To be fair, Perry has a point. None of these debates makes any sense from a campaign standpoint. They aren't exactly dealing with serious issues(or least seriously dealing with real issues). They have only worked to draw out the worst in candidates and the party in general. The primaries are two months away, and none of these candidates can spent time in the states. Finally, it gives candidates like Cain, Gingrich and Frothy leverage to still be in the race since they don't have to spend vast sums of money on field organizing.

These debates have created a GOP politics based on "Campaigning out of a suitcase." Perry is the only conservative in the race running an actual political campaign, everyone else is running from soundbite to soundbite.

WTF Indeed: Finally, it gives candidates like Cain, Gingrich and Frothy leverage to still be in the race since they don't have to spend vast sums of money on field organizing.

How is that bad?

WTF Indeed: They have only worked to draw out the worst in candidates and the party in genera

Because they have no true substance, and their stance all critical issues are really nothing to be proud of.

In other words, the debates are doing their job which runs counter to the interests of these shillscandidates.

Party of Lincoln indeed.

WTF Indeed: To be fair, Perry has a point. None of these debates makes any sense from a campaign standpoint. They aren't exactly dealing with serious issues(or least seriously dealing with real issues). They have only worked to draw out the worst in candidates and the party in general. The primaries are two months away, and none of these candidates can spent time in the states. Finally, it gives candidates like Cain, Gingrich and Frothy leverage to still be in the race since they don't have to spend vast sums of money on field organizing.

These debates have created a GOP politics based on "Campaigning out of a suitcase." Perry is the only conservative in the race running an actual political campaign, everyone else is running from soundbite to soundbite.

Did you just say that debates are bad because they give candidates with not a lot of campaign money an equal playing field with candidates who do have a lot of campaign money?

If it annoys him that much, he can bring a gun to the debate and have a Real American Mexican standoff.

chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

Like Jon Stewart said last night, Pat Roberston doesn't have a problem with the crazy things the Republican candidates are saying. He has a problem with the fact that they are saying them publicly.

tomcatadam: WTF Indeed: They have only worked to draw out the worst in candidates and the party in genera

Because they have no true substance, and their stance all critical issues are really nothing to be proud of.

In other words, the debates are doing their job which runs counter to the interests of these shillscandidates.

This, mostly. If they had a leg to stand on on most/all of their positions, debates wouldn't be a problem. But just like they say sunlight is the best disinfectant, these debates just illustrate clearly how inept these candidates are, overall.

Granted there is a large percentage of people who think these are going well, but those people are likely morons.

SmackLT: I do agree generally that debates cater to people that speak and debate well. I'm a much better at writing than speaking, and I imagine there are a lot of people who might be good candidates, but lose debates because they simply don't have the verbal skills of their opponent.

That said, the fact that Rick Perry doesn't debate well isn't what makes him an idiot.

Well, to be honest, if someone speaks poorly, they probably shouldn't be President of the United States.

And I'm not talking slight mangling of words like W, he could at least get his ideas across, as poor as they were. If people have no clue what you're talking about, don't be our president.

WTF Indeed: They aren't exactly dealing with serious issues

You've described everyone in higher office. The debates are just a reflection of the idiocy going on every day.

stance *on all critical issues.

SmackLT: I do agree generally that debates cater to people that speak and debate well. I'm a much better at writing than speaking, and I imagine there are a lot of people who might be good candidates, but lose debates because they simply don't have the verbal skills of their opponent.

There's a good chance that, if you can't be concise with your points and ideas (yes, an economic plan will be far too detailed to properly discuss in a short debate question-answer form, but you can give a gist of the goal of it rather easily) you probably aren't going to be able to explain them effectively to your cabinet either.

Almost nothing asked in these debates should have been unexpected, or something to be unprepared for.

Unless they have ulterior motivations and considerations (i.e. corporate) that they can't risk upsetting.

Tigger: There's just so many difficult choices to be made. What if I like women to get cancer, want innocent people executed AND think we should remove the rights of american citizens based on sexual preference.

Look, let's not got our panties in a bunch, I think serious attention should be paid to people who want to languish in a coma too.

WTF Indeed: These debates have created a GOP politics based on "Campaigning out of a suitcase."

How is that the fault of the debates and not the fault of the individual candidates or their respective campaigns--or frankly the people that vote for them? These cretins aren't throwing out soundbites full of crazy in the debates for shiats and giggles--they're doing it because it's what their voters want to hear.

