Lincoln at Cooper Union Dialogue

[DixieFlatline]

Have any of you seen this?

Newt Gingrich and Mario Cuomo recently sat down to try and have a civil discourse about subjects of the day without all the usual junk we see in debates during a presidential campaign. The organizers hope to continue to have such discussions over the months ahead with the hope that we can get back to the days of true debate. In that vein, Cuomo and Gingrich say they plan to challenge the eventual presidential nominees to commit to nine 90 minute debates in this style.

I know many of us, regardless of what side of the aisle you fall on, get fed up with the politics of the day. It seems like you can rarely get a straight answer from any politician without it being partisan bickering or passed through a consultant. I found it extremely interesting and would recommend you take the time to watch it. Gingrich surprised me with some of the ways he views our problems and how we should approach a solution. It does last about an hour or so, but at least you can start and stop it.

The format had both candidates speaking for about 20 minutes followed by a question and answer session moderated by Tim Russert. In fact, he ended the night by telling a story about JFK and Goldwater. Where Goldwater told Kennedy that if he became the Republican nominee, that they should travel around the country together on a plane and have free, unstructured debates. Of course, that didn't happen due to the assassination.

You can find the link on the front page here.

http://americansolutions.com/

[Dan T.]

I would welcome this. I thought the vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman approached this level of discourse.

[#98QBKiller]

I would absolutely love to see BS-free political debate between rival parties. A straight answer is something that you just don't hear from politicians anymore whether they are debating or just mouthing-off bland answers to reporters.

Everything is peppered with rhetoric and ambiguity that prevents the politician from stepping on anyone's beliefs and attempts to appeal to everyone. What politicians don't understand though is that the people want to hear what the politician truly believes from his/her heart. If you tell it like you see it, not everyone will be happy with what they hear, but tough ****. It makes you more respectable as a person and as a public figure.

[PeterMP]

The problem is they didn't even manage a real debate here. Newt didn't really say anthing interesting. Everybody agrees that goverment should and could be more effecient. He didn't propose killing a single goverment program, and what he did propose would just make goverment bigger. You know there are things he'd like to kill.

Cuomo was a partisian political hack. This only works if the person is accurate. I can't believe Russert didn't call him on this. I'll just take his comments on stem cells.

1. The federal goverment does fund human embryonic stem cell research. The fact of the matter is Bush is the first President ever to ok the use of federal funds in stem cell research. Have they placed limits on it (i.e. what stem cell lines you can use)? Can you make the arguement that those limits don't make sense and are arbitrary? Yes, but to say they don't fund it is just wrong.

2. Embroys are alive. The fact of the matter is sperm are alive and the egg is alive, and they combine to make to make a new cell that is certainly alive. If the President's science advisor said that whether or not the embroy is living was a spiritual question, he should be fired, but I seriously doubt he said that. Is it life worth protecting? We have decieded in general single cell organisms (e.g. bacteria) are not worth protecting, most plants don't warrant protection, and we are in between with most animials, but all of these are moral/ethical issues.

3. As stated above, the determination if a life is worth protectiong is alway a moral/ethical issue, which is going to involve a persons religion by default. The fact of the matter is some people don't feel guilt for killing other people. We don't let them do it. Why not? Because as a society we have decieded it is wrong. Society is forcing their moral values on those people.

I won't even get started on tax cuts and the difference between Regean's tax cuts and Bush's and the stupidity of comparing them.

I haven't quite decieded where I stand on stem cells, but this kind of thing does no good if the people aren't accurate.

I would have rather seen them to take one big issue (Iraq, social security, or tax rates), and each one had ~20 min. to make an opening arguement, and then several minutes of back and forth.

[Chump Bailey]

Say what you will about Newt's character and ideology, but the guy is IMO the brightest candidate on the GOP ticket.

[DixieFlatline]

While I agree Gingrich didn't give specifics, with this being the first in a series, I think he hoped to start it off with a big idea view of things have fundamental problems and must be looked at in a totally different way. He said a few times he'd like to come back and discuss some ideas in more depth, but that there wasn't time.

I for one believe he's right. The bureaucracy we call government perpetuates itself. If people in the private sector can solve the problems, then the government should be able to as well. Unfortunately, that would require some tough change and usually there isn't will for tough change in the government.

[PeterMP]

I for one believe he's right. The bureaucracy we call government perpetuates itself. If people in the private sector can solve the problems, then the government should be able to as well. Unfortunately, that would require some tough change and usually there isn't will for tough change in the government.

The problem is greater than 90% of the population agrees. Something is only a meaningful discussion if you say something meaningful. In terms of policy, it is not meaningful to say something that essentially everybody agrees w/. It was a nice venue for him to appear in to prepare to announce his canidicy for President. He can say he took part in this great initiative to transform political discussion (which essentially everybody agrees needs to be done), go on the record saying something that essentially everybody agrees w/, then have some softball questions tossed by Russert, and remind everybody that he is still out there. I bet he was hoping this would get more coverage in the press.

[DixieFlatline]

The problem is greater than 90% of the population agrees. Something is only a meaningful discussion if you say something meaningful. In terms of policy, it is not meaningful to say something that essentially everybody agrees w/. It was a nice venue for him to appear in to prepare to announce his canidicy for President. He can say he took part in this great initiative to transform political discussion (which essentially everybody agrees needs to be done), go on the record saying something that essentially everybody agrees w/, then have some softball questions tossed by Russert, and remind everybody that he is still out there. I bet he was hoping this would get more coverage in the press.

I don't doubt that he thought press coverage would be a good thing. But I think he's seeing this as a beginning and hopes to expand on different topics in more depth. I don't think all of Russert's questions were softball at all. In fact, when he asked them both how to handle Iran I thought Gingrich the most frank idea I've heard. They have one oil refinery that supplies 40% of their gasoline. If we really need/want to get tough, we take it out.

[Air Force Cane]

I would rather see the original Lincoln Douglas debates at Cooper Union- instead of Gingrich and Cuomo

[DixieFlatline]

I would rather see the original Lincoln Douglas debates at Cooper Union- instead of Gingrich and Cuomo

That would be something, wouldn't it?

[PeterMP]

I don't think all of Russert's questions were softball at all. In fact, when he asked them both how to handle Iran I thought Gingrich the most frank idea I've heard. They have one oil refinery that supplies 40% of their gasoline. If we really need/want to get tough, we take it out.

I thought that was the best part. I'd never heard that before, but Newt didn't need to answer the question that way. He'd actually pretty much answered it, and then he threw that in and then started to discuss it a little more because of the crowd reaction. That's where Newt doesn't actually seem like a good politician. He gets a little arrogant and likes to show off how much he knows.

Look at how Mario answered the question. Essentially, he said we should be careful, but keep talking because nobody ever got hurt by talk. The same drivel we've been hearing. It isn't like we haven't been talking unofficially and through the UN. Realistically, what are you going to say at this point in time, 'Hi, how do you like the sanctions?'. If you are still talking at this time, it means you have a something new to propose that you think might change the status quo, but he gave no details on what would have been a good starting place.

If Russert wanted to be tough, after Newt's comments, he should have thown back to Cuomo and asked what he thought about that particular action. Was there anyway he could ever imagine supporting it? My guess is he would have given a normal politician non-answer.

Newt sounded like he was talking about taking out that refinery and coupling it w/ a blockade and completely cutting off their gas supply. That could have tremendous negative results on the citizen population. There'd be stories about people starving becuase food couldn't be delivered and dying becuase the hospitials didn't work or they couldn't get there. Russert could have followed w/ how Newt would handle that?

But neither one got done. Don't make them think to hard about the logical consequences of their actions.