Six Ways to Fix These Painfully Embarrassing GOP Primary Debates
How about this as a format for a candidate debate:
1. Select one reasonably narrow topic such as “Resolved, Illegal Immigration is Bad for the United States,” or “Resolved, Governmentally Mandated Purchase of Medical Insurance is Inappropriate in Our Free Society.” Perhaps each of the top ten or so candidates in recent polls could submit and then vote on topics other than the one he had himself submitted. Presumably, the votes of each of the other candidates would be based on his own perceptions of his talents in debating the topics. At a subsequent debate on the first topic example (illegal immigration), Representative Bachmann could argue in support of the proposition and Governor Perry could argue in opposition. Both could clarify perceptions as to where they stand. Is Governor Perry really soft on illegal immigration? Maybe not. The problems faced by Texas, with extensive Mexican borders and lots of illegal immigrants, are different from those faced by Massachusetts and most other states. Also, Texas seems to have done much to keep them out. Beyond that, the courts have held their exclusion to be essentially a function of the federal government with which the states can’t interfere because under currently popular legal theory the matter has been dealt with by the federal government; it is doing a rotten job of it. Governor Perry needs to explain his position better, in a well focused debate. On the second example, healthcare, has RomneyCare been good or bad for Massachusetts? If a state can do it, does that mean that the federal government can or should? As Bryan Preston commented here, “poorly thought out statements . . . can come out of Obama’s mouth and do him no harm at all, but every Republican will be held accountable for every word they have ever said.” He was commenting on an ill advised statement by Rick Santorum, but it applies to all.
2. Select a keynote speaker to frame the debate and probably to state his own views on the topic. The candidates delivering the keynote addresses should be rotated in subsequent debates to give all or most that opportunity. By setting forth his own views in succinct fashion, the keynote speaker would have an excellent opportunity to make them clear, well beyond soundbites to be mischaracterized later by his opponents and by the media. There would be no requirement that the keynote speaker support the proposition to be debated, provided that he address it and it only — for, against or perhaps to argue that some intermediate ground is better.
3. For each debate, select two, and only two, candidates as debaters – preferably those who seem to have the most divergent as well as cogent views on the selected topic. This would, in effect, mean three candidates on stage and, it is to be hoped, able and well prepared to present their views. Adequate preparation for any debate is essential, and its its absence has been obvious. To avoid an appearance of unfair advantage, the candidate who submitted the resolution selected for debate could be neither the keynote speaker nor one of the debaters on it.
4. Allow the keynote speaker five minutes for his address. If well prepared and succinct that should be adequate. Then the selected proponent of the resolution would have fifteen minutes, of which he could reserve no more than seven minutes for rebuttal. The opponent of the resolution would then get his fifteen minutes, to be followed by the proponent in his rebuttal.
5. Following the formal debate, permit a limited number of questions from the remaining candidates. These should be limited to the scope of the issue being debated. Neither the keynote speaker nor the debating candidates would be permitted to ask each other, or other candidates not on the stage, questions – they could deal, should they wish, with what they perceive to be the views of others during their own times at the rostrum. The total time for such questions and answers should be limited to perhaps twenty-five minutes, making the total time (exclusive of commercial and other breaks) one hour. For a tightly formatted and well thought out debate, that should be sufficient.
6. A timekeeper and a judge will be needed to enforce the time limits and to curtail off-topic discussions and questions. Neither would not be permitted to ask, or to rephrase, questions and neither should be a candidate.
Interesting and largely correct.
The existing debates have been useful in revealing candidate weaknesses, but I think you made the point very well that they may have been more useful for creating sound bites for the most incompetant president in history who has never had to face scrutiny of any sort. If nothing else, making it possible for the candidate on the American side of the ledger to more clearly explain themselves can only be good. It would be a positive thing to refocus on candidate strengths and Obamas pantheon of destructive policies.
But I’m not so sure about the suggested format. It sounds like some candidates might be forced into arguing a case they don’t support. Perhaps I misunderstand.
