Gingrich has the edge in the jowl wobblin' competition, but Romney will easily win the Golden Tablet Scavenger Hunt. This could be interesting.

vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

Name your seconds, sir.

I am assuming he does not know that *series* of debates went on for hours at a time in which the participants spoke huge blocks of minutes in massive counterpointing speeches?

On second thought, sure. Let the world see what a couple of morons look like when held up against their predecessors.

Newt loves to challenge people to these debates. So far, John Huntsman has participated.

All Mitt (or President Obama) has to do is say "no" and Newt loses.

Why would Romney agree to this? It brings him no advantage.

Lincoln-Douglas does not mean "two people debating." It's a 30-60-30 format where one person speaks for 30 minutes, one for 60, and then the first for 30.

"I've challenged Governor Romney to meet me for ninety minutes in Iowa next week, anywhere, anytime," Gingrich said

Ninety minutes is not L-D.

Someone should make sure he watches this. Very helpful. Plus it's got Zooey in it, and who doesn't love her?

I'd love to see an actual debate. Shame all we have nowadays is "dueling talking points."

/Without CX, it's not a debate.

vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

And done in three.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'd watch that.

A-yup.

vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

I'd watch that too.

PreMortem: I can bend a cigarette end to end without breaking it

How do you do that?

Le Geno Vert: vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

Name your seconds, sir.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 384x321]

I want Lincoln's terms. In a deep hole with broadswords and they can't step over their lines. Romney has the reach but I just see Newt as having better power.

vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

Romney would even flip-flop on that.

*BLAM*

Romney: I've been shot. No.... I have not been shot...... Wait...... YES! I have been shot.

palelizard: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'd watch that.

A-yup.

vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

I'd watch that too.

PreMortem: I can bend a cigarette end to end without breaking it

How do you do that?

Remove the tobacco, then the paper folds.

Lincoln-Douglas is a style of debating. Like Forensic debating. FYI. Dumbass subby.

/that doesn't mean Newt isn't also a dumbass.

While I would approve of this debate format, Newt has really been flogging that dog for the past six months. I think he just likes to hear himself say, "I'd challenge him to a Lincoln-Douglas styled debate." while he puffs up his chest and nods affirmatively.

Arrogance just oozes from his pores.

Link (new window)
Second link on that page. dumbass.

cameroncrazy1984: FARTNOISE FARTNOISE JUNIOR: Someone should make sure he watches this. Very helpful. Plus it's got Zooey in it, and who doesn't love her?

Um....the thing is...thats Frederick Douglass, not Stephen Douglas.

Those are the same guy. You ever see them in the same room?

ORLY TITS: While I would approve of this debate format, Newt has really been flogging that dog for the past six months. I think he just likes to hear himself say, "I'd challenge him to a Lincoln-Douglas styled debate." while he puffs up his chest and nods affirmatively.

Arrogance just oozes from his pores.

Someone here said it best: Newt sounds like what stupid people think smart people sound like

/"Lincoln-Douglas debate? I don't know who Douglas is but that sounds like something our politicians should do!"

FARTNOISE FARTNOISE JUNIOR:

Those are the same guy. You ever see them in the same room?

o.k. I LOL'd.

cameroncrazy1984: Katie98_KT: Lincoln-Douglas is a style of debating. Like Forensic debating. FYI. Dumbass subby.

/that doesn't mean Newt isn't also a dumbass.

So...subby is wrong when he says a "Lincoln-Douglas style debate" because Lincoln-Douglas is a style of debate?

What. The. fark.

subby is wrong because the headline makes fun of Newt for proposing a debate in the style of Lincoln-Douglas. Because subby is implying that holding a Lincoln-Douglas style debate would be riddiculous. When in fact, it is a formal style of debating.
Its like making fun of someone for suggesting you follow Robert's Rules of Order. hahahah, who's this robert person and why should we listen to him?!?!

I APPROVE OF EVERYTHING IN THE HEADLINE.

Imperialism: It's a 30-60-30 format where one person speaks for 30 minutes, one for 60, and then the first for 30.

I'm not sure it's possible for a person to pay attention to Mitt Romney speaking for 30 minutes. I am sure it's not possible to last 60.

Imperialism: "I've challenged Governor Romney to meet me for ninety minutes in Iowa next week, anywhere, anytime," Gingrich said

Obviously Gingrich has himself slated for the middle 60 and isn't planning on sticking around for the final 30.

Katie98_KT: subby is wrong because the headline makes fun of Newt for proposing a debate in the style of Lincoln-Douglas. Because subby is implying that holding a Lincoln-Douglas style debate would be riddiculous. When in fact, it is a formal style of debating.
Its like making fun of someone for suggesting you follow Robert's Rules of Order. hahahah, who's this robert person and why should we listen to him?!?!

Maybe it's "Silly" because a formal one-on-one debate with actual questions and proper retorts is foreign to the GOP candidates?

