Poll-if Your Presidential Candidate Refuse a Debate

I have never heard of the website that this article is on. I know he debated several times with the other GOP candidates. The only debate that I am aware that he refused was the Trump debate which most of them declined except Newt.

As for it changing my mind, hell Obama has had so many flip flops I wouldn't know what was coming out of his mouth as truth or fiction. "the private sector economy is fine"? Really????

Plan and simple, not happy with either choice but anything is better than Obama. So in honesty, it doesn't matter to me.

It would be like the brown bag you have to buy before you get to know what's inside. I wouldn't vote for him. What if you open the bag and it's a snake?!

Political Science 101.
There is a process and flow. RIght now they are raising money. They are trying to be everything to everybody. They are selling thier brand. Debating means commiting. They will be asked tough questions that try to define thier positions. That is not what any candidate wants in this stage of the game, because it costs them donation dollars. It's all ambiguity and vague promises, mixed in with bumper sticker slogans right now. Slick packaging. The debating will come later. This is all gamesmanship and strategy. Calling for a debate, knowing the other party will balk is a pretty standard move meant to imply........the other guy is not prepared, has no core values he is willing to stand up for, is afraid to comit to a stance and is afraid he will be embarassed on National TV.

I say this is the norm, with the caveat that I truly believe it is also 100% true of Mitt Romney. He is out practicing his positions in his stump speaches to see what plays well with certain voters. He is honing his message to what will be most effective. He will unveil Romney Bot 3000 in September.

I guess I'd much rather have Mitt in office than Obama any day for a ton of reasons. I don't like bills being shoved down our throats or the president bypassing Congress to do whatever he wants to do. If people can't see by now that Obama is as scary as they come, America is in a lot of trouble.

Obviously, Romney has debated all over the place and will be debating again at the appropriate time.

I'd much rather have a candidate who held their tongue until the right time, than who boldly lies outright, grabs power that doesn't belong to him (at least according to the Constitution), schemes, campaigned, vacationed and golfed his entire presendency so far and in fact passed a huge healthcare reform bill without anyone actually reading it.

Romney isn't the one hiding something. . . . .

Oh, please....consider the source. Here's the thing; it is premature for a debate. Until after the party conventions are held, neither of these men is officially a candidate. Neither has announced their running mate. The party convention has not established its platform. As such, it is entirely too early for a debate.

Mr. Obama may say "anytime, anyplace," but that is rhetoric. If he were asked to debate on O'Reilley Factor next week, I bet he'd be 'busy.' BOTH candidates will have specific criteria for debates and rightfully so. Their campaigns will need to agree upon the number of debates, timing, duration, location, moderator, news organization affiliation, format, etc. Each of those factors can carry a bias for/against either candidate; setting up debates is a negotiation between campaigns before they even happen.

Mr. Romney has debated ad nauseum throughout the primaries. This is NOT the time for him to be doing debates. This is the time for him to be out on the campaign trail, where Mr. Obama has been for a good year. The traditional time for Presidential debates seems to be mid-late September through October, and I don't believe for a second that it will be any different this year. Mr. Romney is not stupid...he knows he'll have to debate Mr. Obama, and I personally do not think he's afraid to do so at the appropriate time, place and conditions.

Saying "I'll debate you any time, any place..." is an awful lot like the school yard bully who says "I'll fight you any time, any place." It is meant to intimidate. The truth is Mr. Obama also has debate criteria and is overstating, as he certainly has time, place and condition restrictions too.

Hiding something? Really? Obama has spent over a million dollars to keep his records hidden? What is he hiding? He won't release any of his school records, college transcripts, Illinois State Bar association records, Illinois State Senate records, and the list goes on. Does that make you think twice about voting for him?? When there is PROOF that someone is hiding things, yeah, it makes ME think twice.

Romney will debate Obama and he should require two things. NO teleprompters and no ear pieces. I have a strong feeling Obama will only agree to one.
I am definitely not a fan of Romney (yes, "Obama light" as Cheryl refers to him) but I am petrified of Obama's touted "flexibility" if he is voted back into office.

Edited: Tax payer money and coffers... "He (Obama) hasn't done these kind of things." Hmmm... What an interesting thing to ignore about our president.
These are just a few examples.

Solyndra- $535 million in TPM and then went bankrupt. Investors and executives were big donors to Obama's 2008 campaign.

NRG Energy $3.8 billion in TPM. CEO sits on Obama's Jobs Committee. Mr. Few, whose wife is a bundler for Obama and promised to raise $50,000 to $100,000 for Obama, is an executive for the company.

Bruce Heyman of Goldman Sachs has had three energy projects approved for taxpayer money. They are Cogentrix ($90 million), First Solar ($4.7 million), and U.S. Geothermal ($96.8 million). Surprise, surprise, Mr. Heyman had raised over $500,000 as of Feb. 2012 for the Obama reelection campaign."

uuuummm I think you are misunderstanding something.

