published Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Republican presidential debate in Florida uninspiring

Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas made history with a series of debates in their 1858 U.S. Senate race in Illinois. Douglas ultimately won that race, but Lincoln, of course, later became one of America's best presidents.

Sadly, candidate debates in modern times are not especially illuminating. They often degenerate into personal attacks and attempts to embarrass other candidates, not necessarily to lay out a principled plan for guiding the country.

Is it unkind to observe, for instance, that there were no Lincolns nor Douglases in the Monday night debate in Florida among the four Republican presidential hopefuls?

Having lost the recent primary in South Carolina to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich -- and having lost his lead in polls on the upcoming important primary in Florida -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney spent a good bit of the time attacking Gingrich on being an "influence peddler."

Gingrich declared the accusation false and later said Romney was "outrageously dishonest" for suggesting Gingrich had lobbied for government-run mortgage giant Freddie Mac, which was involved in the U.S. housing market collapse. He also noted that Romney owns stock in Freddie Mac and another mortgage company, Fannie Mae.

And so the sniping on secondary issues went, with lower-tier candidates Congressman Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum trying to get in some punches at front-runners Gingrich and Romney as well.

Not helping matters was the often drab line of questioning, such as comparatively trivial questions on sugar subsidies and on whether Romney would release as many years of his tax returns as his father did years earlier. And moderator Brian Williams of NBC had told the audience to remain silent during the debate, which if anything made the exchanges even less interesting.

Whatever their strengths, neither Gingrich nor Romney said a great deal at the debate that would excite a majority of the American people. The fact that either one would be an improvement on President Barack Obama will not mean much if they cannot inspire voters in the November general election with a vision of where they would lead the country.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
chet123 said...

Apparently the writer didnt read the Lincoln Douglas debate or maybe he dont get it.....the debate was very personal on Douglas side.....Douglas argument made black people less than human....then you had the dread scott decision at the fore-front.....

Newt Gingrich who want to re-live history....because he dont have a vision for the future....its really amazing how the republican party is still trying to hide their true agenda..

The composition of both party have changed.....the haters left the democratic party and join the republican party after the 1964 civil right bill.....whats inspiring about the republican????In early history the haters protected the Rich and Greedy interest in Slavery(they were southern democrats bible thumping hypocrites) the haters are protecting the Rich and Greedy interest in blood sucking the middle-class and working-class(they are southern bible thumping hypocrites,now republican)..... ...really amazing!!!


January 25, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.