I would prefer a forum where 3 candidates get to speak for 5 minutes on a topic they are particularly involved with, and then have a 20 minute period where each of the other six get a couple of minutes to side with one of the three and then ask a question of one of the three. A two hour debate could handle two topics, in some depth.
For example, health care would be a topic, and Romney, Bachmann and Cain would be the three in the catbird seat. Each would speak uninterrupted for 5 minutes. Then each of the other candidates would say which they agreed with most closely and why, and then get to ask a question of one of the three. Another topic would be immigration, and the candidates in the catbird seat would be Perry, Santoreum and Gary Johnson.
But there are probably many forums that would give the candidates a better chance to shine than they have with the current forum.
My biggest concern with any foram other than the current one would be that the candidates wouldn’t get practice at handling the viscious attacks of the make believe media, because in the general election, the debates are going to be in the format that gives little lenin the advantage, period.
Proreason, you say,
I agree that no candidate should be forced to argue in favor of a position with which he is not in agreement, and the selection process must take that into account.
I have found it confusing and disruptive to have too many candidates on stage at once. That’s why I suggested that for each topic, there be only two candidates to argue their respective sides, for twenty minutes each, and one keynote speaker (also a candidate) to try to set the focus of the debate, agreeing with, opposing or perhaps trying to refine the proposition — as Bill Buckley so successfully did. Then, the candidates not on stage could ask questions — that can be an effective way to state a position.
Five minutes each does not seem adequate for a debating candidate to address an important issue. Back when I was in court arguing appellate cases, I generally got a total of fifteen minutes. In some instances, more would have been better and in others less would have been enough.
There are almost certainly better ways than I have offered to format the debates, and I look forward very much to hearing what others have to say.
With CSPAN on all cable networks, who really needs network coverage of primary debates? Let the GOP run the debates in anyway they like and give CSPAN the recording for later broadcast in some agreed upon favorable time slot. The format could retained and there would be no need to accommodate print or broadcast journalists. Why have professional journalists as moderators anyway? Seems to me that present or past GOP office holders would make better interrogators. Imagine questions on domestic policy being posed by Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan to name two; John Bolton on foreign policy, etc..
Because we don’t want ( at least I don’t want) a debate in which the moderators throw softballs to the debaters. And I doubt that a Republican questioner would be tough on any Republican candidate.
If the debater can’t field tough questions from a tough journalist, then he won’t be able to debate Obama either.
So, you seriously think that Paul Ryan would toss softballs? Mitch Daniels? Bolton? Really? How about Alan Simpson? Do you really think that Ryan as a sitting member of the House with a very clear agenda, who now wants to talk about Medicare and Medicaid, Grendel’s angry mother as one wag tagged that pair, would avoid, even if he could, giving a hot foot to the likes of Rommney that tremble at the slightest denigration of Social Security?
I can only speak for myself, but I long ago stopped watching so-called debates in the primaries and the general because I learn nothing from them, absolutely nothing. Moreover, I couldn’t possibly care less if a professional journalist asks “tough” questions. The reason most of them are percieved as tough is that the questions themselves are not well-posed and reflect a questioner who perhaps has a poor grasp of the subject and is poorly briefed, or, may be is just stupid. Either way, I don’t care, because it ends up the same way: an utter waste of my time.
To take your concerns seriously, I’d have to believe that a Perry or a Romney is unfamiliar with being questioned by professional journalists in an election campaign. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
P.S. I you think any of the Republican candidates will be “debating” Obama in one of these televised spectacles, then I have some great land in South Florida I’d like to sell you. Give you a good price too.
Yes. I agree with you on your broad approach and would be happy with a lot of variations.
The candidates need more time to lay out a case and not be lured into the quibbling back and forth that just annoys the viewers and ends up making one or more look like school kids rather than serious adults with rational approaches to turn the country back in the right direction.
