Trump Needs to Man-Up and Debate

[Right_in_Virginia]

Trump Needs to Man-Up and Debate

Why does he "need to"?   Reagan didn't.  Reagan was so far ahead in the polls in 1980 his campaign chose an "above the fray" strategy and passed on the early crowded stage primary debates. 

After a series of debates, Bush rose to the top.  So, the Nashua Telegraph offered to host a debate between Reagan and Bush.  (You'll love this:)  Worried that a newspaper-sponsored debate might violate electoral regulations, Reagan arranged to fund the event with his own campaign money.

Of course Reagan famously invited the other candidates without telling Bush and all hell broke out on stage, giving way to the memorable "I am paying for this microphone" Reagan quote.   But, I digress.

The point being:  It's worth remembering that the "needs to" and "man ups" are often the clarion whines from the bottom of the pack,  not something carved in stone or even necessary.

Just food for thought.   

[Hoodat]

APRIL 23, 1980

1980 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate

Former Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) and former CIA director George H.W. Bush participated in a debate for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination. The debate took place in Houston, Texas, 10 days before the Texas primary. Governor Reagan went on to win the primary with 53 percent of the vote on his way to securing his party’s nomination. He then picked Mr. Bush as his running mate at the Republican convention later that summer. The Reagan-Bush ticket won 44 states in the 1980 general election, defeating incumbents President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter Mondale. Courtesy of the League of Women Voters and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?407380-1/1980-republican-presidential-candidates-debate

[Hoodat]

FACE THE NATION

Ronald Reagan's testy moment in the 1980 GOP debate

LOUISE DUFRESNE  |  FEBRUARY 11, 2016 / 2:54 PM

Think the GOP debates have been heated in 2016? Just imagine what it must have been like in to be the moderator of the GOP debate in Nashua, New Hampshire in 1980.

The debate, just three days before the critical New Hampshire primary, was to be sponsored by the Nashua Telegraph. But the FEC said that a newspaper-sponsored debate would not comply with election regulations. Instead, then-candidate Ronald Reagan financed the debate himself with his own campaign money.

While Reagan provided the funding, The Nashua Telegraph editorial staff remained in charge of moderating the debate. The newspaper invited front-runners Reagan and George H.W. Bush only, gearing up for a one-on-one match up.

Reagan, however, wanted all the candidates on the stage. Since he was paying for the debate, he argued that he should have a say in the ground rules.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reagans-testy-moment-in-the-1980-gop-debate/




I am sick and tired of lies being posted on this forum.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Reagan, however, wanted all the candidates on the stage. Since he was paying for the debate, he argued that he should have a say in the ground rules.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reagans-testy-moment-in-the-1980-gop-debate/


I am sick and tired of lies being posted on this forum.

You miss the point @Hoodat    Granted, it was a master stroke by Reagan, but it wasn't because he wanted to debate the other four ---- until 2:00 PM the afternoon of the debate Reagan was officially committed to a two man debate.   Reagan's campaign managers were successful in convincing Reagan the other four on stage would sufficiently unnerve Bush to stop his "big mo" (he'd won Iowa and was leading in NH).  Reagan then officially changed his mind on the format and the plan worked beautifully for him.

From “Rendezvous with Destiny,” by Craig Shirley:

The thirty-five days between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary during the 1980 presidential campaign were the most important time in Ronald Reagan’s political life. And the pivotal moment in this, his third try for the Republican nomination, occurred in a high-school gymnasium just three days before the New Hampshire vote.

Long the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Reagan suffered a stunning upset in Iowa at the hands of George H. W. Bush on January 21. Worse for Reagan, his campaign’s internal polling showed the former California governor falling 21 points behind Bush in New Hampshire. If Reagan lost to Bush in New Hampshire, his campaign would be over. Forever. There was no tomorrow. This was it for the Gipper.

