Captain's Quarters -

What will Thompson gain by debating Huckabee?

At best, it will indicate that he is a better candidate than a second or third tier candidate. If Ron Paul issues a challenge, should Thompson debate him, as well?

Disclaimer: Anything can happen. But does Huckabee really have a chance in this election? Debating Thompson will get him some air time, and a little more publicity, but if he thinks it will give him a big bump in the polls, he is mistaken.

Huckabee didn't even get an honorable mention in the last polling reported by Rasmussen. Fred, on the other hand, gained a couple of points. Not earth shattering, but is a good indicator of how the race will go.

The public is interested in the "results" of the debates, not the debates themselves. If Huckabee could score a "win", it would come down to a "loss" by Thompson. Then people care.

I agree Skipper. I hope he accepts. Anthing to drive a stake into the heart...it's so bad now, that ANY change would be for the better.

Scott. How do you know others won't jump on the bandwagon? Maybe there would be more than just these two going at it.

Mike Huckabee? I think a cantidate should be required to be half a percentage point ahead of me before he can challenge a cantidate whom actually appears in the polls.

But the Lincoln-Douglas debates were between candidates that had already secured the nomination for the US Senate seat from Illinois not before the primary elections. And even that debate didn't include the schismatic Democratic group backed by Pres. Buchanan. The idea sounds wonderful for after the primaries and conventions but right now the pairings would look like a dyslexic trying to make up the match-ups for the first round of a NCAA basketball tournament.

Scott and Joe:

You're putting the cart before the horse. The current setup lets the drive-by media control a great deal of the candidate's exposure. Lincoln was known regionally, but it was the debates with Douglas that put Lincoln on the map nationally. According to your logic, Lincoln shouldn't have been able to debate because he didn't register in some poll.

The purpose of the debates is to find where the candidates stand on the big issues. Huckabee might be the perfect candidate for the Republicans, or not. How will we ever know if all we get are sound bites and ads?

More important than the intra-party debates, this might force an actual debate format on the presidential candidates in the general election

Scott writes:
"Huckabee didn't even get an honorable mention in the last polling reported by Rasmussen."

Forget national polls from the summer. I'm on the ground in New Hampshire and Mike is in the top tier here - as he is in Iowa & SC.

One can propose endless match-ups one-to-one. (How about Tancredo vs Kucinich ? maybe as a pay per view comedy special)

Huckabee, in NH, polls higher than Fred and also claims to be a social conservative. It is the right match up.

The Union Leader, newspaper of record in New Hampshire, has Fred's itinerary in the Granite State today.

www.unionleader.com

I have attempted this comment, which has yet to clear their moderator to be posted:

"Explaining his absence from the UNH debate, Fred Thompson says he wants Lincoln-Douglas style debates one on one.

Mike Huckabee, the other true social conservative, has accepted the challenge. Will Fred debate him ?

Or will this be another procrastinated decision? "

I agree, Ed. Shaking up the debate process would be enlightening and Huckabee-Thompson should proceed. As far as further match-ups go, if the process is productive, who cares who debates each other? There is no way to really understand the intellectual capacity, instincts, platform, and style of anyone with the scripted and rehearsed soundbites we have choreographed before us today. Why should the political talking heads determine who is top-tier, who gets asked what, and how much time they'll get to respond on a given issue? Open the debate up, let the candidates pick some topics and make a challenge, and then let them go at it relatively freestyle with an agreed upon chair just to act as referee for time (like on the Congressional floor).

Let's see just how top-tier the top-tier is... and let's hear from the lesser exposed too. Often they are overlooked far too early when money and name recognition cull the herd prematurely.

Sounds like a great idea to me. And let's let the candidates decide who they will and won't debate; such a decision could be enlightening. Why should the MSM decide who is and isn't worthy enough to appear?

Dale, the Rasmussen poll was from today. National polls might be suspect, or meaningless or whatever, but this is a current poll. When I left the first comment, it had been up for one hour.