Great article! I might have a quibble or two but not important–you’ve offered fine alternative that can be fair to both frontrunners, and those with lower poll standings. As it is, at least in the NBC debate, some participants were ignored. I thought the format in South Carolina was quite good in that each person had to stand there alone, present his views, be questioned and the rest were isolated off stage unable to hear those responses. Takes a lot of poise and skill to handle that!
My problem with the debate has also to do with WHO & HOW candidates are chosen to participate. I am supporting Buddy Roemer and he has yet to be included. He’s as qualified as ex-gov of NM (added at the last minute to Tampa lineup). I APPROVED of addition, but I thought then one at bottom should be dropped, and of course I think Roemer should have been also included.
I’m hoping he will be in the next debate in NH (Dartmouth). If so, audience will at last hear ONE candidate on all-important trade agreements issue–how they can prate on about “job creation” and never tackle our unfair trade agreements is beyond logic. It has occurred to me that Roemer didn’t help his chances by offering HIS job creation plan standing IN FRONT OF THE CHINESE EMBASSY! Not PC these days, I guess.
Roemer has setup hq in NH and that whole primary process (most interesting in the nation really if you can be there) is just getting started.
Someone cynical and knowledgeable once told me, to get included you have to make some strategic media buys. That true?? If so, what with money now equalling free speech (so you can’t limit use of it to buy Congress says Supreme Court), and media buys a requirement to debate — another 10 years and we’ll have a country that’s basically corporate/fascist. They’ve got all the money!
Another ten years? Hey, it’s been that way for a long time.
Problem is, the more government regulation you have, the more incentive there is for those being regulated to capture the government and make it serve their ends.
The average citizen/taxpayer/voter/small business owner suffers.
Who would be willing to host a debate like this, when the whole point seems to be to garner ratings by putting on a circus that makes the GOP and its candidates look bad?
The problem, as I see it, is this: NONE of the networks want to host a good debate that might possibly make one or more of the GOP candidates – and especially a GOP candidate favored by Tea Partiers such as myself – more electable.
Fox News is NOT an exception. See:
Fox News “Fair and Balanced”? Bzzzzzt, WROOOOONG!
Mr. Miller:
“A candidate’s race should be considered irrelevant. To emphasize it is counterproductive and can give the appearance of legitimacy to the emphasis placed upon it during and leading up to the 2008 elections.”
I would add that a candidate’s religion should be considered irrelevant.
I generally agree as to religion, but with the caveats suggested in this article I wrote last June. Religion is an important part of the lives of many voters and, to the extent that it is to be a factor, has to be — and therefore should be — considered. For the most part, I don’t think it should have much weight — with the exception of those religions that propose or are likely to harm the United States.
Race, ethnicity, gender – all are beyond the individual’s control or choice.
Religion is not. It’s a matter of choice, an indicator of core belief systems and the values the candidate espouses, or purports to espouse.
I DEFINITELY want to know what religion a candidate belongs to, and moreover, consider it imperative we understand exactly what form that religious conviction takes. One need only look at Obama and his 20-year-plus relationship with Rev. Wright to see how important these factors are.
“Focusing principally on President Obama, rather than on each other, would be quite useful, not only in deciding which is the Republican candidate most likely to win the election and ultimately to succeed in office, but also in setting out plainly how the various candidates satisfactorily embody Republican values. What are those values? The candidates should tell us what they think they are.”
That should be the center of every Republican debate. Remind the voting public why they are there and how bad things really are. It’s the Republicans’ opportunity to go over the heads of the White House spin machine and get their message out on why THEY should be elected and NOT the president. Also, and most important, each candidate has to say what they will do to change things. Ronald Reagan had a vision on what he would do when he became president. We need to hear more of that today. Talk about repealing Obamacare, reducing taxes, and, most important, reducing the size of government. This is what the country needs to hear, not more useless sniping at each other.
Since Kennedy, we have focused way too much on looks and oration skills versus judgement and principles. I would love to see a running WRITTEN debate online.
Let them lay out their positions on important issues in writing – then post responses or criticisms for us to read. Might get us past the sound bites and gotchas.
