another suggestion, compare and contrast their goals to Obama’s. We need to make such an event about OZero!!
Great idea and much needed.

P.S : I would like to make a prediction, Perry will agree, but Romney will not.

I am a little more than annoyed that these early debates have seemed to center on getting the cheap, quick soundbite out to a national audience instead of realling getting into the issues in a manner that the voting public can more easily comprehend. This is why Newt Gingrich seems to be doing so well in the debates. He understands well that all the issue talk in the world means SQUAT unless the public knows what the heck the candidates are talking about.

I would like to see the top three viable candidates right now…Perry, Romney, and Cain by my calculations…square off in a town hall format debate. I would like to see them asked questions…then get pressed by the moderator if answers are unclear or spun instead of constant interruptions and playing to the crowd as has been the case thus far. Let’s hear the substance instead of the pomp…I mean really, haven’t we had enough of that BS with the current White House tenant?

…I think you should extend the offer to the Democrat Party candidate(s) as well. I’d pay to watch that one.

These debates bore me for the very reasons Erick stated. I would urge all candidates to agree and get down to business.

Call it the RedState Presidential Forum. It’s no accident that Rick Perry chose RedState as the place for his presidential announcement. A live-streamed event could be archived and split into segments that would be a great resource for us as we prepare to cast our vote.

Thanks for all you do Erick.

that I would actually tune in to watch.

I want to be invited! I will be there. Great idea and I think it is what is needed to weed out field.

Many are ecstatic about endless, large, debates looking for the soundbites from random candidates. I am not.

I think a forum on your radio show would be a great thing and a win- win for all who choose to use it.

They are a waste of time.

I’m a little confused on that.

Somehow, I suspect neither Lincoln nor Douglas would consider what have been called “debates” worthy of that description.

This would be a good idea, even if only one candidate is scheduled at a time.

Mew

Another idea, although it would be very time consuming, would be for you to sit down with these people, individually, for about an hour and discuss the issues of this campaign. I imagine you could probably sell it to CNN to broadcast it, as they seem to be dying for anything that would produce ratings. Run them as a weekly series up until the date of the Iowa Caucuses. God knows I might actually tune in to CNN to watch that, as opposed to the usual drivel that they put on that channel.

Seriously, is there anything more painfully boring than watching that obnoxious sycophant Piers Morgan suck up to whatever liberal happens to be on his show that evening.

“And you are all making it about each other instead of about Barack Obama.”
That’s exactly what the race is supposed to be right now. We know that every one of them opposes Obama. They wouldn’t be in the campaign to run against him if they liked him. What we need now is for the Republican candidates to make the race about each other so we can all see the real, substantive differences between the candidates. Republicans need to be able to make an informed choice between the candidates, and the only way to get that information is for them to make it about each other instead of Obama for the time being.

Here it is, 2011, and todays voters have to make a decision based upon these ridiculous debates where the stars of the show are the moderators??!! And, where all of the pundits are waiting for the worst gaffe or best “line” so they can rush to their computers and post their story? It is not working and is totally confusing the heck out of everyone. The media is stuck on a format that does nothing to help us, as voters, make a reasoned decision. Why the candidates go along with this is beyond me. That’s my take, anyway.

watching the debates any more than I can tolerate watching shows like American Idol or Biggest Loser because of their phony agendas. The producers of these shows manage the outcomes to maximize ratings, profits. I believe the same can be said for these debates. Do you really believe MSNBC’s debate producers wanted our candidates to reveal their agendas in an unfiltered light? Nope, they wanted to create fodder for SNL skits to go along with their short-lived bump in the evenings viewership ratings by pitting candidates against each other with set-up questions.

Erik, you have a great proposal here: a straight talk interview without producers, stage antics, and distractions. Your RS audience trusts you.

I’m not sure of exactly what you are proposing. How can any of the candidates get any more time to say something substantial, if they all participated, with only an hour?

Please do the debate as a round table affair. It would give more of an appearance of having a kitchen table discussion about how you are going to adjust your family budget, or how you will agree to discipline your unruly child.

Any chance of doing the debate in a two or three part series so that you can cover just a few issues per debate, and give the candidates enough time to develop their plans/ideas.

