70 votes

Roger Ebert Wants a Paul-Gingrich Debate: "Poor fuzzy-mouthed Gingrich would be cruelly mismatched."

Following CNN's decision to cancel the final debate before Super Tuesday for lack of participants (Romney and Santorum declined to attend), Roger Ebert laments that CNN failed to capitalize on what surely would have been a ratings bonanza: A two-man Paul-Gingrich debate.

Here is snip from Ebert's blog on the Chicago Sun Times: The Debate that Wasn't Held

- - - - -

The debates have fallen into a miasma of sameness, with the usual sound bites recycled endlessly. The purpose of the candidates is to get through them safely without putting their feet in their mouths. This late in the season, there's little chance of anyone springing a surprise except by mistake, as when Mitt described himself as a "severe conservative." The press and viewers are united in one hope: That someone will make an error.

But imagine Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich sharing the stage. Paul has already thrown down the gauntlet by accusing Mitt of not being a "true conservative." No matter what that charge means, no one is likely to make it against Paul.

Two men on stage. They can run, but they can't hide. Ron Paul would flourish in such a format. He is the most plain-spoken and articulate of the candidates, the master of the zinger, the expert in sound bites, the most gifted at saying what he thinks directly and with humor. Against his verbal skills, poor fuzzy-mouthed Gingrich would be cruelly mismatched.

- - - - -

Well worth the full read at The Chicago Sun Times

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron should take on Newt in one or more

Lincoln-Douglas style debates before large college audiences, with the first one before
March 6. I'm sure there would be lots of media coverage which both Newt and Ron need at the moment. (I think the "delegate strategy" is a bit arcane for most of the peops. Also, it would draw coverage to Ron's message/plan which is being blacked out, in case you hadn't noticed.)

If Newt declines, Ron would score points for his fearless audacity, and Newt would shrink further into 4th place, where he belongs. The contrast in styles would be wonderful with Ron's simple and direct reasonableness vs Newt's convoluted bloviations. Defeating Newt's vaunted
debate skills would be a worthy objective and give Ron widespread cred amongst the uninformed.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

waste of time. paul vs. santorum would accomplish more.

newton is going nowhere. it's chickenhawk santorum we need to take down next. then flipper romney.


Newt is never gonna let that

Newt is never gonna let that happen, but it would be one hell of a show to watch.

Gingrich will not accept if offered

How great would it be if we could have the best Keynesian debater stand toe to toe with the ONLY non-Keynesian (non Central Planner) running for US President?

I don't think Gingrich would accept a series of 3 hour Paul - Gingrich debates, the failure of Macro Economics would become glaringly obvious and Gingrich is the biggest Keynesian (Central Planner) Paul is running against. Only Obama stands toe to toe with Gingrich on the desire to Centrally Plan humankind's behavior and futures.

Folks, Liberty is the lack of Central Planning, do not fail to recognize that you must have Libertarians or Libertarian Leaning Republicans running your Local Offices if you want Local Planning (i.e. Most taxes being spent and benefited from Locally).

jeffjeffjeff's picture

I don't know if I can take

I don't know if I can take any more of Gingrich making anything perfectly clear about anything anymore.

Debating gingrich would be attacking down

Gingrich got way fewer votes than Paul in Colorado, Minnesota and Maine put together. He's on his way out. Debate Santorum alone. He's attracting the anti-Romney crowd.

Besides, I think when Gingrich held his Lincoln-Douglas debates all he did was siphon voters from the other candidate. The debate is rather unstructured. So gingrich let's the other person speak, agree, then add some tiny detail that sounds great. Voila! He siphoned some voters from the opponent. Gingrich can be a really great debater. It's not worth it to go one on one with him.

It would be a sad debate to

It would be a sad debate to watch. I mean who's going to get Newt out of Ron Paul's vice grip? Newt would have to drop out of the election as a result.

To the educated and intelligent, Ron Paul would win any debate

against Gingrich hands down.

The problem is that MOST people are not educated or intelligent - and those people go for put-downs, snow jobs, moderator intimidation and just plain blustery lies.

Ron Paul is many things, but he simply cannot compete (not does he want to) in the snow jobs and blustery lies department, like Gingrich can.

A debate between the two would only satisfy the dumb and stupid. It would frustrate the intelligent.

Establsihment is actually the one to be debating with...

Romney is the worst, and it is unfortunate that people do not want to talk about that. Romney is the only establishment representative all through, so a debate that is worthy would be the between paul and romney, where there is no alliance.


Lets just skip the BS

like Romney Santorum and Gingrich and go strait to the real debate.... Paul vs Obama !....Aaah never mind, the GOP would never let that happen! They have to kep their puppet Obama in office....

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams


Why give Gingrich such credibility? Gingrich is a liar and a man with no morality. His strong suit is lieing before audiances to entertain them into giving him their support.
I would prefer we just match Gingrich's past performance record up against Ron Paul's.


Good reasoning, but we have

Good reasoning, but we have no need to give Gingrich any credence as a viable candidate.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Best line:

"Newt expresses himself in platitudes. He accused Romney of speaking in "pious baloney." Did he feel ripped off?"

Roger Ebert has written one

convincing piece for having a real debate betw Paul and Gingrich. (which could easily be undone if a MSM celebrity hosted...) He totally sold me. He also sounds starved like we are for some sign of meaningfulness in our political discourse.

Unfortunately, Paul also backed out making it impossible. (I bet Ebert knew that. Wink Wink)

And I agree with him: If Paul doesn't win the nomination, it won't be for any reason under the sun, except, he's TOO conservative. And that's why he's so feared on both sides. 'Turn ON the lights, the party's over.' LOL

Loved this piece. Thanks Michael!

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Paul and Mitts

mutually agreed to back out so neither had to cancel other engagements and to make sure there would be no debate.
That being said - Ron was did exceptionally well at this debate - one because I think sitting down and being relaxed is more his style - two - because he was not rushed in answers. In a two man debate he would kill it. Having time to articulate and explain - wow - that would go very bad for whoever is on the other end of it. One on one the moderator really is just there to referee and make sure things move along - unlike these clown fests where they are pushing agendas.

RP was the first

yeah Ron Paul was the first to cancel... although a gingrich / paul debate would be fun it would also be pointless. the paul/ obama debates are the ones i am looking forward to!

i think RP

was the second to drop out of this debate ....

Jesse Benton

If I recall correctly, Jesse Benton said that the Paul and Romney campaigns agreed together that both would drop out of the debate to accommodate their respective speaking schedules.

EDIT: From a DP thread 02/22/12 (http://www.dailypaul.com/215861/jesse-benton-interview-on-ms...) with an embedded link to the Alex Wagner interview, J. Benton's statement is around the 4-minute mark: http://youtu.be/fpSdRWGoR5k