God what a total waste of time and money that would be.

And I'm sick of ignorant jackasses like Gingrich showing off about cliched bits of history like it's cool or something. Glenn Beck does the same sh*t.

These people should be condemned to a life of poverty, not continually taken seriously.

nonsequitor: Remove the tobacco, then the paper folds.

I was thinking along those lines, but it's not really a cigarette at that point. It's rolling paper and a filter.

i'd like to see a real debate, ya know one where they have to cite their facts, instead of just constantly repeating talk radio talking points.

Imperialism: Lincoln-Douglas does not mean "two people debating." It's a 30-60-30 format where one person speaks for 30 minutes, one for 60, and then the first for 30.

"I've challenged Governor Romney to meet me for ninety minutes in Iowa next week, anywhere, anytime," Gingrich said

Ninety minutes is not L-D.

In high school forensics, I think the standard for Lincoln-Douglas is 40 minutes. Either way, you're splitting hairs.

I think it is fair to say he wants a regimented mano-a-mano debate with just Mitt and it is fair to categorize it as a Lincoln-Douglas STYLE of debate (dnrtfa, tho, so I'm just going by the headline).

Personally, I'd love to see all presidential debates occur this way, where the two contenders are forced to actually debate as opposed to spew sound bites and rehearsed one-liners in response to some idiot news anchor's lame questions.

mrshowrules: Well he is the the smarmiest prick in the history US politics.

Ain't that the ever-lovin' truth.

aug3: i'd like to see a real debate, ya know one where they have to cite their facts, instead of just constantly repeating talk radio talking points.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is based on values, not evidence.

Imperialism: Someone here said it best: Newt sounds like what stupid people think smart people sound like

I think the esteemed Farker Paul Krugman said that.

Imperialism: Lincoln-Douglas does not mean "two people debating." It's a 30-60-30 format where one person speaks for 30 minutes, one for 60, and then the first for 30.

"I've challenged Governor Romney to meet me for ninety minutes in Iowa next week, anywhere, anytime," Gingrich said

Ninety minutes is not L-D.

Glad this has been mentioned; giving dueling speeches would be an even worse alternative to what we already have where candidates go on tangents in debates and casually make accusations that don't have a chance to be rebutted. Few remember that Douglas ultimately won the debates by "tarring" Lincoln as a pro-black radical abolitionist*. Hell, the characterization of Lincoln by Douglas probably played a large role in Southern attempts to keep him off the ballot and the immediate move to secede from the Union before he ever took office.

* - We will probably never know for sure how far Lincoln would have taken the slavery issue if not for secession. He general used arguments pointing to room for compromise on the matter in more moderate publications while using more extreme rhetoric in abolitionist publications. A politician pandering? Oh my word! Not saying he wouldn't have made great strides as President if the war never happened, but he had a lot more ability to change the law since he had a rebellion to quell.

whidbey: aug3: i'd like to see a real debate, ya know one where they have to cite their facts, instead of just constantly repeating talk radio talking points.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is based on values, not evidence.

But the sentiment is the same, not to put words in aug3's mouth. I'd love to see candidates take the time to explain themselves -- to fully express the philosophy behind their positions and decision-making process.

atomsmoosher: whidbey: aug3: i'd like to see a real debate, ya know one where they have to cite their facts, instead of just constantly repeating talk radio talking points.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is based on values, not evidence.

But the sentiment is the same, not to put words in aug3's mouth. I'd love to see candidates take the time to explain themselves -- to fully express the philosophy behind their positions and decision-making process.

They should be required to bring visual aids, and provide citations. Fact checking should be done in real time, and any discrepancies should be brought up as soon as they are found, even interrupting other questions.

Listening to Gingrich and Romney debate would be like listening to Vogon poetry.

PanicMan: They should be required to bring visual aids, and provide citations. Fact checking should be done in real time, and any discrepancies should be brought up as soon as they are found, even interrupting other questions.

I can see the good in that. My problem is that I still want to know the philosophy. Two people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. For that matter, I don't expect my president to be some sort of polymath. I just want to know that, if given a particular set of information, can this president be trusted to go to the right people for opinions and to make the best decisions for the country.

Newt is getting desperate again.

Lincoln - Booth debate?

/I need that like I need a hole in the head.

atomsmoosher: whidbey: aug3: i'd like to see a real debate, ya know one where they have to cite their facts, instead of just constantly repeating talk radio talking points.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is based on values, not evidence.

But the sentiment is the same, not to put words in aug3's mouth. I'd love to see candidates take the time to explain themselves -- to fully express the philosophy behind their positions and decision-making process.

We already know the creepy stuff they want to do. Why should we waste any more time and money on these idiots?

vpb: What about a Hamilton-Burr style debate?

Heh! I would pay to see that one.

whidbey: We already know the creepy stuff they want to do. Why should we waste any more time and money on these idiots?

At that point, why would you care about debates at all?