Again, what does Thompson have to gain from debating Huckabee? If Fred is going to debate someone, Romney or Rudy makes more sense, and maybe not Romney. Joe has it right. A debate needs to be between contenders if it means anything.

And I question that Huckabee is a conservative. I agree that he is conservative on abortion. It's not different from Thompson. Huckabee is not conservative on immigration, or government intrusion into health issues. If he changed changed his position on abortion, he would be a pretty moderate Democrat.

Question: should Huckabee debate Ron Paul?

Yes, the republicans need a Lincoln-Douglas style debate so that they can repeatedly say "War on Terror" and "September 11th" in various vocal tones and speeds.

Simultaneously on CNN, we will hear...

"So Senator Clinton, what do you feel are your greatest strengths?"

Scott writes:

Mike Huckabee just finished an interview with Wolf Blitzer, where they displayed both CNN national and CNN/WMUR NH poll where Huckabee leads Thompson.

What does Thompson have to gain? Keeping his word. Fred's the one who said he wanted this format. And yes, he should debate the other top runners in NH also.

I was at a private event the other night with the Governor. It was full of top NH politicians, many endorsing him and others in attendance, but still uncommitted. Both groups agree that his candidacy has real traction here.

Well, if this is the debate style that Fred believes in, then how can he turn down Huckabee's challenge?

I look forward to his response.

Sanjeev,

Yes, that would be one possible outcome. Another would be that when a candidate has an opposing position that might gain him traction politically because it's "his" platform issue (or one the he senses as having popular support), a public challenge to debate the plank makes the issue "hot".

Imagine a campaign plug whereby one candidate notes another candidate ahead of him in the polls (or perceives it so), finds an issue that would make another candidate seem weaker, and then challenges him to debate. If the challenge is refused, then a campaign topic is borne. It may or may not persist, but the public may become more interested if they have to keep asking themselves "Hey, why won't that candidate debate that point? That's an important topic for me and he seems to be avoiding it."

While some attempt at coincidental pandering may work, eventually the combatant's nature will triumph... either because of their own drive or because of the pressure of a now interested body politic.

Whatever the case, I think we have to acknowledge that, like campaign finance reform and the FEC, our political debate process is dysfunctional and heavily biased. A change, almost any change, that would shake the foundations would be useful. The shrink-wrapped gloss with NY Avenue style campaigning is doing the public a disservice. I'd like to know that what I'm buying is not an air-filled box, perfumed and shelved by The Deciders to disguise the product.

apologies,

"Scott writes:" was not intended in the post.
I wouldn't put my words in your mouth - on that, I'm sure we agree. ;>)

AnonymousDrivel,

Are you watching the debates being held now? All the candidates can't even answer a simple question like "What specifically would you do in Iraq, right now?" They all go into the it-was-the-right-decision but the execution-has-been-bungled etc etc. You really think these guys can speak for more than 90 seconds on Iraq ??? Have you seen any of these guys in a Q+A session; they have canned phrases to spout and nothing else.

The TV executives aren't fools; almost no one is watching the debates now (1-2 million out of 100 million US households); make it 90 minutes, and The Lucy Show rerun against it will have more viewers.

Sanjeev,

Yes, I'm watching the debates now even if many voters aren't. It's a responsibility more should take seriously. But your concerns prove the point that the debates need to be changed.

Why is no one watching? For one, the election process is too drawn out and perpetual. The job of these professionals is to get elected, not to do the job they are elected to do, so it seems as if they are always on the campaign. Hard to keep everyone politically engaged when we all have regular lives to live. Be that as it may, most have discovered that the politicians don't say anything under the current format. Now, is that a function of their being empty suits? Or is it a function of them fitting into the debate mold that has been scripted for them by an archaic MSM that wants to market the message, set the tone, and fit in commercials? Is it also embraced by empty suits who really don't have much to offer, so they willingly enjoin the 30-second, empty quip that talking heads love to make into a headline? Perhaps.

