Which GOP candidate would do the BEST in a debate against Barack Obama--BE HONEST

[oreo]

I know that Newt would destroy Barry Like Cheney destroyed that clown Edwards but Herman Cain would be more fun to watch. It would be really fun to see Barry attempt to bring race into it.

I wouldn't worry about that--even with Herman Cain--the left in this country would somehow figure out a way to play the race card--

 

[oreo]

Cain. I think his approach is very smart and though-out. He explains his positions and plans in a simple manner, without coming across as talking down to people. He's also prepared for everything he gets asked.

I would say Romney, but if Obama made a correlation between Romneycare and Obamacare enough-I think Romney would look pretty bad.

Gingrich may win at debating, but he has too many skeletons in the closet to win the election.

Obama has many skeletons too....i really don't think the skeletons will be a problem. Heck, you can't find one candidate that doesn't have any skeletons! We know Obama has skeletons, and he's a failure of a president. Newt has the skeletons, but we also know he's had MANY years in the political field. That's what we need right now.

Yeah--that's kind of what blows my mind too. Romney has Romneycare he has to deal with--Perry now has a whole slew of issues--but no one in this party is ready to forgive Newt Gingrich. Why? Because he has had a couple of divorces and made a couple of dumb ads many years ago.

There is no candidate out there--that doesn't have a few scratches and dents--but the only ones that are being counted are on Newt Gingrich---

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

I wonder why we place so much emphasis on the navel gazing practice of debates.

Yes, we all remember a famous zinger a "winner" got on a loser. ("Well, There you go again!") or how Al Gore sighed or JFK Had a better sun tan. OR how Amy Carter was an expert on nuclear poliferation or Dukakis wouldn't want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist who just killed his wife, hypothetically.

Do any of you remember issues of substance in debates? I'll be honest, I have to stretch to remember them.

If anything, they've dumbed down the process, probably because we are getting dumber as an electorate.

Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.

I will agree that being a good debater does not make a good president, but in this day of instant media coverage, a good leader will be a good debater. That is, he will be able to think on his/her feet, articulate a principle, and explain it sufficiently so that others can understand.

In my opinion, that is one of the reasons Barack Obama is such a poor leader. He cannot or at least does not think on his feet, he generally cannot coherently articulate a principle beyond a memorized sound bite, and I think he understands the concepts he promotes so poorly that he cannot competently explain them to anybody.

Newt does not have that problem. And while Cain is more likely to be blind sided with a subject he is not fullly familiar with, he otherwise speaks the language people can understand.

I checked Newt on the poll, but I wish we had been able to pick two or three.

I am beginning to see a Gingrich/Cain or a Cain/Gingrich ticket as very possibly a winning combination.

 

[oreo]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

I wonder why we place so much emphasis on the navel gazing practice of debates.

Yes, we all remember a famous zinger a "winner" got on a loser. ("Well, There you go again!") or how Al Gore sighed or JFK Had a better sun tan. OR how Amy Carter was an expert on nuclear poliferation or Dukakis wouldn't want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist who just killed his wife, hypothetically.

Do any of you remember issues of substance in debates? I'll be honest, I have to stretch to remember them.

If anything, they've dumbed down the process, probably because we are getting dumber as an electorate.

Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.

I will agree that being a good debater does not make a good president, but in this day of instant media coverage, a good leader will be a good debater. That is, he will be able to think on his/her feet, articulate a principle, and explain it sufficiently so that others can understand.

In my opinion, that is one of the reasons Barack Obama is such a poor leader. He cannot or at least does not think on his feet, he generally cannot coherently articulate a principle beyond a memorized sound bite, and I think he understands the concepts he promotes so poorly that he cannot competently explain them to anybody.

Newt does not have that problem. And while Cain is more likely to be blind sided with a subject he is not fullly familiar with, he otherwise speaks the language people can understand.

I checked Newt on the poll, but I wish we had been able to pick two or three.

I am beginning to see a Gingrich/Cain or a Cain/Gingrich ticket as very possibly a winning combination.

Anyone is more than free in their comment to number them 1 through 9 as to (starting with one) would be the BEST candidate in a debate with Obama.

BTW--I think you're right--Gingrich/Cain would make a very powerful--unbeatable ticket.

I think Cain should talk a little more about his personal work experience with the Federal Reserve too. That would definitely shore up his resume with the American public.

