Caddell: No Debates???

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Today, Democratic pollster (Jimmy Carter’s former pollster) Pat Caddell said on the Sean Hannity show that with President Obama’s track record of going back on his word during campaigns, that President Obama may decide not to debate teh (sic) GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

2. He cited Obama’s stating he would finance his 2008 presidential campaign in 2008 with public money as did John McCain and then turning around and saying no, he’ll privately finance it so he could raise much more money as one reason why anything is possible in 2012.

3. “He definitely can say no to debates. He can do anything he wants"...
» Pat Caddell Says Obama May Turn Down Debating the GOP Candidate in 2012 (a bad example for bloggers) » Brian Humek

4. Caddell said the media will back him up in any way he needs them to....how's that for definitive proof of the media's Left-wing stance?

5. Well...if Caddell is correct, does this eliminate a major reason for a Newt Gingrich candidacy?

 

[Jackson]

If Gingrich gets the nod from the party and Obama doesn't agree to a debate, he's done. All it would take is one and then the country would see that he doesn't have the leadershop skills or record to continue as president. Can you imagine the ads against Obama?

This is just spin so the Republicans can back down from endorsing Gingrich. The administration is scared to death of Gingrich.

Why is President Clinton coming out in support of Gingrich on O'Reilly? Very confusing!

 

[Katzndogz]

I've been hearing this for a few days now. Especially if Gingrich is the nominee. obama would be a fool to debate him.

Fortunately Gingrich saw this coming and has said he would follow obama around the country giving a speech after every one obama gives attacking everything he says. If it's Romney, he would do well to follow that example.

 

[Full-Auto]

1. "Today, Democratic pollster (Jimmy Carter’s former pollster) Pat Caddell said on the Sean Hannity show that with President Obama’s track record of going back on his word during campaigns, that President Obama may decide not to debate teh (sic) GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

2. He cited Obama’s stating he would finance his 2008 presidential campaign in 2008 with public money as did John McCain and then turning around and saying no, he’ll privately finance it so he could raise much more money as one reason why anything is possible in 2012.

3. “He definitely can say no to debates. He can do anything he wants"...
» Pat Caddell Says Obama May Turn Down Debating the GOP Candidate in 2012 (a bad example for bloggers) » Brian Humek

4. Caddell said the media will back him up in any way he needs them to....how's that for definitive proof of the media's Left-wing stance?

5. Well...if Caddell is correct, does this eliminate a major reason for a Newt Gingrich candidacy?

It doesnt eliminate Newt. I dont feel Obama would debate him. Obama is as spineless as they come.

Newt would do a good job at reving up government and correcting the mistakes and intentional criminal conduct by this admin. But after that you need to watch him as closely if not closer then Obama. But the country would be moving.

 

[The T]

Gingrich knows the ropes...despite his 'baggage'...and could make mince meat of Obama.

I did hear that interview by the way.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

i hope Obama turns down the debates......he's really boring...

...even with Newt spicing things up he would still be boring...

 

[LoneLaugher]

1. "Today, Democratic pollster (Jimmy Carter’s former pollster) Pat Caddell said on the Sean Hannity show that with President Obama’s track record of going back on his word during campaigns, that President Obama may decide not to debate teh (sic) GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

He said that did he? He said that Obama may decide not to debate. Does that also mean that he may decide to debate? I think it does.

2. He cited Obama’s stating he would finance his 2008 presidential campaign in 2008 with public money as did John McCain and then turning around and saying no, he’ll privately finance it so he could raise much more money as one reason why anything is possible in 2012.

He cited that did he? A totally unrelated matter that had nothing to do with debates. Really, really solid.

3. “He definitely can say no to debates. He can do anything he wants".
» Pat Caddell Says Obama May Turn Down Debating the GOP Candidate in 2012 (a bad example for bloggers) » Brian Humek

4. Caddell said the media will back him up in any way he needs them to....how's that for definitive proof of the media's Left-wing stance?

Well...honestly....it is nothing near definitive proof of anything. It is pure conjecture. Surely you see that.

5. Well...if Caddell is correct, does this eliminate a major reason for a Newt Gingrich candidacy?

That is a dumb question. Is a major reason for a Newt candidacy related to whether or not his opponent will engage in debates?

 

[The T]

i hope Obama turns down the debates......he's really boring...

...even with Newt spicing things up he would still be boring...

Hell? Wasn't it Newt that stated he'd allow a teleprompter?

 

[geauxtohell]

Caddell isn't correct.

If for no other reason then the American people will demand their political theater, there will be debates.

Well, that was easy.

 

[The T]

As to Newt stating (re:RomneyPac Commercials)...should be stopped? Romney did make a good point that he should get used to it because Obama would unleash a torrent of negatives should Newt be the nominee.

 

[Katzndogz]

If obama's numbers start dropping really low he might agree to a debate. After which he will destroy himself.

 

[ladyliberal]

Is Obama declining to debate the GOP nominee at all likely? No. Is it possible? Sure.

Obama would be quite foolish to decline to debate Gingrich. It's hard for me to imagine Gingrich getting a bump out of the debates (how often does any candidate get a significant bump out of their debate performance in a Presidential general election?). In contrast, if Obama declined to debate that would surely hurt him at the polls.