So let's encourage those who would shake things up to do so. Let's see just who has the skill, the mind, and the dynamic analytical capabilities to further a point without handlers and script writers. Do I expect them to make mistakes or to concede ignorance at the podium? Of course. They're human and I'll give them latitude. But I don't want them hiding behind the debate mechanism that prohibits their engaging an issue. Our current format does that very thing and it's a waste of time for everyone. In that regard, I would almost prefer Lucy. At least she was willing to go out on a limb and experiment, something that scares those who desperately want to control the debate... a control voters should want to wrest away from the handlers.

Given the number of nominees I think that a nominee can decline to debate another one. On the other hand, I'd suggest the following modifications:

1) That the major networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, commit to carrying, free in close to prime time, on at least one network, the nominee debates and all of the candidate debates, as part of their public service. That way if candidate A agreed to debate candidate B in a long debate format they would be assured that they would get an hour and a half free national coverage.

2) The nominee would commit to a series of 90 minute debates with the other candidate.

We, the voters, would of course, consider such commitments and participation as part of our determination of which people to support.

Gosh, I hate to say this, but Fred Thompson's answer to Sean Hannity reminds me soooo much of that awful gobbledygook answer that Miss Teen South Carolina gave....

C'mon Fred, get your thoughts organized -before- they hit your voice box!

AnonymousDrivel

Every presidential cycle there is this hand wringing about the debates - and the wishful thinking of the return of the Lincoln-Douglas debate style.

Here are the hard facts : Only politicians will run for the presidency - from the house, the senate, the governors, once in a while a mayor or rich white men like Perot or Forbes. All of them quickly learn to spout phrases that voters love / hate.

Here's 65 year old Fred Thompson speaking today:

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/Fred_Thompson/2007/09/08/31020.html

Authorities "can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I'm concerned," the former Tennessee senator said while campaigning in Western Iowa according to the Los Angeles Times. But "if it comes down to giving criminal sanctions to a 19-year-old girl and her mama, I'm against that."

He is pro-life in front of conservative crowds and in TV debates; he is pro-dollars from a pro-choice group, for-the-fetus, for-the-women and jail-the-doctors at other places.

Thompson has everything to lose if he debated Huckabee which is why he won't do it.

A Lincoln-Douglas style debate between two intelligent, civil and capable Rebublican candidates will serve only to aid the Republican cause generally. Let the midgets on the Democcrat side and the other Republican candidates prattle on in the present drive-by format that very few even watch and even fewer (nobody?) find illuminating. If I were Thompson I would accept Huckabee's offer and, if it turns out to be successful, propose a series of Thompson/Huckabee debates while the other candidates continue to bark endlessly at the moon. Thompson and Huckabee could cast themselves as the "serious" candidates and the rest as the "media" candidates. If their debates remain civil and their disagreements not overly critical, Republican voters might be persuaded that they are making a choice between which of the two serious candidates should lead the ticket and which should be the VP nominee. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but stranger things have happened and much worse things could happen to the Republican party in the next year.

It seems like it could be a great way to find out who the real intellectual heavyweights are, and who are really thoughtful enough to handle the issues they'd face on the job (which, of course, means that the majority of candidates on either side would never do it, even if their lives depended on it). I really hope Huckabee and Thompson go for it.

And while I realize that his unpopularity on here may be eclipsed only by Clinton's, I bet that Obama would be up to the challenge.

My belief is that both candidates stand to win if Thompson agrees to debate Huckabee. People in general are so tired of pre-packaged politics. Both men get points with the electrorate for being "man-enough" to go head to head. Thompson surely has even more to win in this regard because conventional wisdom (duly set forth by some of the some of the comment postings herein) says he has the most to lose in debating someone with lower polling numbers.

Fred should accept...Huck is generating some buzz...I think he has a shot...