Car_Ramrod: Well, to be honest, if someone speaks poorly, they probably shouldn't be President of the United States.

There is a point to what he's saying; complex issues don't have simple answers.
Hell, the answers they do have often won't have simple summaries or paraphrases either.

But they should be able to give an idea of what they're trying to do at the very least.

The problem with the GOP is that they're trying to balance the utter inanity and insanity of their ideas/platforms with the concerns/considerations of their corporate financiers, their crazy base, the moderates they need to win, and the possibility of their competition - not just the other GOPers - using what they say against them.

Of course, a valid and moral candidate who actually believed in their position wouldn't have a problem with this.

tricycleracer: chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

Like Jon Stewart said last night, Pat Roberston doesn't have a problem with the crazy things the Republican candidates are saying. He has a problem with the fact that they are saying them publicly.

And he said:

First rule of Right Club: Don't talk about Right Club!

Oh Pat, but you don't understand the second rule of Right Club: a closeted troll can hardly be called a troll at all.

WTF Indeed: To be fair, Perry has a point. None of these debates makes any sense from a campaign standpoint. They aren't exactly dealing with serious issues(or least seriously dealing with real issues). They have only worked to draw out the worst in candidates and the party in general. The primaries are two months away, and none of these candidates can spent time in the states. Finally, it gives candidates like Cain, Gingrich and Frothy leverage to still be in the race since they don't have to spend vast sums of money on field organizing.

These debates have created a GOP politics based on "Campaigning out of a suitcase." Perry is the only conservative in the race running an actual political campaign, everyone else is running from soundbite to soundbite.

Debates at the national level have been intentionally molded over the years to dissuade anyone from asking tough questions, to the benefit of the politicians. If Perry's performance hadn't caused him to suddenly take a dip in the polls he'd be perfectly happy with the debate format.

This just in: morons hate being asked questions.

FuturePastNow: This just in: morons hate being asked questions.

See: Sarah Palin and "gotcha" journalism

keylock71: He's right about Romney saying whatever he needs to say to win votes....

Did he just seriously complain this his opponent is also a politician?

coeyagi: tricycleracer: chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

Like Jon Stewart said last night, Pat Roberston doesn't have a problem with the crazy things the Republican candidates are saying. He has a problem with the fact that they are saying them publicly.

And he said:

First rule of Right Club: Don't talk about Right Club!

Oh Pat, but you don't understand the second rule of Right Club: a closeted troll can hardly be called a troll at all.

3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out, keep going.

4th RULE: Only two guys at a time. Unless there are more in the room.

5th RULE: One at a time. Unless you're Marcus Bachmann.

6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes, no problem.

7th RULE: Let it go on as long as it has to, and for Gods sake keep filming.

8th RULE: If this is your first night at Right Club, ohhhhhhhhhhhh boy *rubs hands together*.

WorldCitizen: Even the pictures of him drive me crazy like the frozen frame of him in that article. He looks like if you drew a caricature of George W Bush to exaggerate the stupid and swaggery looks he could have, but it's honestly a serious GOP candidate for president.

.....and he wants to have access to the nuclear launch codes.

/scared yet?

Schlock: FuturePastNow: This just in: morons hate being asked questions.

See: Sarah Palin and "gotcha" journalism

Have we voted on a 21st century phrase that requires an immediate cock-punching? If not I'd like to cast my ballot for that.

chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

We should choose our leaders by their haircuts.

keylock71: Schlock: keylock71: He's right about Romney saying whatever he needs to say to win votes....

Did he just seriously complain this his opponent is also a politician?

He also called him a "Fat Cat"... Which is odd for someone who owns a hunting lodge to say, but there you go.


Rick Perry isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but hypocrisy seems to be an asset in the GOP primaries.

The republican language has 13 different words for defunding NPR but not 1 for hypocrisy.

Headso: The republican language has 13 different words for defunding NPR but not 1 for hypocrisy.

That's marvelous.

Headso: keylock71: Schlock: keylock71: He's right about Romney saying whatever he needs to say to win votes....

Did he just seriously complain this his opponent is also a politician?

He also called him a "Fat Cat"... Which is odd for someone who owns a hunting lodge to say, but there you go.


Rick Perry isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but hypocrisy seems to be an asset in the GOP primaries.