The problem is not totally the debate format. Look how well Gingrich does in them, because he is knowledgable enough. He challenges the underlying BS. Most of the inane answers are because the candidates are poorly versed in history and philosophy. They are not really deep-thinkers. The problem is the abundance of 2nd-rate candidates.
For example, the Gardasil issue was not about the drug itself, or should not have been. It was about Perry’s tyrannical executive-order. It is about his underlying governing philosophy, his instinctive reaching for a big-government solution to things.
Pawlenty could not defend his own 5% growth target. He could not make the case that, it is not only possible, but natural for the economy to grow at 5% annually, as it has whenever government was not screwing things up.
Santorum, as eloquent as he is on the social issues, could not adequately answer on DADT. He quailed.
And so it goes. They either lack the knowledge or the courage of their convictions. 2nd-rate. Our country is in dire straits, because this is the best we have for leadership. Reagan’s greatness was revealed in his personal writings. He spent much time reading, thinking, and writing about things. Somehow, I get the feeling that I would not get much from reading Romney’s or Perry’s books.
These debates are very revealing of the inadequacies of the candidates. People do not like the results, and they blame the messenger, not the message that these candidates are 2nd-rate. We are choosing the lesser of two evils again, and it is best we acknowledge that fact. This country is in decline, and we have no 1st-rate leaders with deep thoughts waiting to lead us.
It’s not as if there are truly no deep thinkers out there; it’s just a matter that they don’t want to go through the miserable process via the veritable gauntlet of our MSM in their quest to vie for the job as POTUS. That will have to change somehow if there is ever going to be any hope of being witness to quality leadership of any sort in the future. Meantime we have no choice but to settle for what we can get.
The main problem is allowing the media to control the debates. Why should they have ANY role at all in them, other than cameras and sound to cover them? There is no earthly reason media should be setting the rules, or having their personnel become part of the story as panelists, sharing the stage and looking for that perfect “gotcha” question which will earn them immortality in the Journalists Hall of Shame.
IMHO, no one would ever watch formal debates of the sort you propose unless they had a particular interest in the topic de jure.
Better just hold a couple “big” open ones like we have, but then winnow the field down to those who’ve shown double digit strength in national polls within the last six weeks. Then, add a timekeeper who doesn’t “moderate” or ask questions and an offstage judge to keep the timekeeper honest.
Let the candidates use their time however they see fit. If Mitt wishes to educate us on the LDS Church, he can use every minute for that if he wants. If Rick has rodeo tales to relate, go for it. If Sen. Byrd wanted to speak at length about his long-dead dog, let him. But once they use up their time, they have to stand there mute (or better yet, leave the stage) so save a minute for goodbye.
Other than that, they should be free to discuss any issue, ask or answer any question or refuse to do so, speak to what they believe the people should hear. If the candidates themselves cannot talk about the relevant issues, what good do talking head journalists do?
Besides, if anyone wants to tell us what kind of tree they would be, they are free to do so on their own time.
You are addressing the right problem – and the alternatives will all be improvements on the strange status quo. The current debates are designed to create gotcha moments and make the candidate disliked by the MSM fail.
Both Biden and Obama lied and make crazy errors of fact in their debate performances [my favorites: we invaded Lebanon (Biden), getting article 1 of the constituion wrong (Biden), lying about receiving Fannie Mae money (Obama)], but since the MSM wasn’t playing gotcha, no problem.
Perry’s bimbling of a hypothetical cost him dearly in the last debate.
Don’t let the leftists in the MSM decide the format that diminishes our candidates and maximizes collateral damage.
I have not bothered to watch the “Debates” because I expected them to be the media driven gotcha fests they are.
It is outright insane of the GOP to allow the MSM and US Colleges to host debates. Both are agents of the Democrat Party.