I think that real debates would be great, but we have allowed television to take over the debate and much like a sporting event they are trying to generate audience and ratings. So instead of asking questions that are difficult to answer like a good reporter should do, they are just asking questions for the purpose of sound bites and ratings. It is unfortunate but this is the stark reality that we need to overcome. We need real questions on education, health care, immigration and the list goes on and on. I would suggest getting rid of the the screened questions by a reporter and getting someone else to come up with the questions. I hate town halls as well, because there is never enough time to get real answers. Huckabee and Thompson need each other at this time to gain some more attention and take it away from the other republican candidates.

C.M.

I actually attended the Gingrich-Cuomo debate at Cooper Union here in NYC earlier this year where this format was tried out. It worked exceedingly well for Gingrich, who has mature, in-depth positions on many issues, and the experience of a college professor in organizing his thoughts. It worked less well for Cuomo, who, despite a reputation for eloquence, is stuck back in the 1980s in his political positions. The format exposed the flaws in those positions. (As an aside, Sam Waterston, a self-professed liberal and Lincoln buff, was in the audience, but expressed his admiration for Gingrich's forensic skills afterward.)

I agree that forcing candidates to speak for an hour non-stop displays their character, intellect, and endurance much more clearly than the "sound byte". It's much harder for people with short attention spans to follow the format, but maybe it's time we stopped pandering to such people.

I like Fred and Huckabee. They're both Southerners, and thoughtful, talented guys. Breaking away from the "circular firing squad that the current debates have turned into would elevate the campaigns and the debates themselves.

joelunchpail (I assume that's not your real name) says,
"Mike Huckabee? I think a cantidate should be required to be half a percentage point ahead of me before he can challenge a cantidate whom actually appears in the polls."

Mike Huckabee is ahead of Fred in NH polls. Like it or not, national polls are meaningless..what happens here & in Iowa & SC matter.

Oh OUCH !!! This excerpt from article in today's NH Concord Monitor by columnist Katy Burns

"Thompson managed a rare two-fer: He poked a stick into the eyes of all the other Republican candidates who'd been slogging along the campaign trail for months, and he gave a figurative finger to New Hampshire voters by eschewing a Granite State debate held that same night. Thompson's stunt was not just insulting or gimmicky. It was both arrogant and tacky, far, far beneath anything Arthur Branch, his TV character, would do."

"His refusal to debate his fellow candidates before a live audience hints at more than a bit of cowardice on Fred's part. If he's not ready to stand up to mildly challenging questions now, how on earth will he cope with the rigors of a real campaign?"

Dale Fitzpatrick
Massachusetts For Huckabee

Strongly agree that I would love to see Thompson and Huckabee debate one-on-one for 90 minutes.

I think that event would so distance them from the rest of the pack that the remainder of the primary campaign would come down to a decision over whether the ticket will be Thompson/Huckabee or Huckabee/Thompson.

How about a series of early primaries that narrow down both the Dems and the GOP to two candidates,then engage in the series of one on one debates?

Scott writes:
"Huckabee didn't even get an honorable mention in the last polling reported by Rasmussen."

Scott, if you actually visit the Rasmussen Reports website and click on their daily presidential tracking poll from Friday (they don't do polls on Sunday), Huckabee is not absent in their analysis: "In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination... Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee remains atop the second tier and is preferred by 5%." Sure, he isn't up there with the other candidates nationally yet, but he is gaining in the state polls.

Joelunchpail writes:
"Mike Huckabee? I think a candidate should be required to be half a percentage point ahead of me before he can challenge a candidate whom actually appears in the polls."

Joel, do you realize that in recent Iowa and New Hampshire polls (by American Research Group), Huckabee leads both Fred Thompson and John McCain? In South Carolina, Huckabee is tied with Mitt Romney. And in a recent IVR Texas poll, Huckabee was leading McCain at 13% (not a half a percent), statistically tied with Mitt Romney (trailing 2 points when the margin of error is over 4%). In a Wall Street Journal editorial last week, Peggy Noonan wrote, "David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network says he doesn't know why Mr. Huckabee isn't in the top tier. I wonder too. Maybe he is and we don't know it."

