On December 3, Newt Gingrich spoke to a town hall meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn in Staten Island, New York city. He took questions from the audience. Frank Morano asked him if he would consider a general election presidential debate that included all the candidates on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election. Gingrich replied that he would not do that, and that all minor party activity in 2012 would be helping Obama to win.
Typical.
Any idea if any of the “front-runners” from the GOP have said they would debate candidates from other parties?
“all minor party activity in 2012 would be helping Obama win.”
Sounds like someone is afraid that people won’t like his positions if compared with anyone outside the duopoly.
^
Probably Ron Paul.
One word for Gingrich.
Pussy.
Wow, more evidence that Newt Gingrich is an ass.
Check this out:
http://jcwitmer.blogspot.com/2011/12/if-you-vote-for-newt-gingrich-youre.html
If we had Approval Voting then there would be no vote splitting–ever. And Gingrich would not have an excuse to stifle political dialogue.
Further, polls using Approval Voting would give third parties and independents a more accurate measure of support. This more accurate measure of support under Approval Voting would help keep those candidates from being eschewed by debate forums and media like they are under Plurality. Third parties and independents need Approval Voting if they are to have a voice in single-winner elections.
Snoot seems to like his Lincoln-Douglas style debates – first with Cain and now with Huntsman (why?).
Here’s a format idea: Have bracket debates. Randomly pair candidates for Lincoln-Douglas style debates with any odd-man outs treated like a bye. Then have some secure way to determine the winner by honest vote – perhaps by American Idol style call-in. Winners get paired with winners and losers with losers for next debates. All questions to be unknown to participants and randomly selected. Questions to be in four categories: Economy (includes taxes, agriculture, energy), Social Issues, liberty & political freedom, and Foreign affairs/Sovereignty.
If the Debates Commission allows a third (or fourth) candidate to participate, Gingrich would have no choice. Gingrich would be represented by the “empty chair” that was set out for Jimmy Carter when Ronald Reagan and John Anderson debated without him in 1980. More recently, the commission has included candidates who average 15% national support in opinion polls.
That wasn’t The Commission on Presidential Debates that ordered the “empty chair” by mandating John B Anderson be included in the debates. That was The League of Women Voters. They no longer run the debates.
And the only reason that Perot was included in the ’92 debates was because both Clinton and Bush agreed in their contract that he could. See the book No Debate, by George Farah for the full story on the Commission.
Also, it’s nearly impossible for a third party or independent to poll at 15% without first being in the debates or literally being a billionaire. That’s because Plurality Voting gives third parties and independents an artificially low level of support. So don’t count on the Commission allowing a third party or independent candidate in the debates.
The MORON media and the worse SCOTUS has made the Prez into a god-monarch since 1932.
Which EVIL top Donkeys/Elephants are doing the most to have DIVIDE and CONQUER math (via 3rd parties and independents) in the marginal Electoral College gerrymander States/districts in 2012 ???
See the 1860 Prez election.
The EVIL top folks are obviously playing for PERMANENT control of the U.S.A. regime — by ANY MEANS possible.
——–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
ABOLISH the Electoral College and the Prez veto.
4 –
Not so.
Gingrich would be willing to face up to anyone…as long as they are dying of cancer and bed-ridden.
So much for the ‘leader of the free world’ title, eh.
5 –
Thanks for the link. Here’s a gem from Newt:
“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.”
Implicit in his statement is that only poor people are drug users.
In this piece this massive pile of shit also says that:
1) He’s all for federal might trumping states’ rights when it suits him,
2) We need to be “more aggressive” in our drug policies ($15 billion annually evidently isn’t aggressive enough for this “deficit hawk”)
3) “These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.” He lauds Ron Paul for having an “internally logical position” on drugs. I wonder if this pantload feels that abuse of alcohol is “American?” and what his internally logical position is for making certain drugs illegal while allowing alcohol to remain legal even though it is responsible for more death, more injuries, more crime, more broken marriages, more abusive behavior, more loss of productive work time, more miserable childhood experiences than any other substance?
How did this guy get the mantle of being some kind of “genius,” anyway?
I hope he does get the nomination. He’ll get destroyed.
#9 Given the unprecedented dissatisfaction with both major parties, an AE-nominated ticket could be hitting 15% this time. Would Newt refuse to debate if the Commission allowed the AE candidate to participate?