 

[mudwhistle]

Newt is a con man

And Obama isn't?????

Seems you're really good at thinking the opposite of the truth.

 

[oreo]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

I wonder why we place so much emphasis on the navel gazing practice of debates.

Yes, we all remember a famous zinger a "winner" got on a loser. ("Well, There you go again!") or how Al Gore sighed or JFK Had a better sun tan. OR how Amy Carter was an expert on nuclear poliferation or Dukakis wouldn't want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist who just killed his wife, hypothetically.

Do any of you remember issues of substance in debates? I'll be honest, I have to stretch to remember them.

If anything, they've dumbed down the process, probably because we are getting dumber as an electorate.

Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.

As we have witnessed time and time again--you HAVE to be a good debater--to even become POTUS. Not many Americans pay as much attention to political policies as we do.

 

[Zona]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

Sarah palin.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder why we place so much emphasis on the navel gazing practice of debates.

Yes, we all remember a famous zinger a "winner" got on a loser. ("Well, There you go again!") or how Al Gore sighed or JFK Had a better sun tan. OR how Amy Carter was an expert on nuclear poliferation or Dukakis wouldn't want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist who just killed his wife, hypothetically.

Do any of you remember issues of substance in debates? I'll be honest, I have to stretch to remember them.

If anything, they've dumbed down the process, probably because we are getting dumber as an electorate.

Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.

I will agree that being a good debater does not make a good president, but in this day of instant media coverage, a good leader will be a good debater. That is, he will be able to think on his/her feet, articulate a principle, and explain it sufficiently so that others can understand.

In my opinion, that is one of the reasons Barack Obama is such a poor leader. He cannot or at least does not think on his feet, he generally cannot coherently articulate a principle beyond a memorized sound bite, and I think he understands the concepts he promotes so poorly that he cannot competently explain them to anybody.

Newt does not have that problem. And while Cain is more likely to be blind sided with a subject he is not fullly familiar with, he otherwise speaks the language people can understand.

I checked Newt on the poll, but I wish we had been able to pick two or three.

I am beginning to see a Gingrich/Cain or a Cain/Gingrich ticket as very possibly a winning combination.

Anyone is more than free in their comment to number them 1 through 9 as to (starting with one) would be the BEST candidate in a debate with Obama.

BTW--I think you're right--Gingrich/Cain would make a very powerful--unbeatable ticket.

I think Cain should talk a little more about his personal work experience with the Federal Reserve too. That would definitely shore up his resume with the American public.

Maybe. People SHOULD care about the Federal Reserve but most don't have a clue what it actually is or does. I think if Cain started talking about that technical stuff, people's eyes would quickly glaze over and he would lose them. That's part of Ron Paul's problem--he throws out the Fed and other such as that as if everybody already understands it, and it goes mostly right over the heads of many of his listeners.

Gingrich is the best educated and most knowledgeable of all, but as a master teacher, he knows how to break concepts down into manageable bites. So he maybe can get away with talking about some of the more complicated stuff that the others simply don't have the skill to pull off.

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess that depends on what our standards are for who is best, wouldn't it?

 

[Sky Dancer]

None of the above.

 

[Foxfyre]

Best in a debate? What would determine that other than the one who was most convincing? That would be true even in a formal debate with the customary rules to govern it.

The reason I think Newt would run circles around Barack Obama in a one on one debate is because Newt CAN think on his feet and he doesn't stammer and go all incoherent if he can't work off notes or a teleprompter. He articulates a clear answer. It might not be an answer to the question asked--he has become a master at sidestepping the truly malicious gotcha questions--but the answer he gives will be in plain English and fully understandable to his audience.

Further Gingrich is a walking encyclopedia with an I.Q. that allows him to recall names, dates, facts, figures easily. While Barry would stammer and stutter and flounder if he gets an unexpected question that requires technical detail, Gingrich could wing it effortlessly.

It would really be no contest if somebody was evaluating them purely on the substance of the debate.

 

[Truthmatters]

newt is a con man

 

[Avorysuds]

newt is a con man

Trollin as usual huh TM. Newt might be a con man but you’re a proven liar on these boards so what now?

 

[saveliberty]

I really could care less how a candidate debates. It is more helpful to me to see what type of things he or she has accomplished in their given field. For this election, I would be most interested in how the person created job opportunities and the level of success in that area.

