Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Nov 7, 2011

Cain and Gingrich in Lincoln-Douglas style debate.

This is something new and refreshing for all of us political debate tragics. GOP presidential candidates Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich engage in a 90 minute debate on entitlement reform hosted by the Texas Patriots PAC. There is no moderator and the two candidates discuss and respond to each other’s positions on domestic policy. On the basis of the first 30 minutes I have watched, this is a great idea.

The format is an adaption of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which were a series of three-hour debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas during the 1858 Illinois Senate race. During the first 15 minutes, Rep Steve King gives a great outline of the problem of entitlement spending.

So far, both candidates come over well and Gingrich has some good lines as to why Wallmart does not need a law to compel people to go there, and explains why there are no national inquiries into fraud at McDonalds.

In arranging this, the Tea Party has as claimed here, changed the way of choosing a President: (assuming this takes off.) It is difficult to imagine it taking off in Australia though. Imagine sitting through 90 minutes of Abbott and Gillard.

From a libertarian perspective, it could be interesting to see one between Johnson and Paul.


  1. 90 minutes of the Mad Monk and Gingery Dullard? It'd seem longer. A lot longer.

  2. A lot longer? About 12 months, i recon.