We need to run the GOP Debates as a party function, at venues, and with formats and moderators of our own choosing. The current system is designed to set up our candidates to make embarrassing sound bites that will be used against the eventual winner in the General Election. The purpose questions have to be to discover how each candidate is going to be good for the country and the GOP and how they differ from the opposition and why their plans and actions will be better than the opposition.
In the national debates we have to hold out for a neutral venue, format, and moderators. The current debates I remember were preloaded against our candidates by the selection moderators, questions, and audiences. If nothing else, we should insist on balancing each MSM lumninary on the moderator panel with a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Ann Counter.
We have to wake up and get serious about winning the political battle and recognize the enemy and who their agents are and to deal with them accordingly.
Sometimes I could swear we are purposely trying to lose.
The Old Guy says it all.
Please do not continue to give this Nation away.
jl 1926
I love Miller’s suggestions, and I feel Old Guy’s sentiments. The format for GOP debates won’t be changing soon, though.
Why go before Dem vehicles like MSNBC and Politico? Because they’re tougher on conservative candidates. The establishment GOP uses the Dems like a rock to scrape barnicles off the hull – who cares if it damages the ship?
If one or two liberal Republican candidates accept Keith Olbermann as a “moderator”, the rest are obliged to follow, right? Now raise your hand if you believe in evolution.
I remember watching these debates and being enthralled by Mr. Buckley. The PBS THE ADVOCATES forum roundtables is likely better suited to this.
I generally like the idea with the follow reservations:
First – you can’t limit it to two candidates unless it is the general election. Two candidates is PBS special. It also is not a fair way to test ALL the candidates opinion and presupposes the organizers know who is ‘best’ to debate. I DO LIKE a roundtable free forum with a strong (intellectual) moderator. Limbaugh would be a genius at this. Hugh Hewitt would be good.
Second – I agree on a single topic but more narrow. Not just “illegal immigration is bad” but “all illegals should be deported.” Debaters will naturally bring in all other dimensions of the topic including how it impacts economy, etc. but allows the moderator to keep bringing them back home so the debate doesn’t last 5 hours and goes all over the place.
Third – These topics should follow the top polling issues among voters. (referenced on my latest article: How to Pick A GOP Candidate Part 2: POLICY – http://streamofjim.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-to-pick-gop-candidate-part-1.html )
I remember watching these debates and being enthralled by Mr. Buckley. Good for you, Sir! I also remember and was enthralled as well.
As my late mother in law said, “getting old is not for sissies.” Live long and prosper!
This is the vetting process. We are auditioning and hiring the chief executive for our country, the most powerful country on earth. Throw “gotcha” questions, throw rocks, put their feet to the fire, If they are dumb enough to answer hypotheticals, I don’t want them. If they are obfuscating or hiding a past, or have some skeleton or vice that would harm us, then fire them now. Let us see what they are made of. They are going to have to face off terrorists, Putin, the Chinese, the MSM, and every walk of home grown corruption. Cheesy botox smiles are about image and image does not keep the wolves at bay. Fairness in their tests for the presidency would work only in utopia. If they want the power and the perks, then let them pay the price of full disclosure of their agendas(unlike you know who).
Why do we let the Marxist Media anywhere near the Republican debates, outside of their cameras and equipment? They are biased and just looking for gottcha moments.
It would be better to rent an auditorium and hire some Republican activists or maybe Thomas Sowell or Walt Williams on the economy & taxes. Wow wouldn’t that be great instead of that truly awful thing Fox put on? The TeaParty/CNN debate was actually pretty good.
I was delighted to see his recent rise in the polls, hope that progression continues, and that he is nominated. Although it is said that his main expertise is in running a business, the microeconomic aspects of doing so have been largely neglected in recent years; the emphasis has been placed instead on macroeconomics; the results have been unfortunate and the economic outlook for the United States has suffered tremendously. I would sooner vote for Mr. Cain than for most of the others. He has many virtues which outweigh his race. The constant meme in conservative circles that he is black and that that is a good thing puts a false spin on why he should be nominated and elected. A candidate’s race should be considered irrelevant. To emphasize it is counterproductive and can give the appearance of legitimacy to the emphasis placed upon it during and leading up to the 2008 elections.
