“We are committed to CNBC Nov 9th. We haven’t declined any to date. There have been eight GOP primary debates to date, with 16 more scheduled over the next 12 weeks. We need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether and how these fit into our schedule given the pressing need to meet actual voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and other early voting states.”
“‘I’d never skip a debate. I’d never skip the opportunity to let the American public know what I think about these issues,’ Santorum said. ‘I’m all about digging deeper and people getting to know the candidates.’
“Gingrich suggested that Perry’s reluctance raises questions about his fitness for the fall campaign. ‘I don’t see how somebody can say that they can’t debate Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul, but they’ll be ready to debate Barack Obama,’ he said. ‘I think Governor Perry would find it an enormous mistake to not go to the debate and I think that frankly he’d look pretty silly.'”
“When running for re-election last year, Mr. Perry managed to avoid debating his Democratic rival, Bill White, by refusing to set a date until Mr. White, a former mayor of Houston, released more financial information. Mr. White accused Mr. Perry of being afraid to debate…
“‘I thought Texas governors were supposed to be tough,’ said Hogan Gidley, a senior adviser to Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania. ‘How can Governor Perry expect anyone to trust he can take on Obama and the Democratic machine when he thinks debating his fellow Republicans is too tough?’
“Erick Erickson, the editor of the Red State blog, wrote on Twitter that he did not ‘blame any of the candidates for wanting to skip some of the debates, but if Perry skips the Heritage/A.E.I. debate, game over,’ referring to the conservative public policy groups the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, whose debate is Nov. 15.”
“I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that he’s considered skipping debates. Have debates ever so hurt someone’s candidacy? He’s tied for fourth in Iowa in the latest CNN/Time poll. I don’t discount the possibility that he finds a second wind, given the volatility of the race and the hunger on part of many Republicans for someone besides Romney. But he’s got big problems: 1) Even if he performs perfectly from now until the end of the primary season, there is always going to be a seed of doubt about him: Can he be trusted when the lights are brightest and the stakes their highest in the fall of 2012 not to throw it all away with some gaffe? 2) He has a lot of money for TV ads. But if he runs a barrage of negatives against Romney, it probably only drags down his own image further. If he runs mostly positive ads, I’m not sure whether they can cancel out his performance in the debates. What is someone likelier to believe–an ad or what they saw on live TV in the debates?”
“Here are some arguments for why skipping some debates might not be so insane:
“1. Debates aren’t targeted. A small percentage of the people watching a given debate on TV are likely, persuadable, and eligible voters who live in the early states. If someone who is already 100 percent committed to, say, Herman Cain watches a debate and Perry performs well, it doesn’t help him. If someone who is a Democrat living in Maryland watches a debate and Perry performs well, it doesn’t help. But when Perry is campaigning in Iowa, he can be pretty sure that he is reaching an audience of voters that might actually help him win. (Granted, the people in the debate hall are typically from early states, but they represent a small percentage of viewers.)
“2. Nobody is saying Perry will skip all the debates. “There are something like 18 (debates) being planned … it seems like doing another dozen or 18 debates is not realistic,” Perry communications director Ray Sullivan told the Houston Chronicle Wednesday. That’s a lot of debates. And by skipping some debates — yet participating in others — Perry can avoid the appearance that he is afraid to debate. What is more, he might generate ‘buzz’ and speculation over whether or not he will participate in a given debate. Lastly, nothing says this is permanent. Perry can try this out. If he gets away with it, he can skip other debates. If he doesn’t get away with it, there will still be plenty of others to attend.
“3. Perry can show he is in control of his campaign — not the MSM. Leaders don’t always allow others to dictate terms to them — they set the agenda. Agreeing to every debate the mainstream media wants to host is reactive. This is an opportunity for Perry to show he is proactively seizing control of his campaign. Why let the mainstream media dictate his campaign strategy?”
“The sheer number of debates raises the question of diminishing returns. The early debates helped introduce the candidates to the Republican primary electorate. Later debates will help voters in critical states make their final decisions. But the next few debates, while they might be the occasion for a major gaffe or gotcha, have little purpose.
“What would the candidates do if they weren’t debating so much? They’d campaign more. That’s obviously what Perry wants to do. Compare his weak performance on the debate stage with his mastery of hands-on, one-on-one campaigning, and its easy to understand why…
“The strongest case against Perry’s fewer-debates position is that the Republican nominee will have to take on Barack Obama in two or three super-high-stakes debates in October 2012. The party needs to know whether its candidate can hold his own. But voters will know that by the end of the primary season anyway. And being a good campaigner is important, too. Fewer debates would let the GOP candidates do more of that.”
“Call me crazy, but I recall when presidential candidates ran for the high office because they had things to say. The notion went like this: I have ideas that I think will be great for the country. I have thought about them, vetted them with experts, spoken about them throughout my career. I have refined them, many times, even changed some. And now I think it’s time to run for the presidency, armed with those ideas to present to the nation.
“So imagine my surprise when, at a recent debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry turned to Mitt Romney and, with a certain amount of disdain, sniffed, ‘Mitt has had six years to be working on a plan. I have been in this for about eight weeks.’ In other words, I’ll get back to you…
“Ronald Reagan didn’t have to cram a belief system into a new 10-point plan to save the country, because he knew what he believed — and refined and road-tested his plans — before he ran. Neither did Bill Clinton, who did have a ‘Putting People First’ plan, which contained ideas on welfare reform and education that he had spoken about for years. Both men had beliefs — and of course, ambition — before they had presidential campaigns. How quaint.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member