And does the possibility of damage the rationale for the Gingrich candidacy? Yes, but only because that rationale depends so mightily on his debate performances. In any case, it's becoming a moot point: due in part to his debate performances (defending Freddie Mac money, attacking judges) Gingrich's Intrade stock has fallen by almost a factor of four.

 

[Ernie S.]

1. "Today, Democratic pollster (Jimmy Carter’s former pollster) Pat Caddell said on the Sean Hannity show that with President Obama’s track record of going back on his word during campaigns, that President Obama may decide not to debate teh (sic) GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

2. He cited Obama’s stating he would finance his 2008 presidential campaign in 2008 with public money as did John McCain and then turning around and saying no, he’ll privately finance it so he could raise much more money as one reason why anything is possible in 2012.

3. “He definitely can say no to debates. He can do anything he wants"...
» Pat Caddell Says Obama May Turn Down Debating the GOP Candidate in 2012 (a bad example for bloggers) » Brian Humek

4. Caddell said the media will back him up in any way he needs them to....how's that for definitive proof of the media's Left-wing stance?

5. Well...if Caddell is correct, does this eliminate a major reason for a Newt Gingrich candidacy?

I'd love to see him refuse to debate. Fox could hold one every night. Moderator: "President obama: What do you see as the defining monent of your Presidency?"......

"A word from our sponsor while we wait for the President to answer."

"Welcome back to the FoxNews 2012 Presidential debate"

"Mr. Gingrich, same question"
Etcetera for 1 hour, More or less a free 1 hour campaign commercial.

 

[occupied]

Obama is not going to skip the debates. Jeeze.

 

[Meister]

I think that Obama will debate the GOP nomination. Like another poster stated, the people will want it. I do know the media would cover for him if he didn't because they are left leaning and a UCLA study stated as much, so it isn't just conjecture.

 

[Toro]

Caddell isn't correct.

If for no other reason then the American people will demand their political theater, there will be debates.

Well, that was easy.

Pfft. I can do it better. Watch this.

1. "Today, Democratic pollster (Jimmy Carter’s former pollster) Pat Caddell said on the Sean Hannity show that with President Obama’s track record of going back on his word during campaigns, that President Obama may decide not to debate teh (sic) GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

2. He cited Obama’s stating he would finance his 2008 presidential campaign in 2008 with public money as did John McCain and then turning around and saying no, he’ll privately finance it so he could raise much more money as one reason why anything is possible in 2012.

3. “He definitely can say no to debates. He can do anything he wants"...
» Pat Caddell Says Obama May Turn Down Debating the GOP Candidate in 2012 (a bad example for bloggers) » Brian Humek

4. Caddell said the media will back him up in any way he needs them to....how's that for definitive proof of the media's Left-wing stance?

5. Well...if Caddell is correct, does this eliminate a major reason for a Newt Gingrich candidacy?

Wrong.



See how easy that was?

 

[EriktheRed]

Caddell: No Debates???

PoliChic: Desperate????

 

[Listening]

O.K.

The reason Cadell thinks he would pull out of the debates is becaues that is when Carter lost it to Reagan. According to those who were reporting the story, Carter was doing O.K. until Reagan tore him up on stage and after that the flood gates were opened.

President Obama does not want to risk giving a platform to the person who might kick his butt in the election.

All it takes is for someone to mince him up and it's all over (and probably is anyway).

President Obama besides being AWOL seems a bit spineless to me.

 

[JoeB131]

1. "Today, Democratic pollster (Jimmy Carter’s former pollster) Pat Caddell said on the Sean Hannity show that with President Obama’s track record of going back on his word during campaigns, that President Obama may decide not to debate teh (sic) GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

2. He cited Obama’s stating he would finance his 2008 presidential campaign in 2008 with public money as did John McCain and then turning around and saying no, he’ll privately finance it so he could raise much more money as one reason why anything is possible in 2012.

3. “He definitely can say no to debates. He can do anything he wants"...
» Pat Caddell Says Obama May Turn Down Debating the GOP Candidate in 2012 (a bad example for bloggers) » Brian Humek

4. Caddell said the media will back him up in any way he needs them to....how's that for definitive proof of the media's Left-wing stance?

5. Well...if Caddell is correct, does this eliminate a major reason for a Newt Gingrich candidacy?

I have to ask the question, how many people are making a decision based on debates?

And I mean actually seeing the debate, not what you heard about the Debate the next day because you were too busy watching Dancing with the Stars.

The thing is, debates have become so rehearsed, so conditional, that really, when was the last time there was a really big surprise in a debate. The last one I recall was 1988, when Dukakis acted unemotionally at the hypothetical rape/murder of his wife.

You get these "A-Ha" moments a bit more at Primary debates because the participants are in agreement on 90% of the issues and they are more conflicts of personality.

 

[Ernie S.]

i hope Obama turns down the debates......he's really boring...

...even with Newt spicing things up he would still be boring...

I think his stuttering would be VERY entertaining. .We could count ahh's and umm's with a poll on how many times he mentions Bush