The Reagan campaign had dug itself into this hole. Campaign manager John Sears and his aides Jim Lake and Charlie Black had felt that Reagan could not be stopped. Revealingly, Black said of Iowa, “Hell, I didn’t know it was gonna be a primary.” Sears’s strategy had been to rein in his candidate, keeping Reagan off the campaign trail and avoiding debates with the other candidates.

Reagan finally put his foot down. He hated losing, and he impatiently told Sears that he would “campaign the way I like to campaign.” That meant going to every corner of New Hampshire, speaking his mind on issues — and debating. He abruptly announced that he would attend all debates in New Hampshire, the very “cattle shows” he had derided.

The Nashua Telegraph stepped forward to sponsor a one-on-one debate. When the Federal Election Commission ruled that the newspaper couldn’t sponsor a debate that excluded some GOP candidates, the desperate Reagan campaign agreed to foot the entire bill. The debate was on. It would be held in the Nashua High School gymnasium on Saturday, February 23 — three days before the primary.

Irate at being excluded, the other Republican candidates fired off telegrams to Reagan, citing “fairness.” This weighed on the Gipper, but just one day before the Nashua showdown, Reagan’s New Hampshire campaign director, Gerald Carmen, confirmed that it would be a direct confrontation with Bush alone.

The Nashua Telegraph, Bush, Bush’s men, Reagan, Carmen, Reagan’s men — all had been boxed into the one-on-one debate format. All, that is, except for John Sears. ABC’s Barbara Walters had already reported that Sears “may well be fired,” but the canny political operative would give Ronald Reagan a final gift, one that would help open the front door to the White House for the Gipper.

Sears’s plan was to have Reagan relent at the last minute and invite the other candidates to participate. That would allow Reagan to appear magnanimous, and the maneuver would embarrass Bush into allowing the other Republicans — Senators Bob Dole and Howard Baker, Congressmen Phil Crane and John Anderson, and former Texas governor John Connally — onto the stage. Or perhaps it would create such chaos as to prevent Bush from winning the debate. Years later Charlie Black told me, “We knew he would choke.” Sears was blunter: “Our job was to show that Bush was not capable of being president.”

On the morning of the debate, Jim Lake got Reagan’s approval on the change in plans. Around noon, Sears called the other candidates. The only one who could not make it in time was Connally. He saw right through Sears’s ploy to use him and the others as props, but he liked the idea of sticking it to Bush. Connally laughed and said, “Brilliant strategy, but I ain’t coming. F– him over once for me.”

At 2 p.m., Sears publicly announced that Reagan wanted to open up the debate to the other candidates. Bush took the bait. He immediately refused to include the others, saying that he’d been invited by the Telegraph to participate in a two-man debate and that he “played by the rules.”

A half hour earlier, Jim Lake had called Telegraph executive editor Jon Breen to notify him that Reagan, claiming enormous pressure from the other candidates, had decided to include them. Breen became angry when he found out that the other candidates had already been invited to his debate and he hadn’t even been consulted. Livid at the last-minute switch, Breen and his Telegraph colleagues decided that it was their debate and they would stick with the one-on-one format.

[...]

Reagan, the old pro, tapped his microphone. It was already on, because steps had been taken, according to Carmen, to make sure that the soundman, Bob Molloy, was under their control. Reagan politely but firmly asked Breen if he could address the crowd. Breen rudely said, “No.” Reagan spoke anyway.

Talking over Reagan, Breen ordered Reagan’s microphone turned off, but the technician ignored him. Breen impatiently told Molloy a second time to turn off Reagan’s microphone, and again he ignored Breen.

That was it. Reagan had had enough. He turned to Breen with blood in his eye and thundered, “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!"

Reagan asked Breen one final time to include the others but was rebuffed yet again. Breen talked down to Reagan, saying, “Are you through . . . ? Have you concluded your remarks?” The gymnasium was a madhouse — “total chaos,” in Molloy’s words.

“Through all this, Bush sat woodenly at the debate table, staring straight ahead like a goody-two-shoes in the midst of a college cafeteria food fight,” wrote one of Bush’s longtime tormentors in the press, Jules Witcover.