#14
Yes he can say no. The Commission on Presidential Debates is owned and run by Reps and Dems and engineered only for the benefit of Dem/Reps.
Brad — Of course he “can say no.” The question is “would he say no”? If the Commission says a third candidate can debate, Newt “would say no” at his political peril. The Commission would have to repudiate its own rules, and severely damage its credibility, to exclude a serious third party challenger. Andrea Mitchell just did a segment on NBC about 2012 being “very likely to feature a strong third party challenge.”
@14 Lee
It’s possible that an AE ticket could poll 15% (average over five national polls). But it’s unlikely. That’s even considering that third parties and independents tend to do a bit better in polls than in the actual election. I guess voters’ fears of spoilage and vote splitting overwhelm them at the last moment.
Also, the dissatisfaction with the major parties is high, but it isn’t unprecedented. Support for third parties over the major parties was higher before the last election than it is now (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147461/support-third-party-dips-majority-view.aspx).
Also be mindful that debate groups love to move the goal post. And sometimes they just deny people anyway. MSNBC did this to Kucinich in a debate held in Nevada during the last Democrat primary debate. Gary Johnson has pointed out that he has met polling criteria more than other candidates in this election season.
If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to deny candidates, then they will. They’ll do whatever the Democrat and Republican parties ask them to do. They draw up a contract every presidential campaign season doing just that. Now candidates can choose to debate without using the Commission. But why would they do that? Then they might have to do actual debating.
You should check out that No Debate book. It’s a quick read and the best book there is on this.
Well, all of us can speculate all we want. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. In any case, Newt as the GOP nominee should give a centrist third party challenger a bigger boost than if Mitt is the GOP nominee.
Of course all the comments are predictalbe complaining about third parties not being allowed into the debates.
Maybe correct but also boring.
Far more interesting is Gingrich’s claim that third party activity benefits Obama.
Ridiculous.
Rock Anderson hurts Obama. Unity 08 could hypothetically go either way but really, a corporatist technocrat is going to have a platform identicle to Obama’s that won’t have anything (tax cuts or abortion banning) to appeal to Republicans.
Since Americans Elect will be ahead of the Republicans (and possibly also the Democrats) in the polls Neut’s words now should be held against him when he, being third in the polls, begs to debate the AE candidate and President Obama.
20:
Yes, I agree 100%! Then Newt would have to eat crow!
My memory tells me that the rules in 1992 allowed a candidate who polled at least 5% in several national polls to participate in presidential debates. Then after Perot qualified and was allowed to debate, the Commission changed the requirement to 15% to make sure such a thing wouldn’t happen again. Does anyone else remember it like this?
I got news for Newt: third party candidates aren’t keeping me from voting for Republicans, Republicans are keeping me from voting for Republicans. If Newt and Barack are the only two on the ballot, I’ll write in Clint Eastwood!
#22, your memory is fooling you. The Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987, and its original rule was that no one could be in its debates unless that person had a realistic chance of being elected. That rule got lots of criticism because it was so vague, so in 1992 they changed it to 15%, and that has been the rule ever since.
Perot dropped out of the 1992 election in July, but he came back in on October 1, 1992. Because he had dropped out, he was only at 7% in the polls. Therefore, he could not qualify under the Commission’s rule. But because both President George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, wanted Perot in the debates, they forced to Commission to let Perot in, even though he didn’t comply with the rule. That just shows that the Commission is a lackey for the two major parties. Both Clinton and Bush wanted Perot in the debates because each one of them thought that Perot’s being in the debates would benefit themselves. Because Perot severely criticized President Bush in all 3 debates, and never said a word of criticism against Clinton, it turned out that Clinton was smarter about Perot’s effect than Bush had been.
It turned out, according to exit polls, that Perot drew exactly evenly from Clinton and Bush — 38 percent from each.
# 25 How many folks LIE to the MORON pollsters ???
Do the MORON pollsters somehow have LIE detectors — EVER — in 1776, 1860, 1992, 2011 ???
Awesome post
What happens if Gingrich doesn’t get on all the primary ballots? Is that a legitimate possibility for him?
Speaking of the Lincoln-Douglas style debates, is there a historian among us (Richard may know regardless) who knows of whether there was a 3rd party nominee for the U.S. Senate from Illinois in 1858 who obviously was left out of those debates and history has forgotten? Was the Free-Soil Party or the American Party active in Illinois during this era? Just curious.