Will anyone contact the campaigns to ask for participation?

We had better debates in my high school debate class than any of these media-sponsored circuses. These debates have been infested with some pretty dumb questions, some point-counterpoint responses that were funnier than Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin on Saturday Night Live, and some moderators that not only shouldn’t quit their day jobs, they should worry about their jobs being in jeopardy period.

The problems facing this country didn’t happen in one minute, and the solutions can’t be articulated in one minute, especially with the moderators consistently egging on responses that have little or no relevence to the problem.

Sad state of affairs when Gary Johnson’s dog comment is what most people remember, especially since I understand he plagerized Rush’s same comment from earlier in the week.

We need to hear more from our candidates, not just soundbites. I’m fully in favor of this idea/plan.

People are tired of media tricks and sound bites. This would provide people with an opportunity to really get to know the candidates.

Erick, just what we need to cut through the “establishment babble”!

It is beyond me why anyone trusts glib debators when Obama has proved what we definitely don’t need is a silver tongued devil in the White House!
Perry’s no nonsense effort doesn’t disappoint me and Cain’s optimistim really lifts my spirits.
Both of these men represent what I like about Palin, and I’m sorry it doesn’t appear likely she would draw independent-light voters.

I’m so tired of the one-liners and platitudes which are all we get out of these so-called debates. Last I checked, the word debate inferred some back and forth conversation in a point-counterpoint style – NOT in the Perry-Romney finger-pointing style.

The chance to have the candidates actually talk to each other on the issues to show their real differences would be invaluable.

Even if the candidates came in one at a time as Erick mentioned above would give us a clearer picture on each of them and they would have to expound their positions on issues, after which we could hold their feet to the fire. I think Romney would not come on for this exact reason – it would prevent him from twisting in the wind like he has on so many issues in the past.

Erick – doubt if the ruling class will allowing there lap dog politicians to participate in anything as brazen as this. What a sorry field, none of them could be the ABBO candidate except for Cain. Herman Cain is the only non politician in this sorry group of candidates and all the talking heads with their taling points from the ruling class will try to convince us that the Cain’s Florida win was meaningless. Most conservatives are as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Obama. Until a true conservative party emerges the current ruling class system will continue as we move toward total government control over our lives.

It seems you are mainly disappointed in the 2 media driven front runners debate performances. They should be capable of adapting to the debate format to get their ideas across. Herman Cain has done it. Newt Gingrich has done it. If Perry and Romney cannot succeed in the debates then how can we have confidence that they will be able to match Obama head on when the Dem controlled mainstream media stacks the deck against one of them.

No its clear to a lot of folks out here that we need a leader who is not hand picked for us because they might have the traditional presidential look. I think people are ready for something different.

This is what the Fla Straw poll reflected and the recent Zogby poll that was released showing Herman Cain in the lead.

I fully agree with Erick about the debates. Most of the commenters on this site also seem to want longer exposure to each candidate. How about a unique format:

1. Run an ongoing multi-hour debate much like a tennis tournament. Candidates will be seeded based on polling data (or drawing numbers from a hat), then enter a series of one-hour (without commercials) debate face-offs.

2. Instead of moderator-posed questions, the candidates will be given a slate of must-discuss issues. Other than a requirement to discuss all of the issues, they are free to discuss what they want in conversation style, similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, without interruption by a moderator.

3. At the end of the one-hour, the audience poll will decide who is the winner, to go into the next round.

4. In 4 rounds we will have a winner. You could space the rounds as schedules permitted.

I believe this will accomplish several things:

First, it will end forever the game-show approach to Presidential debates in which a candidate is supposed to examine the Arab-Israeli conflict in 30 seconds.

Second, it will reduce the campaign consultant influence on sound-bite responses.

Third, it will give us much better insight into the type of person the candidate is, as well as how much they really know about the issues and how they would lead the country.

It may take the best of your public promotion skills to get the candidates (except for Newt) to agree with this, but it’s certainly worth a try.

have been useless to me. They have not added anything to my decision as to whom I will vote for in 2012. A different format would be very helpful to hear them out allowing proof of their statements.
Arguing among the candidates in a public forum is immature and We the People deserve better behavior and answers.