Reagan had completely outmaneuvered Bush. It didn’t matter that after several unpleasantries hurled at Bush and pleasantries aimed at Reagan, the excluded candidates — Dole, Baker, Crane, and Anderson — agreed to leave the stage, meaning that Bush got his two-man debate after all. According to Witcover, the incident in Nashua created the “perception” that “Bush had the backbone of a jellyfish.”

Standing off to the side, proud of the riot he had created, John Sears was “smiling like the Cheshire cat,” Reagan speechwriter Peter Hannaford remembered.

The “Nashua Four,” as the exiled candidates quickly dubbed themselves, retired to the school’s Band Room, where they were met by a mob of media and joyously bashed Bush. Bush “wants to be king,” Dole said. “I told him onstage there’ll be another day.” Actually, he had leaned into Bush and loudly whispered, “I’ll get you someday, you f–ing Nazi!” Speaking to the media, he said that Bush “better find himself another Republican Party.” He even compared the hated Bush to the “Gestapo” and “Hitler’s Germany.” Phil Crane made similarly dark references, intoning, “Shades of the beer-halls.”

Bush never knew what hit him.

Though the event had not been televised live, the networks and local news ran footage, repeatedly, of a frozen Bush and the booming Reagan. Most of New Hampshire’s voters probably saw the film at least once.

Three days later, Ronald Reagan won the New Hampshire primary in a completely unexpected blowout, 50 to 23 percent. He had staved off what had seemed his sure political death.

https://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2009/10/new-book-tells-inside-story-of-pivotal-bush-reagan-debate-in-nashua/

[Idiot]

Trump better debate while he's still a free man.  That may not last for long.

[mountaineer]

AG
@AGHamilton29
If you want to understand how the RNC is a clown show, this is a perfect example. They pretended to set up requirements for the debate, but then just left it to the honor system for candidates to certify. Suarez is polling at 0 in every national poll in the last month except the joke Cygnal poll and he rounds up to 1% in Morning consult. His RCP average is 0.3%.  But he self-certifies that he has qualified. Meanwhile, Ronna-Can’t Stop Losing-McDaniel is inviting surrogates for candidate that aren’t even showing up to be there.


Steve Peoples
@sppeoples
NEWS: Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a fierce DeSantis critic, has qualified for the debate stage. He becomes the ninth candidate to qualify, although Trump's status remains uncertain. Associated Press: Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a fierce Ron DeSantis critic, qualifies for GOP presidential debate

[corbe]

[Kamaji]

[Hoodat]

You miss the point @Hoodat    Granted, it was a master stroke by Reagan, but it wasn't because he wanted to debate the other four ----

But that's not what you said.  You offered the excuse for Trump's refusal to debate by saying that Reagan did the same thing, equating Trump with Reagan.  Yet Reagan did indeed debate his GOP opponents in 1980.  Your pathetic attempt at equating of Trump and Reagan was patently false.  It was yet another example of your ongoing quest to deceive others on this forum.  But then you knew that already.

This one slightly differs from the rest because it required a bit of historical research going back over 40 years.  And in that research, you would have learned that Reagan's actions did not even come close to Trump's actions.  So to make that equivalence, you had to lie.  You made a conscientious decision to provide a false narrative on this forum. 

You made a decision to lie in order to defend your candidate.  It is exactly what Democrats do.

[Hoodat]

Meanwhile, Ronna-Can’t Stop Losing-McDaniel is inviting surrogates for candidate that aren’t even showing up to be there.

Ronna McDaniel is in the tank for Trump.  She knows that the more candidates on that stage, the more Trump's opposition will be diluted.  She is already looking forward to serving as Trump's Chief-of-Staff in his next term.

[Kamaji]

But that's not what you said.  You offered the excuse for Trump's refusal to debate by saying that Reagan did the same thing, equating Trump with Reagan.  Yet Reagan did indeed debate his GOP opponents in 1980.  Your pathetic attempt at equating of Trump and Reagan was patently false.  It was yet another example of your ongoing quest to deceive others on this forum.  But then you knew that already.