Mitt Romney (whom I do NOT support - I think he's Obama-light) didn't commit to a debate in Tampa, Florida in JANUARY 2012

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/20/1056740/-Report-...

He has refused to answer questions regarding what he would do with Obama's new Immigration Executive Order (which still is NOT posted to White House.gov)

If the candidate I supported refused to answer questions - I would wonder what it is they are planning. I don't get why more liberals don't support Romney - he's Obama-light. most of them can't get past the "R" behind his name. They don't see the Romneycare he did in MA (and how they are hurting and people want it to go NATIONAL????)

Maybe the reason Romney doesn't want to debate Obama (if it's true) is because he doesn't want to be asked the pointed questions that show how hypocritical he really is, with some of his staggering wealth coming from the taxpayers through bailouts and subsidies. (In 1993 Bain & Co. owed the Bank of New England $38 million and when the bank went under, Romney negotiated a deal with the FDIC that allowed Bain to walk away from $10 million of that debt. And yes, that stuck the taxpayers with the bill. And when Bank of New England owned Steel Dynamics, Romney and investors took $37 million in taxpayer subsidies - they only invested about half that amount themselves.)

What Rommey says to us all is that we need to tighten our belts and cut government jobs - paying for good teachers, safe communities, etc, getting our fiscal house in order. He calls it a moral imperative. YET, what he really does is practice corporate welfare, with government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners, and then leaving us, the taxpayers, stuck with the bill.

He privatizes the gains and socializes the risks. That's the same thing as the big investment houses did who lost billions of dollars in 2007-2008, money that is just gone in a black hole, so to speak.

Perhaps Romney doesn't want to answer why he and his partners made $12 million in profits and $4.5 million in consulting fees when he drove GST Steel into bankruptcy. Maybe he doesn't want to own up to having stuck the taxpayers with the $44 million tab for the company's underfunded pensions.

I think it's really very ignorant to make the assumption that Romney is "Obama-light" considering that Obama hasn't done these kinds of things. Romney and Obama are really nothing alike. Romney is not in touch with normal Americans, the ones who live outside the Beltway at least, or those without millions in their coffers. If he used to know what it was like to live paycheck-to-paycheck, he doesn't remember.

And that's the kind of thing he doesn't want to have to be reminded of in a debate with Obama.

Dawn

Okay I am confused by that link. It would appear to be all speculation. Why wouldn't Romney debate Obama in January? Probably because he was no where near winning the nomination. Did Obama debate McCain in January of 2008? No? Do you think that meant he was avoiding a debate?

Sorry but this seems too silly to have a serious debate on.

Sure if one actually refused to debate I would say that makes him seem scared and immature. Thing is there is no indication that either of them are afraid to debate.

Ya know, come to think of it I remember ignoring about a thousand debates that Romney was in because really how much can the Republicans debate each other? Didn't strike me as being afraid to talk then.

Ditto what Jo said! Do you really think Romney isn't going to debate Obama in a presidential debate?? Come on.

This is just silly based on someones speculation on the internet. Sometimes people write things on the internet that aren't true or factual (GASP!)

ETA: From Dawn: "Romney and Obama are really nothing alike. Romney is not in touch with normal Americans, the ones who live outside the Beltway at least, or those without millions in their coffers." - - - Are you implying that Obama is? LOL!

Ummmm.....yeah, it would.

Meow, Mitten! Grrrrr, Baby, Grrrrr!!!

ETA: Minding: He's the first person to refuse a presidential debate. Obama is anxious to debate Romney (and I quote) "Anytime, anywhere."

IMO, it's evidence that he thinks he can win just by NOT being Obama, not because he has anything specific to say, or any concrete plans to discuss. He thinks people are obtuse enough to vote for him because he's NOT Obama! Is there ANYONE out there that ENDORSES Romney for his policies, etc.? I'm really curious. I would love to hear some Romney praises without the word "Obama" anywhere in the sentence!

I actually don't think debates are a good way to assess a candidate. Everybody puts on airs and plays to the camera, or goes for the sound bite. I'd rather research my candidates in other ways. Not when they're all dressed up and being fake in a televised debate.

"Kulturekritic" isn't really a news source, by the way. Anybody can say anything they want in a blog. There will be debates. And if you're not meaning to stir the pot, what are you doing then?