The republican language has 13 different words for defunding NPR but not 1 for hypocrisy.

"In the republican party we have no word for slave."

"Yes, and I'd imagine a fish has no word for water."

AcneVulgaris: chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

We should choose our leaders by their haircuts.

Wait...that's not how we've been doing it?

Parry spent years running from debates during his time as Texas Governor and his performance at the GOPher nom debates clearly showed why.

He sounded to me like Jethro Bodean (after a handful of qualudes and a bottle of extra-strength cough syrup) coulda whipped his ass in that debate.

Talkin ain't his strong suit. He's more of a Walker

Schlock: AcneVulgaris: chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

We should choose our leaders by their haircuts.

Wait...that's not how we've been doing it?

Actually, we've been selecting them based on their height, age, and weight more than any other determining factors.

PonceAlyosha: Headso: keylock71: Schlock: keylock71: He's right about Romney saying whatever he needs to say to win votes....

Did he just seriously complain this his opponent is also a politician?

He also called him a "Fat Cat"... Which is odd for someone who owns a hunting lodge to say, but there you go.


Rick Perry isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but hypocrisy seems to be an asset in the GOP primaries.

The republican language has 13 different words for defunding NPR but not 1 for hypocrisy.

"In the republican party we have no word for slave."

"Yes, and I'd imagine a fish has no word for water."

In the Republican party, dividing by zero taxes equals infinite prosperity.

quatchi: Parry spent years running from debates during his time as Texas Governor and his performance at the GOPher nom debates clearly showed why.

He sounded to me like Jethro Bodean (after a handful of qualudes and a bottle of extra-strength cough syrup) coulda whipped his ass in that debate.

Rick Perry is just a pretty face the oil industry wears.

PonceAlyosha: How is that bad?

Because you are not thinking about it from Perry's point of view. There are two money candidates(or as they are known in reality, serious candidates) Perry and Romney are the only two candidates with a shot of winning the primary. The rest of them neither have the funds or the organization to be a serious candidate outside of their home states. The debates allow candidates that do not have the cash flow to continue to "run" for President, never having to constantly spend money on field staff in multiple states.

The reason Perry is sitting at 15% is because the Newts, Frothys, Cains, and Bachmanns are taking up his supporters. If given a choice between Perry and Romney, they would choose Perry in a landslide, but since their first choice is still in the race Perry's numbers are low. Here is a breakdown from last week's Gallup Poll:

Romney -20%
Perry-15%
Cain -18%
Bachmann -5%
Newt - 7%
Paul - 8%
Frothy - 3%

If Bachmann, Frothy, Paul, and Newt were out of the race due to no cash flow, There would be 23% or roughly one quarter of the GOP base up for grabs, and Perry would have the message and ground game to get those people on his side. His 15% becomes 38% and he's the front runner, people forget about Cain, he loses support which would then most likely flow to Perry. Politics is simple math.

chimp_ninja: Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

Lost Thought 00: Schlock: AcneVulgaris: chimp_ninja: Debates do discriminate against candidates with terrible, terrible ideas. Rick Parry would work better in a format where voters wouldn't learn anything about what is going on inside his head.

We should choose our leaders by their haircuts.

Wait...that's not how we've been doing it?

Actually, we've been selecting them based on their height, age, and weight more than any other determining factors.

I know the perfect guy to fulfill all the requirements!

PonceAlyosha: quatchi: Parry spent years running from debates during his time as Texas Governor and his performance at the GOPher nom debates clearly showed why.

He sounded to me like Jethro Bodean (after a handful of qualudes and a bottle of extra-strength cough syrup) coulda whipped his ass in that debate.

Rick Perry is just a pretty face the oil industry wears a photo negative of John Edwards.

Or the monster that lives under his bed.

// Parry also looks like the guy from College Football Gameday - the one that's not Herbstreit or Corso...what's his name?

WTF Indeed: Because you are not thinking about it from Perry's point of view.

I think everyone gets why it's bad from Rick Perry's perspective but no one really cares

Dr Dreidel: // Parry also looks like the guy from College Football Gameday - the one that's not Herbstreit or Corso...what's his name?

I'll never unsee that:

You have to wonder if he also blames books for spreading those rumors that he suggested Texas leave the union...

Lets hope RON PAUL wins the nomination. The collective MSM implosion would be hilarious.