I have to say that I was VERY disappointed to read the last half of that paragraph, particularly the bolded line. It paints a picture of a teeter-totter where Cain’s business smarts and other virtues are on one side and his skin colour is on the other side and you are trying to convince people that the virtues of his business smarts outweigh his skin colour. That seems like the very epitome of condescension to me if not outright “”reverse racism”. (Reverse racism would dictate that we vote for him BECAUSE he’s black and for no other reason.)
I hope I’ve only just stumbled on a poorly phrased remark that doesn’t reflect your real views.
I would like to think that Mr. Cain gets the nomination – or fails to get it – solely on the basis of his ideas and that his melanin level doesn’t enter into it at all.
[Mind you, I would love the irony of having Mr. Cain face-off against Obama in the election and then see Obama and his Democratic minions try to play the "race card". And the look on Obama's face after he lost to another black man solely on the merits of their IDEAS would be a very precious gift indeed if it were to happen.]
Sorry, only the first paragraph of my post should have been italicized. I got cocky and submitted the comment without previewing first and it came back to bite me….
Perhaps I phrased in inadequately. I also said,
I do think it irrelevant. Yet in various comments on PJM and elsewhere, I have seen it emphasized as a plus (never, however, as a negative). It should be neither a negative nor a plus, and we denigrate ourselves by claiming it as either.
I wish a debate was being moderated by someone who is a known conservative and would ask conservative-themed questions. Someone like Glenn Reynolds, VDH or Michelle Malkin. I want someone running the show who knows conservative values and can follow up with cogent requests for clarifications. I feel like current debates are too much like high school – “I promise free hall passes if you vote for me!”
There’s really only ONE thing wrong with the current debate format: The cheerleading squads for each candidate in the audience.
This isn’t a Miss USA beauty contest or a game show, in which audience participation is encouraged.
Either get rid of the audience entirely, or instruct them to hold their applause and cheers and boos until after the debate is concluded.
That’s how the Presidential debate between the Dem and GOP candidates has always been conducted: No cheerleading squads.
The usual pro-Perry slant that I have come to expect as normal fare on PJM. Still, I had expected more from Mr. Miller.
Sometimes the difference between the bigger fish in the stream and the smaller ones is that the bigger ones know the difference between bait and nutrition. These candidates need to quit chasing their next meal (politicaly speaking)and prepare themselves to present a formidable front on the world stage. While everyone is debating what the lowest common denominators in this nation are entitled to and who needs to pay for it, the rest of the world is training their guns on us. Far be it from a republican president to be shot in the back from abroad while handing out cookies to people too lazy or brainwashed to get up and fetch their own.
…I’m sorry but there should not be free passes here. The other side will toss them every rock they can find so best they get used to it now.
I honestly wouldn’t mind the ‘gotchas’ if they were impartial about them. They went to the trouble of dreaming up a 30-year-old man with disposable income who willfully neglects his own health and welfare to zetz Ron Paul, yet they never asked anything like that about Obamacare. What about the guy who refuses to purchase insurance under Obamacare and instead pays the penalty, then gets sick? It’s the same problem. Yet because Obama “wanted to help” (as they see it) he is beyond questioning, while the Republicans who “want you to die already” have to be nailed to the wall.
I don’t watch these “debates.” They are stupid and uninformative.
As for the MSM have you noticed that there is no mention at all of the Mormon issue, whereas in 2008 it was front burner every day. Romney was eventually forced to address it. Why is this? Answer: This time around, the MSM favors Romney since Perry and Bachmann are the sum of all their fears; in 2008 they wanted McCain. And of course they eventually abandoned McCain for Obama, as they will abandon Romney if he should win the nomination.
There is a serious problem with these ‘debates’. They aren’t debates. They are setups for 30 second sound bits for TV. They remind me of game shows such as Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy etc, with their rapid questions, many of which are unclear in themselves, and the requirement for an instantaneous answer.
