, the other candidates initially directed their anger towards Reagan, not Bush. The Reagan campaign’s decision to include the other candidates came only hours before the debate was scheduled to begin and neither Bush nor The Nashua Telegram would budge. Of course, as it turned out, the debate itself was anti-climatic. With the audience and the Nashua Four applauding in approval with Bush sitting there not knowing what had hit him, The Gipper won the debate before it had begun.
Now let’s fast forward to the present day. If we keep in mind that Republicans had only six debates in 1980, the sixth GOP debate for the 2012 campaign took place on September 12, 2011. In all there were 16 GOP debates in 2011 not including the one one one debates Newt had with Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman. Were they guilty of bad karma for agreeing to debate Newt one on one? With ten more debates scheduled to take place between January and March 2012, the Republican candidates are not exactly lacking for exposure and Newt can hardly be accused of seeking to exclude them especially when he has been prepared to engage them individually.
Newt Gingrich is prepared to face Mitt Romney in a debate any time, any place. Newt has twice challenged Romney to debate him one on one. He did so when he was ahead of Romney in the polls and has done so again now that he is behind Romney in the polls. Mitt Romney has twice said no to Newt. This is a mistake on Romney’s part. If Romney thinks he’s the best candidate in the field then there’s no reason he can’t (to use one of Quin’s favorite words) eviscerate Newt in a debate. If he can do so then he sews up the Republican nomination. But Romney’s refusal to debate Newt only causes already existing doubts to linger. After all, if Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum can debate Newt one on one then why can’t Mitt? Could it be that Mittens knows he can’t lay a glove on Newt?
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/24/gop-debates-then-now
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 12.24.11 @ 2:06AM
Like Michele Bachmann said, " Newt-Romney Aren't True Conservatives."
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Ruling Elite And Their Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The RINO-CINO'S , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Tenn Slim| 12.24.11 @ 8:50AM
I would hope that Ron P. Huntsman, or even a revived Sarah P. comes out of the wood work to offer some level of gutsy competition to Obama.
As I see it, the 2012 elections, if held, will be a narrow victory for O. Depression follows.
Semper FI
Clint| 12.24.11 @ 9:25AM
" Donald Trump Bolts Republican Party, Eyeing Other 2012 Options
Donald Trump is officially a man without a party.
The real estate mogul whose flirtation with the 2012 presidential race has never really ended despite announcing seven months ago he would not seek the Republican nomination has been signaling he wants to find other ways onto a presidential ticket.
Trump took another step in that direction on Thursday, switching his party affiliation from Republican to “unaffiliated,” according to a source close to the reality television star.
According to the source, he did so because he is “disgusted” with the way Republicans are handling matters in Washington, including the recent payroll tax cut deal. But the move also sets Trump up for a potential third-party run for president — a possibility he began talking about almost as soon as he told his fans in May he wasn’t running."
RJ| 12.24.11 @ 2:51AM
Romney is a play-it-safe kind of a guy. That defensive-mindedness won't win in 2012. If he made it through, he probably would be a president like Boehner is as a speaker. A guy who keeps finding himself trapped in the ally and getting rolled.
We need some one who has the smarts and the courage to clearly express a conservative alternative to Obama. Right now the only guy with a strong record of achievement is Newt. Yes, he has negatives, but who else is better when it comes to past achievements and communication skills?
Bob Buoy| 12.24.11 @ 7:48AM
Why would you agree to a debate when the media will proclaim Newt as the smartest man in the room no matter what nonsense he spews? Nonsense? how about "let's get rid of the EPA and replace it with an Environmental Solutions Agency", Such genius! Ridiculous. He spouts off proclamations sprinkled with historical reference so he sounds smart. Listen more carefully. His immigration citizen councils are a very bad idea. A liberal city will have loose rules and be a magnet for illegals. His idea to eliminate judges whose decision he disagrees (and would ignore!) sounds good until you realize that Liberals could then do the same when in power. Many more examples without even going into his questionable ethics. Newt would be a disaster as Prez.
Dai Alanye | 12.25.11 @ 1:06PM
All the decisions on debates by each and every candidate are strategical in nature. Those who feel they can talk their way into anything wish to debate, while those who are less confident chose a different strategy.
Newt's eagerness to blather is based on his belief that he can sell iceboxes to Eskimos. It's similar to Obama's conceit that he can kowtow to the world's villains, using his superior intelligence to turn enemies into friends. It strongly resembles Carter's dream of kissing every dictator.
In other words, Newt's confidence is based on ego, pure and simple. Carter was wrong in his dependence on personal magnetism, Obama has been proven wrong in the belief that his silver tongue can change the world, and Gingrich will inevitably be proven wrong as well. Even "kinder and gentler" was a failure, you might recall.
By now this nation ought to be sick of talkers - a category in which I'm forced to put many of the candidates - and searching full time for a doer. Hint: It probably isn't Gingrich, and certainly isn't some joker with the initials RP.
martin j smith| 12.24.11 @ 8:08AM
Yet another reason why Romneyi s a bad choice and I do not support him. He is a coward as is the rest of the Republican Leadershit.
Tenn Slim| 12.24.11 @ 8:47AM
Absolutely, Mitt would come out so badly in this type of Newt/Mitt debate, that the GOP RHINOs would explode.
Never going to happen. Smooth, easy, no trip ups, Mitt goes against Pres O, Obama wins, albeit with a possible Supreme Court action, and the Nation goes into Depression.
