OK, let me poll *my* readership…

…since other sites are: do we need more primary debates?  I certainly don’t want any more, given that at this point I can feel my IQ points ablate away with every new one.  And I can’t imagine that any more of them will move the needle at this point.

I could, however, be wrong. Thoughts?

Written by in: Politics | Tags:


  • Catseye says:

    Not unless we get more candidates.

  • Walt says:

    I believe you are correct. At this point, it’s like watching Potsie sing “Pump Your Blood” every week on Happy Days.

  • bkeyser says:

    Only if they spend an hour and a half on the Justice Department and at least half of that on Fast and Furious.

  • Ell C says:

    We’ve not yet had a debate. Would be nice to have a few REAL ones.

  • Kay B. Day says:

    Well, since you asked, lol.

    Yes, I think we do. But we don’t need any more of these showbiz,National Enquirer level tabloid debates.

    Fast and Furious, Agenda 21, energy loans gone crony, the size of government overall, the relevance of government’s size to liberty and property (as in taxes), the repealed provisions of ObamaCare (the 1099 and the CLASS).

    What we need is a substantive debate. We have seen only 1 1/2 of that.

  • Jeff says:

    No. Not unless rational questions regarding Obama’s job performance (i.e.: Fast & Furious, Keystone XL, GM & Chrysler bailout, etc) are the ONLY things that are allowed to be referenced. Also, it must be hosted by known conservatives (Rush, Hannity, Medved, Erickson, etc.) No more nut job libs. Why are they allowed to **** up OUR primary process even more than we already do?

  • Phineas says:

    Mmmm… No.At least, not any that include a)Ron Paul and b) liberal moderators advancing their own agenda.

    Guess that means no more debates.

  • Ric Locke says:


    There were debates?

    Gee. Well, the cats disconnected my TV some time in the summer of 2010, and the satellite subscription ran out about the same time, and I haven’t bothered correcting either “problem”, so I guess I’ve missed a lot. Debates, huh? Sounds dumb.


  • Demosthenes says:

    No. Just…no.

  • PubliusNV says:

    Only if the “debates” are handled like Mike Huckabee has done on his show. I especially like the first one he did, where the candidates were questioned one at a time by three state attorneys general.

  • Finrod says:

    I’ll be contrary here and say yes, more debates. Preferably ones without a moderator where the candidates talk to each other directly.

  • Catseye says:

    Yes, Romney choosing to run away form a debate where he and Gingrich sit at a table and discuss the issues is most telling. Is he afraid of coming off as too Liberal or too Conservative?

  • Aruges says:

    No new debates until we get new candidates.

  • MikeCG says:

    No more debates, at least in the manner in which they have been previously conducted. However, I am all in favor of “debates” that more resemble joint press conferences focusing on just how awful the Obama administration is. THAT I could get behind.

  • Christine says:

    Not moderated by fluff media types. Now, you tell me there’s a debate moderated by someone on the RIGHT who will ask the questions we care about and push back on dumb answers…I’d support several of those.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com