I have watched every debate so far. And I am weary of the "gotcha" mentality of the moderators and long for some illumination of the candidate's views on important issues. I think a pairing of Gov Huckabee and Sen Thompson makes sense because they are each claiming the same space: the tradional, Southern Conservative. Similarly, I would pair Romney and Guiliani; Tancredo and Hunter etc. Sorta like the NBA playoffs .... The winners in each set advance to the next round.

Huckabee v Thompson? Now? In Huckabee's dreams...

Look, I'm a political junkie, a real one - and I'M not the least bit interested in the proposal. I've not watched a single one of the media generated 'debates' - because they are not anything of the sort.

If I'm not interested, how in the hell is Mr & Mrs generally politically detuned citizen out there going to be fired up to listen now?

Any media controlled 'debate' now, or even after the nominations are in - is little more than a circus, a very poor one at that.

Let the nomination conventions get over with, and when the average citizen finally turns his attention to which candidate best fits this countries future, we might see some interest out there for something more like a 'debate' - and maybe not.

Huckabee will win a debate hands down against Thompson. Romney is an empty suit. Thompson is an even emptier one. Guilaini is a yankee queer.

The problem is that Hillary will beat any Republican except Huckabee. Will the Republicans figure that out?

Nothing like history to help us out, here.

The Lincoln Douglas debates took place in 1858. The competition was for the Senate seat Lincoln lost. And, Douglas won.

In 1860, Douglas was running as the democratic nominee. And, he was the first candidate, ever, to campaign in each and every state. Down south he was spit on.

Lincoln avoided campaigning throughout the entire 1860 election. He realized journalists would just use every campaign stop to set their traps. So, instead? He had a host of front runners (Seward, Bates, Stanton, and others). ALL making campaign stops for him.

While he also published the Licoln Douglas debates; knowing that most Americans could read. And, most were also talking about the hot topics of the day. And, his opinions were expressed (deeply thought out). In the collection of debates that were published.

Given that Lincoln wins, you know his strategy worked.

As to the press, it's mostly just a game for most journalists. And, the one who can get a candidate to make a mistake gets to qualify that candidate with public humiliation.

Now, if you were watching Shakespeare, nobody tampers with the words. And, we all know actors have learned the art of delivery.

This remains true even for political candidates. They are professionals.

We also know that there's better stock, racing on the republican side. While the Bonkeys have what? Let me help you out. Because I see very rich people, who portray themselves as victims. Over there. I'm amazed they get any customers.

While the real question is how effective the various approaches are; since we know one thing about what's ahead. And, that's that the field narrows.

A year from now will it matter?

Will it matter that Fred "announced" on Jay Leno? Will it matter that he chose September 5th? Or was it the 6th? For his one sentence "I'm in" nod to Jay's audience. And, then to all of us who caught clips, later on?

He seems to be promises a big discussion of positions, as if political positions were the Kama Sutra of politics.

Ya know? I'm not so sure. The major reason I like Rudy is that I like the way Rudy ran New York City when he was mayor. He understood that it's a bigger task than any one man can do, alone.

So, ya gotta be good at picking talent.

This, I have yet to see produced by Fred Thompson.

Talking a good game? Won't be enough.

Nothing like history to help us out, here.

The Lincoln Douglas debates took place in 1858. The competition was for the Senate seat Lincoln lost. And, Douglas won.

In 1860, Douglas was running as the democratic nominee. And, he was the first candidate, ever, to campaign in each and every state. Down south he was spit on.

Lincoln avoided campaigning throughout the entire 1860 election. He realized journalists would just use every campaign stop to set their traps. So, instead? He had a host of front runners (Seward, Bates, Stanton, and others). ALL making campaign stops for him.