@29 – I’m having a hard time finding information about other parties running for the General Assembly in Illinois.
Senators weren’t elected by popular election until the passage of the 17th Amendment. The Legislatures chose the Senators with Lincoln & Douglas being the likely Senator if their party won control of the Legislature. Lincoln & Douglas made several campaign stops around the State and after being in the same cities around the same time,decided to have 3 debates.
I’m not sure what other parties had candidates in enough districts to possibly win control of the Legislature.
12/05/2011
ARE THEY ONE OF US?
by Robert W. Peck
Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington
Is it just me, or is the Presidential election cycle starting earlier
and earlier? I mean since when do you hold Presidential primary debates
before you’ve even had the preceding year’s general election? It was
getting downright confusing for a while there, hearing people talking in
the same breath about candidates that were running in different
elections in different years. Nevertheless, the Presidential election
cycle is upon us and people are talking about it and I find myself
compelled to weigh in.
Wherever I go, people are abuzz with speculation and hype about this
candidate or that — “I hear this one’s pretty good,” or “that one
sounds really conservative,” or “they say he’s a Christian — maybe he’s
God’s man!” I’m sorry, but I wish that Christians and conservatives
would get themselves an objective standard to measure things by rather
than continually resorting to the subjective, emotional, gobbledygook
guess work of “I hear is; they say that; some think this; I feel that.”
I mean really, does anyone honestly believe this is how our nation’s
founders conducted their business and made the decisions that determined
the rise or fall of the nation?
If we must begin talking now about next year’s Republican Presidential
prospects, then may I ask that we at least talk about them in relation
to some sort of standard that we can measure them by. To that end, I
would like to refer you to a series of ’Constitutional Report Cards’ on
the Republican Presidential debates that have been generated by Vision
Forum Ministries, a ministry known and respected for their understanding
of and commitment to Biblical Christianity and the original intent of
our nation’s founding documents. At the time of this writing, report
cards have been generated for six of the debates. The report cards,
which include a grade for each candidate on each topic addressed, can be
found at http://www.visionforumministries.org
Admittedly, the report cards might not be a perfect representation of
the candidates views as they are based on answers given in debates,
which are not always complete answers as they are limited by time.
Nevertheless, after reviewing six report cards, a definite pattern is
beginning to emerge with the following grades being an average of the
six report cards.
Rick Perry: D
Ron Paul: B
Michele Bachmann: C
Rick Santorum: F
John Huntsman: D-
Mitt Romney: F
Herman Cain: D (dropped out, but still relevant for comparison)
Newt Gingrich: F
These are the candidates grades as compared with a strict
constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution — the document to which
each of these candidates seek to pledge their oath of allegiance on
Inauguration Day in 2013. With one exception, it’s hard for me to see
why any Constitutionally minded Americans would be getting particularly
excited about this field of candidates, unless of course you’re the type
who revels in the animating contest of mediocrity.
Nevertheless, I hear the hints of excitement here and the allusions to
conservative rhetoric emanating from a candidate there, as Christians
and conservatives attempt to work themselves up to hope against hope
that someone in this field will be able to carry the banner of
’conservatism’ and save them from the feared and dreaded Obama monster.
As a Christian and a Constitutionist and as one who remembers what the
tenets of conservatism used to be, I’m not inclined to get excited about
any candidate for public office until I hear them addressing what I
consider to be “The Real Issues,” e.g:
* Audit, then abolish, the unconstitutional Federal Reserve.
* Return to sound, Constitutional money backed by gold.
* Abolish the IRS and put a stop to the misapplication of the income
tax onto the wages of individuals.
* Bring our troops home from any and all military actions around the
world that are not part of a Congressional declaration of war.
* Withdraw from the United Nations and remove the United Nations from
the U.S.
* End deficit spending, balance the budget and stop selling future
generations into bondage.
* Secure the borders and end illegal immigration.
* Stop regulating U.S. businesses to death. Stop rewarding
corporations for moving overseas. Bring jobs — real jobs —
manufacturing jobs — back to the U.S.
* No corporate bailouts, no corporate buyouts and no corporate welfare.
* Return the federal government to performing only those few functions
enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and
begin dismantling every extra-Constitutional federal department,
agency and program, the list of which would be too long to print here.