This one slightly differs from the rest because it required a bit of historical research going back over 40 years.  And in that research, you would have learned that Reagan's actions did not even come close to Trump's actions.  So to make that equivalence, you had to lie.  You made a conscientious decision to provide a false narrative on this forum. 

You made a decision to lie in order to defend your candidate.  It is exactly what Democrats do.

That is what an acolyte in a cult of personality does.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm the weird anti-Trumper who is actually on Trump's side in this.  I wouldn't debate if I were him either.  I think it is a legitimate, smart move, especially considering his pending legal issues.
I'd feel differently if he refused to debate during the entire primary season.  But until the field gets narrowed down to fewer than it currently is...I see no reason for him to debate.

I also think Trump participating in the early debates is a bad idea for the utility of the debate as whole.  The rules in these things usually permit a candidate to respond when mentioned by name or criticized by other candidates.  Well, that likely means that Trump will get to talk far more than the rest of them, except perhaps DeSantis who will be attacked by Trump lackeys/surrogates.  So we'd hear a ton from those two because they'll get their own time, plus time for responses, but very little from each of the rest.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm the weird anti-Trumper who is actually on Trump's side in this.  I wouldn't debate if I were him either.  I think it is a legitimate, smart move, especially considering his pending legal issues.
I'd feel differently if he refused to debate during the entire primary season.  But until the field gets narrowed down to fewer than it currently is...I see no reason for him to debate.

I also think Trump participating in the early debates is a bad idea for the utility of the debate as whole.  The rules in these things usually permit a candidate to respond when mentioned by name or criticized by other candidates.  Well, that likely means that Trump will get to talk far more than the rest of them, except perhaps DeSantis who will be attacked by Trump lackeys/surrogates.  So we'd hear a ton from those two because they'll get their own time, plus time for responses, but very little from each of the rest.

Bottom line:  It will be a better debate if Trump is not there.  We can hear about the issues we face, without Trump being the object of every single question.

Better for Trump, too.  Win-win.

[Right_in_Virginia]

But that's not what you said.You offered the excuse for Trump's refusal to debate by saying that Reagan did the same thing, equating Trump with Reagan.  Yet Reagan did indeed debate his GOP opponents in 1980

Reagan rejoined the primary debate stage late in the game ---- only after he lost in Iowa to Bush and was thisclose to a blowout loss to Bush in New Hampshire ---- which would have ended his political career.

Reagan chose NOT to participate in debates prior to facing his political death. The strategy was known as "above the fray".

You made a decision to lie in order to defend your candidate.  It is exactly what Democrats do.

If you reread my original post on this topic, I presented "food for thought" --- that Reagan had skipped primary debates so the expectation that
participation is automatically a "must do" really doesn't hold.    If it's a risk a campaign is willing to take, there is precedent for it.

This is the third time you have called me a liar in less than 12 hours @Hoodat ---- twice on this thread and again in disagreement that DeSantis did, indeed, follow Fauci's lead into 2021 ---- after Trump had left office.  This is your all too common MO.  Your belligerence cheapens not only you and your counter-point, but also the quality of this Forum.  It is past time for you to develop a more appropriate debate style.


@Cyber Liberty

[corbe]

   Of course, I would rather have the @Hoodat debate style than yours @Right_in_Virginia He backs his $hit up with facts and not emotions.

[mountaineer]

AG
@AGHamilton29
If you want to understand how the RNC is a clown show, this is a perfect example. They pretended to set up requirements for the debate, but then just left it to the honor system for candidates to certify. Suarez is polling at 0 in every national poll in the last month except the joke Cygnal poll and he rounds up to 1% in Morning consult. His RCP average is 0.3%.  But he self-certifies that he has qualified. Meanwhile, Ronna-Can’t Stop Losing-McDaniel is inviting surrogates for candidate that aren’t even showing up to be there.