While he also published the Licoln Douglas debates; knowing that most Americans could read. And, most were also talking about the hot topics of the day. And, his opinions were expressed (deeply thought out). In the collection of debates that were published.

Given that Lincoln wins, you know his strategy worked.

As to the press, it's mostly just a game for most journalists. And, the one who can get a candidate to make a mistake gets to qualify that candidate with public humiliation.

Now, if you were watching Shakespeare, nobody tampers with the words. And, we all know actors have learned the art of delivery.

This remains true even for political candidates. They are professionals.

We also know that there's better stock, racing on the republican side. While the Bonkeys have what? Let me help you out. Because I see very rich people, who portray themselves as victims. Over there. I'm amazed they get any customers.

While the real question is how effective the various approaches are; since we know one thing about what's ahead. And, that's that the field narrows.

A year from now will it matter?

Will it matter that Fred "announced" on Jay Leno? Will it matter that he chose September 5th? Or was it the 6th? For his one sentence "I'm in" nod to Jay's audience. And, then to all of us who caught clips, later on?

He seems to be promises a big discussion of positions, as if political positions were the Kama Sutra of politics.

Ya know? I'm not so sure. The major reason I like Rudy is that I like the way Rudy ran New York City when he was mayor. He understood that it's a bigger task than any one man can do, alone.

So, ya gotta be good at picking talent.

This, I have yet to see produced by Fred Thompson.

Talking a good game? Won't be enough.

If you want to have a debate at not tweedle-dee and tweele-dum, then Ron Paul would have to be on one side versus either Huckabee or Thompson since they are both campaigning to extend Bush republican policies.

As Ronald Reagan said in his memoirs: " libertariaism is the soul of conservatism"

The libertarian policy of non-interventionism is conservative. Any intervention whether domestic or foreign increases the power of the federal government. While Bush republicans expouse small government, their policies have led to the largest expansion of federal powers and the largest decrease in individual liberty in history. These policies are not conservative and only lead to further strengthening the federal government and Thompson, Guliani, Romney and Huckabee would only extend or enhance Bush's policies of government intervention, both foreign and domestic.

Ron Paul, libertarian and Goldwater/Taft Republican is the only popular candidate who represents the soul of conservatism.
Fred and Huckabee are relative lightweights when it comes to understanding the economic and political ramifications of the requirements of foreign policy.
While Ron Pauls views on non-interventionist foreign policies are not taken seriously with the MSM and government-centric republicans, these views are generating tremendous interest in the general public and academics who have been exposed to them.
Let's have all comers debate this central core issue.
After all, only Ron Paul among the candidates has been invited to address the Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

Huckabee beat "herself"......you're kidding, right? As soon as folks understand where Huckabee REALLY comes from on illegal immigration, he'll be done.

Just Google Huckabee/Little Rock/Mexican consulate

The other night he tried to sound like he was for tougher immigration laws. As soon as folks read excerpts of his speech to LaRaza and the multitude of info that is available on the net he'll be a goner.

Some folks would like to paint anti-amnesty folks as just a bunch of deluded, nasty, right-wing nut jobs. The immigration issue is one that encompasses both parties. I live in NE Pa.....heavily Democratic area.....the Dems are just as passionate about illegal immigration as our most of the GOP.

I've been leaning toward Rudy, but he'll need to explain his comment that "illegal immigration isn't illegal" in greater detail. Suffice to say homeland security trumps most issues, but illegal immigration (how to stop it) is an important cog in the security wheel.

If Huckabee begins to get attention, someone(we are in Youtube era) will begin to talk about "Wayne DuMond".

That´s enough to end Huckabee. That case was so horrible that he couldn´t stand a chance.

You may want to check out pages 92-94 of Huck's book from Hope to Higher Ground ... he gives a full explanation of Wayne Dumond and isn't hiding from anything.

Let me know when you find the mistake-free leader ... in the meantime, I'm satisfied with Huckabee's openness about the case both in his book and on Meet the Press.