* Wipe the slate of all previously issued executive orders
(Presidential directives) and remind bureaucrats everywhere that
nothing has the force of law unless Congress passed it, the
President signed it and its authorized in the U.S. Constitution.
Those are just the few items that pop into my head without having to
think very hard. I’m sure there are plenty more.
These are the issues that once served as the bedrock of conservatism and
they are the issues that must be addressed if we are even half way
serious about returning to a Constitutional form of government,
preserving liberty and ever regaining any real prosperity.
I recently heard a presentation by independent, Constitutionally minded
talk radio host, Sam Bushman. While addressing a group of
Constitutionists, Sam recited a list of issues similar to the one above,
then pointed out that ’if they’re not talking about these issues,
they’re not one of us.’
So I have to ask, of all the candidates running (and not just for
President), even if they are running with an “R” after their name, or
the title of “Conservative” bestowed upon them, how many of them are
addressing these fundamental issues that determine freedom or oppression
for we the people and spell life or death for our republic? All God
honoring, freedom loving Americans who have any amount of appreciation
for the principles that our nation was founded upon, need to be asking
themselves this question — if a candidate is not publicly addressing
these core issues and is not overtly proclaiming these most basic
Constitutional policies, then are they really “One of us?” And if
they’re not really “One of us,” then why would we waste our time, our
money or our vote supporting them?
*Addendum*
While I’m on the topic of ’whether they’re one of us’ – I recently
heard Republican U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida on the Sean
Hanity radio program. Senator Rubio is looked to by many as one of
the best examples of conservatism in Congress. During the 15 minute
segment, I did not hear one of the items on my list of key issues
even alluded to, much less committed to. Though there was plenty of
talk about so called “conservative” answers to our nation’s
problems, there was not one direct reference to what the plain text
of the Constitution says about the issues of our day. Everything was
about how bad the Democrats are and how Republican’s want to fix
things by lessening the oppressiveness of the unconstitutional
things the federal government is doing, such as to “flatten” the tax
rate rather than eliminate the abhorrent and unconstitutional
misapplication of the income tax onto wages. I don’t expect people
to address every item on my list in every interview or acknowledge
our Creator and His moral laws in every conversation. Nevertheless,
when two of the top ’conservative’ personalities of our day can talk
for 15 minutes without addressing any of the things that Christians
and Constitutionalists should deem key to our nation’s survival, you
really have to wonder whether they’re one of us.
If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and
publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will?
© Robert W. Peck
Robert Peck lives in Spokane Valley,
Washington where he owns and manages residential rental properties. He
serves as the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington
and as Western Area Co-Chairman
for the Constitution Party National
Committee.
Pingback: Newt Gingrich Says He Will Not Debate Any General Election Presidential Candidate Except President Obama | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#28 Clay: It’s already known that Gingrich is not on the primary ballot in Missouri. However, that’s just a “beauty contest” primary and doesn’t award any delegates — the delegates from Missouri are awarded based on caucuses which take place in March.
How not entering any particular primary would affect Newt (say, if being on the ballot requires petition signatures and he isn’t able to get them) would depend on what primary it is, when it takes place, whether other primaries that he is in take place the same day, whether he is able to get write-in votes in the primary, and who wins the primary if Newt is not on the ballot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates
7 Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858.
1860 Divide and Conquer math got Lincoln chosen to be Prez.
Due to nonstop LOOTING of the regime Treasuries (Fed/ State/ local) by ALL of the special interest gangs, the situation NOW is even more dangerous than in 1860.
The special interest LOOTER gangs DEMAND $$$ — from taxes and borrowing.
i.e. See the ROT of the Roman Republic in 127 B.C. to 27 B.C. — civil wars, purges, etc. etc.
——-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
There is a way to guaranteed a satisfaction level of 66.66% plus two votes.
There is a way to guarantee a satisfaction level of 66.66% plus two votes.
35, 36 – Lemme guess – everybody votes twice?
The primaries should be one-on-one. Tournament-style elections would wake the electorate up. This would be a quick way to get rid of the spoiler effect, since each primary would have 2 candidates.
So, if you have 3 candidates, running for a seat in Congress, each county has a 2-person primary, with the 3rd candidate qualifying for the next round. If 3 candidates are running for Senate, each Congressional District or county has a 2-person primary, with the 3rd candidate qualifying for the next round.