Do you have your Fiscal house in order, do you have the 3 weeks of food stocks, are you prepared to stand in the coming Dole Lines for food...
Semper Fi
teflon93| 12.24.11 @ 9:18AM
Mitt Romney is an empty suit and a coward. He won't debate Gingrich because he believes Gingrich would crush him.
PattyMor| 12.24.11 @ 9:40AM
Mitten's strategy is to say a little as possible and sit back and wait, and wait, and wait. What is he waiting for? For Michelle and Rick Perry to fade and for Herman Cain to be sliced and diced. What's he got left? Newt is a solid debater. Romney would NEVER volunteer to debate him one on one. Too risky. Ron Paul is a crank with a dangerous view on Iran with a history of "letters" that he can't really walk away from--after all, they went out under his name. Who's left? Rick Santorum and the perfectly coifed Jon Huntsman.
Neither got on the Virginia ballot.
Charles Martel| 12.24.11 @ 9:45AM
How about this idea, Aaron- Let's have Perry debate Romney one on one, followed by Bachmann vs. Santorum, and Paul vs. Huntsman. Just why do all of these one on one debates have to include Gingrich? It's clear that he wants to showcase his debating skills. Unfortunately for him, we're not choosing a Debater-in-Chief, we're choosing a commander in chief, and he is the wrong person to carry the conservative banner for a host of reasons to long to mention here. Newt hopes that his debating skills will carry him to ultimate victory- in fact, he is probably the least electable candidate from the perspective of a general election audience. Get over your Newt preoccupation- Let's get a more reliable conservative ( Perry, Bachmann, Santorum) without the character and ethical issues.
albert constantine jr.| 12.24.11 @ 1:21PM
Joyeux Noël, CM.
Bob Grant| 12.24.11 @ 10:03AM
I say let The View gals host a debate.
Whoopie, Baaabaa, the non descript large black gal who has no name, Joey, and the squishy-but-cute RINO lady are the only ones who can flesh out the candidates' positions.
Baabaa can ask what kind of trees they would like to be; Whoopie can ask if they have any homosexual/racist tendencies - she might even out a few; the non-descript black gal can blend into the woodwork and still manage to draw a paycheck; Joey can annoy one of the candidates to the point of getting punched in the face; and the squishy conservative gal can whine about being treated unfairly.
Oh the shrieking and yelling.
It would be a hoot.
MikeG| 12.24.11 @ 1:01PM
Newt can debate himself since he has so many different views.
lj| 12.24.11 @ 2:10PM
Why would you support someone (Newt) who can't even manage a campaign? Do you think he would be able to manage the country. I don't think so! Give it up!
teflon93| 12.24.11 @ 6:42PM
It certainly beats supporting somebody who can't even handle Brett Baier.
Bob Grant| 12.25.11 @ 9:27AM
Managing a campaign is overrated in my book.
Obama was considered to have managed his campaign 'brilliantly', which pretty much puts an end to your argument.
Mitchell | 12.24.11 @ 7:10PM
You lost me when you called Romney "Mittens".
All in all, a dumb column.
Dan| 12.25.11 @ 8:09AM
Not a dumb column. It clearly made you uncomfortable because Aaron all but dismissed Romney as a serious candidate. But your preferences notwithstanding, Romney is a flawed candidate, and he's being carried by a media that is holding fire on him, and being carried by establishment publications that refuse to focus their attention on those flaws.
Dan| 12.25.11 @ 8:06AM
I have one small problem with Aaron's post.
That would be his close, where he observes that Romney's failure to debate only causes "existing doubts to linger."
We're WAY PAST having mere "doubts" about Romney.
We KNOW that he would be a disaster as a candidate and a disaster in office, were he by some miracle to prevail in the general. Our situation is such that no play-it-safe, go-along-to-get-along can possibly succeed.
He intends to make the establishment comfortable, when that establishment is the ORIGIN of the problem.
He would be a disaster.
Clint| 12.25.11 @ 8:55AM
But while the establishment may be ready, in the name of party unity, to look past the former governor’s flaws—the flip-flops, the heresies (Romneycare!), the stiffness, the excessive hair product—out among the grassroots, the mood remains less forgiving.
“Just as none of the candidates want to talk about being vice president, there is no way on God’s green earth I will think about Romney getting the nod,” Gregg Cummings, Iowa coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, emailed me. “We the people are doing all we can to get a true conservative in the White House, and Romney is not that person.”
The group’s cofounder and national coordinator, Mark Meckler, similarly rejects the idea that Romney is about to dominate the contest. “What you’re talking about is the conventional wisdom,” he contends. “If people were listening to the conventional wisdom, Barack Obama would not have become our president,” he says, noting that all the “traditional money and power” in 2008 were aligned with Hillary Clinton.
The Patrician RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney Is The RINO-CINO,Who Has Tried To Sell Us The Crap Sandwiches Of RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Bob Grant| 12.25.11 @ 9:35AM
Clint,
Have you ever considered supporting a younger version of Ron Paul?
Maybe if y'all in the Tea Party and Libertarian movements (of which I'm supportive) would begin the process of grooming a younger generation of leaders your base of support would grow?
Instead you've got this cranky guy in his mid seventies serving his 25th term in congress who has not been able to grow the movement one wit.
Could the problem be the messenger and not the message?
No, the Tea Party Rebellion is NOT here; only wishful thinking.