To get back to the basic point, this debate would serve the entire conservative movement, and help elevate both candidacies ... If Thompson does well, maybe even he'd move ahead of Huckabee in Iowa and New Hampshire.

This is a great idea for a debate. Fred Thompson needs to agree and schedule this as soon as possible. Huckabee seems ready for substance -- let's see if Fred is too?

Good post Capt.

I too am tired of the debate format as it stands being run by the media. It just seems contrived.

I don't want to hear anymore whining from Ron Paul doing his Jimmy Stewart im-im-immpression.

We don't need someone who just explains what the problems are, but someone who's actual experience proves he can fix these problems quickly.

Currently, there are just three candiates who can do this, and two have an R in their name. The other is Huckabee.

Rudy is correct that now isn't the time for on-the-job-training.

While Rudy ran a tight ship in NY, he made it into an immgration heaven as Mayor. He's also pro-choice, a BIG negative for true conservatives.

Mitt Romney has been tested many times when the heat was on, especially with the Olympics, and he came through, bigtime. He has the experience of being a Governor running a state, which really is a requirement for the presidency and favored by the electorate, he looks and speaks good too, perhaps not as good as Rudy, but we have to be careful of slick talkers since Billary.

I like Huckabee nailing Paul to the wall on the war. He showed he has guts along with morality.

Thompson is good, knows what's going on and may be the best communicator, but lacks the experience of a governor. Voting on bills as a former congressman is a whole different ballgame than running a state or city, but out of all the congressmen, he seems like the best one.

The real contest has begun and I think we can narrow the field to R, R, H, T.

Pat Patterson,

Who (aside from a few history buffs) recognize Buchanan's faction, which was blind-sided and sidelined in the end by the Dredd Scott decision?

Taney's decision was absolutely correct, and completely undermined the states' rights it sought to buttress. What Taney did was to point out that the Constitution made slavery legal even in free states, due to those nasty commerce clauses. The Southerners may have been happy over the decision, but the Northerners sure know that they no longer had any states' rights at all.

What Douglas and Lincoln argued was the true argument of the day, not the idealistic position held by Buchanan's group, which sought a compromise that nobody wanted.

We remember the Douglas and Lincoln debates to this day, but who remembers Buchanan the waffler?

I personally like this quote by Fred, about what distinguishes him from the other candidates. It's from his appearance on Hannity & Colmes the day he announced his candidacy:

"Well, uh, to tell you the truth, uh, I haven't spent a whole lot of time, uh, going into the details of their positions. I will be doing... I... I mean publicly. I obviously know where they stand and what they've done and what they've written. And there will be a time when we will need to have a good, uh, debate, if they're interested in debates, and we'll do it one-on-one and we'll do it in a big group, and I really want to do it, and we'll get into that. Right now, uh, I've got a lot of work to do about myself."

I rarely pay attention to political debates because as Thompson says, they're basically just a collection of sound bites anyway.

I would like to see longer debates, such as a full hour, with two debaters, restricted to a single topic and video made immediately available on YouTube so people can watch it at their leisure. The only problem is picking the two debaters. If every candidate had to debate every other on each topic, they'd never have time for anything but debating. You could just go with the two who are doing best in the polls, but that prevents new up and coming candidates from breaking into the top tier with a good performance.

Fred Thompson owes it to his supporters to accept this. So far the only platform he has for running is. "Uh I am Fred Thompson, and I Uh am Uh Running For U said Presidency". He needs to prove he has something in that bald head of his.

For the primaries (since we are stuck with them for now), the 90-minute debates between pairs of candidates should cover a range of issues, agreed-upon by the candidates, with questions only from each other. That's still a lot of debates, but C-span is certainly up to the task.

For the general election, the two major-party candidates should have a series of three or four debates on single areas of policy, e.g. foreign policy, domestic programs, taxation.