Those answers tell us nothing about the principles and policies of the candidates. Instead, the focus is on the ‘gotcha’ lines of the answers or of the moderators.
Of course Newt Gingrich comes across great in these 30 second bits but what does that do for us, in explaining his policies and views? Because he can flip his finger at the MSM – does that tell us what kind of policies he’d develop?
Perry can’t explain the complexities of the illegal immigration mess in Texas, a mess due to and only to, the federal govt’s abandonment of its function, and of the Supreme Court’s rule that the States must provide education from K-12 to them. He can’t explain that easily in one minute.
The same with other issues. All of them, including Cain, rely on the audience knowing something about the issues and about their respective background and policies. Since the majority don’t know..their responses are reduced to TV game show answers.
ETAB, I seem to be following you around the PJM interwebs this week.
Once again, you’ve captured the key points. These “debates” are nothing more than showcases for the so-called moderators, placing the potential candidates into a forced-choice, 30-second, gameshow sound-byte format.
All of which tells us nothing truly pertinent about the candidates or their potential regarding the national and international challenges we’re facing writ large.
limit participants to three per discussion. where there are nine contenders, have three discussions within a week. But, above all — NO presidential debates before the first business day of the presidential election year!
A few of the problems might be…
1. Liberal nincompoops with an agenda asking the questions. Surely, we could have a panel of business owners asking questions about businsss. Why would we ever have liberal simpletons who do nothing but read from a teleprompter asking loaded questions?
2. Answers that are limited to under a minute are going to be rehearsed for the soundbite. We will never get the best person– except by pure luck– if we are just creating snappy answers.
3.Nothing about a debate requires that an audience be present. The audience is distracting and a time waster. The audience does not contribute anything that is worthwhile. Lose them. Lose the commercials, too. This is a public service, not a game show.
4. Let the candidates bring notes. This is not a contest about who has the best memory.
5. Nobody should ever be allowed to quote any number from the CBO or any other government “estimating agency” if the numbers the agency uses to make the estimate come from politicians.
It is time for American Patriots to stand up once again and Declare our Independence. According to that Historical Document “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.” It is Time Patriots!! goto pgamerica.pcriot.com Remember in the words of JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you,But what you can do for your Country” We need to bring to Justice those that have committed Treasonous acts against the American People since the act of 1871. That turned our Republic into a corporation for it led our once Free Nation into Slavery to the International Bankers. It is time! America is calling all Patriots to NOT sit idol.and Unite what they have Divided,by race and religion.They have divided us by Fear and Poverty.They have let Con-men rule our Churches pulpits with tax exemptions when crime should not prosper.These pedophile and adulterating preachers should be called out and cast aside. They should only get the Benefit if they are walking the walk that they are talking. False Prophets should not be allowed in our Churches or our Government.Is not America worth fighting for? All those past patriots that have fought and died to make us a free nation should not have died and suffered in vein. Just like Wars past and present,since the act of 1871. We are not fighting for freedom or even a noble cause is about control and power.You know it and so do I.To all those men and Women during the Vietnam War era how were you treated by your country upon your return? Because it was about the Corporation not what America was supposed to stand for. Just as the Men and Women that join our Armed Service they take the Oath that they are supposed to stand up for America and what she stands for “So Help Me God” America is about Freedom from Tyranny.We have the Duty as Americans to fight for that freedom. “WE the People in Order to form a more Perfect Union, establish Justice and ensure Domestic Tranquility,Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare,and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” So Stand Up Patriots and Stand Together under the RED,WHITE,and BLUE.and Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it STANDS, ONE NATION under God,Indivisible,With Liberty and Justice for ALL.”And We Will Once Again make this Country “The Land of the FREE and the Home of the BRAVE.” go to pgamerica.pcriot.com Do it for yourself,do it for our country!”All our Historical Documents are just words on Paper, It is up to Us as Americans to Keep the Bell of Freedom Ringing.”