Steve Peoples
@sppeoples
NEWS: Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a fierce DeSantis critic, has qualified for the debate stage. He becomes the ninth candidate to qualify, although Trump's status remains uncertain. Associated Press: Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a fierce Ron DeSantis critic, qualifies for GOP presidential debate

Steve Peoples
@sppeoples
UPDATE: Despite Suarez public assurances, senior advisers with the Republican National Committee now say that Suarez has not yet officially met the criteria.
12:06 PM · Aug 18, 2023

 

[corbe]

   Another Trumper hope ~ dashed.

[Cyber Liberty]

   Another Trumper hope ~ dashed.

Pretty sure Suarez hates Trump.

[DCPatriot]

This is the third time you have called me a liar in less than 12 hours @Hoodat ---- twice on this thread and again in disagreement that DeSantis did, indeed, follow Fauci's lead into 2021 ---- after Trump had left office.  This is your all too common MO.  Your belligerence cheapens not only you and your counter-point, but also the quality of this Forum.  It is past time for you to develop a more appropriate debate style.


@Cyber Liberty

On top of that, he's a MOD!

A "MOD" with...what's the word @corbe ??  A "nefarious" agenda?   

[Hoodat]

This is the third time you have called me a liar in less than 12 hours @Hoodat

I only called you a liar once ( which I corrected).  DC is the one who brought it back up.  If you feel that someone is challenging the veracity of what you post, then perhaps you should position yourself to defend the integrity of your content instead of crying to management.

You regularly demean other posters here with your smarmy bullshit, and are a hypocrite of the highest order for protesting others of doing what you do.

[corbe]

   That was a pretty harsh word to use @DCPatriot in describing your actions here. I was just pizzed you called @mystery-ak out in such a manner as you clearly did, earlier.  You think she needs any $hit from Briefers that don't like it here?  I'll repeat what she said: There's the DOOR.

[Kamaji]

I only called you a liar once ( which I corrected).  DC is the one who brought it back up.  If you feel that someone is challenging the veracity of what you post, then perhaps you should position yourself to defend the integrity of your content instead of crying to management.

You regularly demean other posters here with your smarmy bullshit, and are a hypocrite of the highest order for protesting others of doing what you do.

Spot on.

[roamer_1]

This is the third time you have called me a liar in less than 12 hours @Hoodat ---- twice on this thread and again in disagreement that DeSantis did, indeed, follow Fauci's lead into 2021 ---- after Trump had left office.  This is your all too common MO.  Your belligerence cheapens not only you and your counter-point, but also the quality of this Forum.  It is past time for you to develop a more appropriate debate style.

[making it personal]

He's right.
And it's your poo-throwing that cheapens the forum and distracts from the issues.

The reason it pisses me off from you, is because other than Tumpy, I have always respected your research ability, and your eye nearly toward true journalism - I could trust your posts to be true.

Now all you're posting is crap. Pure crap... and getting caught at it.

It's a damn cryin shame. The @Right_in_Virginia I used to know was much better than that.
And because of that history of nearly impeccable worth, you have to know you're doing it now, and that's doing it on purpose.

[Right_in_Virginia]

[making it personal]

He's right.
And it's your poo-throwing that cheapens the forum and distracts from the issues.

The reason it pisses me off from you, is because other than Tumpy, I have always respected your research ability, and your eye nearly toward true journalism - I could trust your posts to be true.

Now all you're posting is crap. Pure crap... and getting caught at it.

It's a damn cryin shame. The @Right_in_Virginia I used to know was much better than that.
And because of that history of nearly impeccable worth, you have to know you're doing it now, and that's doing it on purpose.

You could have chosen to discuss this privately @roamer_1   It could have been both interesting and productive.   But, you chose to jump aboard the crazy train ---- and *this* is the true crying shame.  Enjoy your trip, and buckle up.

[libertybele]

You could have chosen to discuss this privately @roamer_1   It could have been both interesting and productive.   But, you chose to jump aboard the crazy train ---- and *this* is the true crying shame.  Enjoy your trip, and buckle up.