/Mr Lynn

Thompson is scared to debate because he doesn't want his real views to be known to social conservatives. He doesn't want social conservatives to know that he is against contitutional amendments banning gay marriage and banning abortion. Huckabee, in stark constrast, is strongly for both of these amendments, as are the vast majority of social conservatives. Thompson wants to hide this. If he debated, Huckabee, it would all be out in the open and Thompson would head down hill fast. He knows it, so he won't. Too bad.

Dear Senator Thompson:

Welcome to the 2008 presidential race. As a small-government Conservative, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need a re-injection of Federalist principles into our Republic; the federal government has gotten way too large and has taken on powers and responsibilities never assigned to it by the Constitution.

I believe, however, that your position that abortion is a “states' rights issue” is a misapplication of Federalism. Unlike "gay marriage" which the Constitution does not currently speak to, abortion is by the Constitution a Federal issue already. By the 5th and 14th Amendments, no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. This applies to all persons including the unborn. Exasperating my disappointment in your position on abortion were your comments on September 10 regarding Osama bin Laden. I fail to see how you can suggest that the prince of terrorists should receive “due process” upon capture, but you would withhold the Federal guarantee of due process from unborn American babies.

When you peel away all the layers of rhetoric and concern surrounding the "issue", the crucial question is this: What is the unborn? One can demonstrate not only by religious evidence but also sufficiently by secular evidence and reasoning that the unborn is a human individual and a person. I would be happy to share this information with you at any time.

Although a federal amendment banning abortion is ideal, no one is demanding from you or any other candidate a promise to make it happen by a certain date. However, your position of deferring the question to the states precludes the ideal and its possibility. It seems to me that this would be the position of Stephen Douglas: to oppose life-destroying evil personally but to suggest a right of the individual states to decide on it for themselves.

For this reason and to get to know you better, I strongly encourage you to make good on your preference for Lincoln/Douglas-style debates and accept Governor Huckabee’s invitation to a gentlemanly exchange. It would be a perfect opportunity to inform me and millions of prospective supporters why your position is reasonable and why you deserve our vote for the Republican nomination.

"Thompson is scared to debate because he doesn't want his real views to be known to social conservatives. He doesn't want social conservatives to know that he is against contitutional amendments banning gay marriage and banning abortion. Huckabee, in stark constrast, is strongly for both of these amendments, as are the vast majority of social conservatives."

I strongly support FMA and right-to-life, but the President has only so much leverage, and the top leverage points are first their position on the underlying issue and second their record on appointments and decisions. On those, Thompson's record of voting for DOMA, having a near 100% pro-life voting record in 8 years in the Senate, and supporting the best sort of judicial nominees, like his shepherding of Justice Roberts, suggests that he will be fine on supporting pro-life and traditional-marriage issues.

One reason that Fred Thompson has moved to the front of the pack is that he has been a more reliable and proven conservative than others.

Huckabee's record on tax-and-spend as governor as been non-conservative, it was lambasted by ClubForGrowth, and Hackabee has been soft on illegal immigration, supporting egregious bills like the awful DREAM Act, which is an amnesty-with-GI-Bill for illegal immigrants. (Yup, we used to reward combat veterans with college funding, now we give it to illegal immigrants - is there any wonder we have so many coming over?!?)

Mitt Romney is a better balance of the social-plus-fiscal conservative, if you want a pro-FMA supporter. Romney's record as Mass. governor was more fiscally conservative than Huckabee's in Arkansas.

All this ads up to "Thompson... scared to debate?" Hardly. Thompson, who is now national polling frontrunner, doesnt need to give Huckabee air time. The one-on-one debate Thompson could have and win is with Rudy.
We have elected Senators to be President, but never a Mayor, and we have no real need or reason to dump our pro-life platform just to get a new york mayor - rudy's good but he's not that special.

if not that, then a pared down debate of the 'top 5' Rudy, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee ... may make sense. But I like Hunter so let the small guys stay in the debates for a few more rounds.