The media lives on sound bites, I live on a paycheck. We have seen what a good speaker translates to in fixing the economy.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I hope Romney wins. The GOP nomination, that is.

 

[Foxfyre]

I really could care less how a candidate debates. It is more helpful to me to see what type of things he or she has accomplished in their given field. For this election, I woul dbe most interested in how the person created job opportunities and the level of success in that area.

The media lives on sound bites, I live on a paycheck. We have seen what a good speaker translates to in fixing the economy.

I agree that the resume is really important. Several of the candidates have pretty impressive ones. Obviously if you lack in communication skills, you probably won't have acquired an outstanding resume.

But in the end, you could have the most incredible resume in the world, but you still have to be able to sell the people and the Congress simultaneously on what you want to accomplish. Otherwise you will sign off on deeply unpopular legislation like Obamacare or fail to accomplish the goals you campaigned on.

A good debater is a good communicator. And I do think that is important.

 

[saveliberty]

It would be nice to have both. I'll sacrifice the talker first though.

 

[oreo]

I really could care less how a candidate debates. It is more helpful to me to see what type of things he or she has accomplished in their given field. For this election, I woul dbe most interested in how the person created job opportunities and the level of success in that area.

The media lives on sound bites, I live on a paycheck. We have seen what a good speaker translates to in fixing the economy.

I agree that the resume is really important. Several of the candidates have pretty impressive ones. Obviously if you lack in communication skills, you probably won't have acquired an outstanding resume.

But in the end, you could have the most incredible resume in the world, but you still have to be able to sell the people and the Congress simultaneously on what you want to accomplish. Otherwise you will sign off on deeply unpopular legislation like Obamacare or fail to accomplish the goals you campaigned on.

A good debater is a good communicator. And I do think that is important.

Yeah--it's really amazing how many people in this country couldn't even tell you the name of the Vice President--or Secretary of State. Yet they manage to stagger into a voting booth every 4 years--thinking they have made an educated decision--simply because they watched the Presidential debates--or 1 of them- or part of 1 of them--

If it were up to me--I would mandate a test--before each election--before people in this country would be allowed to vote.

 

[JoeB131]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

I wonder why we place so much emphasis on the navel gazing practice of debates.

Yes, we all remember a famous zinger a "winner" got on a loser. ("Well, There you go again!") or how Al Gore sighed or JFK Had a better sun tan. OR how Amy Carter was an expert on nuclear poliferation or Dukakis wouldn't want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist who just killed his wife, hypothetically.

Do any of you remember issues of substance in debates? I'll be honest, I have to stretch to remember them.

If anything, they've dumbed down the process, probably because we are getting dumber as an electorate.

Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.

Because enough people, who do not marinate in politics, base their decisions on them.

well, shame on us, then.

 

[JoeB131]

Being a good debator does not make you a good president. The Current Occupant should be evidence enough of that.

I will agree that being a good debater does not make a good president, but in this day of instant media coverage, a good leader will be a good debater. That is, he will be able to think on his/her feet, articulate a principle, and explain it sufficiently so that others can understand.

In my opinion, that is one of the reasons Barack Obama is such a poor leader. He cannot or at least does not think on his feet, he generally cannot coherently articulate a principle beyond a memorized sound bite, and I think he understands the concepts he promotes so poorly that he cannot competently explain them to anybody.

Newt does not have that problem. And while Cain is more likely to be blind sided with a subject he is not fullly familiar with, he otherwise speaks the language people can understand.

I checked Newt on the poll, but I wish we had been able to pick two or three.

I am beginning to see a Gingrich/Cain or a Cain/Gingrich ticket as very possibly a winning combination.

I have to disagree. I don't think Obama's problem is that he can't think on his feet. I think his problem is that he doesn't have the managerial skills, having never actually run anything in his life.

Bush-43 was a lousy speaker and a poor debater. But in his first term at least, he surrounded himself with solid guys. The same could be said of Clinton and Reagan. (All three of these guys promoted loyalists in their second terms, part of the reason their second terms were weaker.)

Obama's problem is that he believes his own hype. He really does think he's smart enough to do it all.

Newt is a smart guy. If I had a choice of any of these guys to spend an evening with talking about history or politics, it would be Newt. But his leadership of his own campaign and the four years where he ran the house, is another story.

This is why I like Perry. Not because he's a smooth talker, but because he's a solid manager.