Brilliant idea from DailyPaul regarding a Paul debate:

[Paulistinian]

Lots of talk here and the DailyPaul about debate ideas for Dr. Paul to use to get more airtime.. A user on DailyPaul came up with one that I think is outstanding:

1 hour debate on Freedom Watch. Judge Napolitano moderates. It would be a lightning debate, because of commercial breaks they would only have 45minutes or so for actual debating. Paul should challenge a top tier candidate... Romney likely would not accept so cross him off the list. That leaves us with Gingrich, Cain and Perry. Cain is on his way out, so challenging Cain would be 'punching down'. Eliminate him. That leaves Perry and Gingrich. Perry might refuse the invitation, but judging by he and Paul's friendly candor with each other of late, he may take it as an opportunity to get out there and prove he can be a better debater in a different format. Gingrich would not refuse a challenge because he would look weak after all that Lincoln/Douglas talk and he would relish in any opportunity to make a headline or two. Huntsman could be an option, though it would be punching down- but, Paul would really help Huntsman get a bump which might take a few votes from Romney in New Hampshire.

What are your thoughts, Grassroots Central? Can someone contact Freedom Watch and pass them this idea so we can get the debate going ASAP?

 

[zerosdontcount]

The Judge is a little too much for a moerator. Somebody more neutral.

 

[robskicks]

cool idea. tough to make happen. my vote goes to cain or gingrich.

 

[low preference guy]

The Judge is a little too much for a moerator. Somebody more neutral.

He asks leading questions too often. He would ask something like: Newt, you're a disgrace for conservatism. You did X, X, and X. Are you ready to apologize to the country and endorse Ron Paul?

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not really sure Ron has time for more debates. They moved the primaries up, and it means he has less time to campaign and still has his day job, plus when they moved the primaries up two later debates leapfrogged back to get in front of the primaries, and those are in Iowa.

 

[sailingaway]

\

Yeah. He asks leading questions too often. He would ask something like: Newt, you're a disgrace for conservatism. You did X, X, and X. Are you ready to apologize to the country and endorse Ron Paul?

works for me

 

[low preference guy]

works for me

I cringe when I watch the judge do interviews. I think he's actually worse than Peter Schiff. /off topic

 

[Eric21ND]

I cringe when I watch the judge do interviews. I think he's actually worse than Peter Schiff. /off topic

If you think the Judge or Schiff is bad at interviewing people, you must have never heard Alex Jones.

 

[low preference guy]

If you think the Judge or Schiff is bad at interviewing people, you must have never heard Alex Jones.

LOL. Alex just throws weird NWO stuff, but he lets his interviewees talk!

 

[kah13176]

I REALLY want to see a Paul/Gingrich 1v1. At least Gingrich answers the questions he's asked without meaningless bullshit, so it would make for an interesting debate.

 

[Paulistinian]

The Judge could tone it down for this episode... The idea here is that, rather than a regular appearance on the show, this would generate headlines for a whole week (so long as Gingrich or Perry is debating against Ron). Freedom Watch is the best venue because we know the Judge is fair, I mean fuck, he IS A JUDGE for God's sake. hahaha. All the other Fox programs will talk about it, and some talk radio will as well.... so long as its Gingrich or Perry facing off with Paul.

 

[agorist ninja]

If you think the Judge or Schiff is bad at interviewing people, you must have never heard Alex Jones.

I've listened to a few Alex Jones interviews. Not joking when I say this, but I really have to think hard about something I've laughed more at than when Alex tries to keep an interview going by simply saying "continue".

The guest will give some long, in-depth answer and Alex will have absolutely no clue how to follow up. So, he just says "continue" in a very dramatic voice. It's ridiculous.

/offtopicsorry

 

[low preference guy]

I've listened to a few Alex Jones interviews. Not joking when I say this, but I really have to think hard about something I've laughed more at than when Alex tries to keep an interview going by simply saying "continue".

The guest will give some long, in-depth answer and Alex will have absolutely no clue how to follow up. So, he just says "continue" in a very dramatic voice. It's ridiculous.

hilarious. that's what happens when you have the most watched news show on the internet.

 

[SwordOfLiberty+4]

The Judge is a bad choice because he has been mentioned as a possible running mate.

I think someone honest like John Stewart, Juan Williams, someone friendly but unbiased.

As far as time - how about a town-hall style debate in Iowa/NH?

 

[SwordOfLiberty+4]

Actually... what about debate by proxy? Someone prominent (think Tom Woods) vs. some proxy for any of the various Tea Party organizations (that have been led astray). Offhand it doesn't seem valuable (who would care?) - but there might be an angle there somewhere... it would have to a draw...

oh... I know, Sarah Palin moderator???

 

[Paulistinian]

I guess the Judge could host it on his show with a guest moderator? I just assumed its faster and easier to just use his show as the vehicle for this debate... it could be whipped together real quick.

 

[Fermli]

None of the candidates would ever agree to a 1on1 debate with Paul. It's purely fantasy. That should be obvious.

All he can do is keep doing what he's doing. Lots of TV/radio interviews, articles, advertising, etc.

 

[RKoho]

Haha I watch Alex Jones occasionally. He does have good info now and then if you can look past the conspiracy theory crap. He is bad though especially during his outburst! Imagine Jones moderating a debate! He would begin yelling at random points. Adam Kokesh is pretty bad at interviewing too. He's the king of leading questions.

 

[Paulistinian]

None of the candidates would ever agree to a 1on1 debate with Paul. It's purely fantasy. That should be obvious.

All he can do is keep doing what he's doing. Lots of TV/radio interviews, articles, advertising, etc.

Gingrich would not refuse. No way.

 

[low preference guy]

None of the candidates would ever agree to a 1on1 debate with Paul. It's purely fantasy. That should be obvious.

All he can do is keep doing what he's doing. Lots of TV/radio interviews, articles, advertising, etc.

if it's a good idea it's worth trying anyway. somebody might have a brain freeze like Perry and accept it.