I see this as the same way Obama shoved the healthcare down peoples' throats.. We'll know what's in it, once we all read it. Just pass it first........ it wasn't a good idea for that nor is it a good idea with regard to Romney not wanting a debate... So much for transparency on either side..
Hence why I am an Independent........... as for hiding something.. umm, ALL presidents hide things.. it's just that the media allows certain ones to get away with hiding more... you know like hanging out with friends who blow up things and having a smoking habit while at the same time, preaching that kids need to be healthy... yet.. they themselves can't get their own life or bad habits together..
so do I think Mitt is hiding something.. could be.. but again, certainly no more than the current president did or does..

I too would like to see a link to this article.

I Googled and only found where he had turned down debate with Trump. Considering that Trump isn't a candidate, I can understand that.

Link?

ETA: Okay, so I read your article, Googled again using different keywords :-)

It looks like he's refused SEVERAL debates! What gives?

Screw this guy. Vote for Ron Paul. ;-)

Personally, I don't need to see a debate where they have scripted questions and planned answers that surround exactly what they want people to hear.
That goes for BOTH parties.
A debate is just a joint platform where each candidate gets specified time to outwardly roll their eyes at the other candidate.

None of it matters when they get into office and discover that they have real opposition to their plans, and every plan they have will require some sort of compromise, ultimately p***ing off their constituents and voters.

Welcome to reality!
I'm not voting for Mitt, but this would not cause me to NOT vote for him if I was.

Absolutely it would make me second guess my vote. Open debate is one of the grand traditions of democracy, and it's always enlightening and challenging to have candidates answer questions in this way. There is NO question that I think would be OK to "answer once I'm president" -- if you won't tell me now, how can I trust you? Very shady.

Is there an actual source for this, or just the KultureKritic blog? They don't cite anything, so I can't make any comments on what I think about it.

Maybe the poor guy is just TIRED from all those intelligent, stimulating and really productive Republican nomination debates he particitpated in.

They were all full of so much wisdom, so many intelligent and well articulated ideas from the Grand Old Party.I think it should be a voting requirement that we all go back and watch every one of those debates before the election in November!

Do you have a link for that assertion (that Mitt Romney has refused debates?). I'm truly curious - thank you!

ETA: Thanks Minding! I was curious because I know that our town is scheduled to host the last presidential debate before the election . . . at Lynn University here in Boca. And Lynn has been doing all kinds of sprucing up - at least that's the way it looks when I drive by there.

again, not sure what this has to do with parenting...

ETA: yeah, that's kind of a stretch. Food, sex, and health are directly related to issues of parenting -- politics is not. There are lots of sites designed for political debate and personal happiness.

And by the way, I despise Romney -- I just think these political posts don't belong here.

AHAAA there's your problem; reading a lefty blog. All the lefty blogs lie & tell half truths, the ones that suits their agenda. Soon enough, there will be debates up the wazoo. Now if Obama would put away the teleprompter it might actually be worth watching, otherwise it's the same old $#1T, different day.

Let me know if you need some credible news sources.

Ummm...I won't answer that till I become president? Yeah, I have a problem with that. The whole point of elections is to know what type of president he will be and in which direction he will take our country.

That's like saying, "Oh look I like this looks of this guy, I think I will marry him without finding out any pertinent information."

Without taking a political side on this, I'd say that I would be wary of the 'why' around the refusal. Certainly, if some extremist group, or a group of citizens the candidate did not want to associate with was 'hosting' the debate, I could understand that. No one wants to be perceived as giving validation or credence to political groups that are 'way out there'.

I also would be a bit concerned about not answering certain questions just because I'd want to know the 'why' of that as well. Now, typically, if an interviewer was asking questions of a candidate for a job and the candidate answered "Well, I'm not going to tell you that now, you'll just have to take a chance on hiring me and then I'll tell you".... pragmatically speaking, that's a huge 'no confidence' red flag for me. I can't imagine telling clients that, and I just take care of their kids-- I'm not running the whole country. I've also seen candidates very clearly state "I don't have enough information to give an answer on this subject" (mainly because it was a 'breaking news' event and no, the candidate hadn't had time to look through city policy or an internal affairs report and assessment). I think candidates should be able to think on their toes-- kind of a job requirement for the Presidency.

I also want to say, however, that we do get too stuck on debates these days. I mean, how many debates did the Republicans have before the primary? By the time they were finished-- how many people were still paying attention? I would prefer if there were three debates at most for the Presidential elections: foreign policy, domestic policy and one focused on the economy, because I believe we really need some in-depth discussion of this very important subject as well as revelation of any 'fixes' either party would consider or propose. I believe that well-organized, thoughtfully crafted debates would be useful. (I watch these and read transcripts-- kinda geeky that way).

No, it would not cause me to second guess my decision. Debates can be powerful tools to learn about candidates but they can also be political fiascos and wastes of time for the candidates (for example, why would anyone debate Donald Trump? He's not a candidate and everything he does is a media circus). I think debates make a lot more sense during the Primaries when people are trying to decide between multiple similar candidates. But during the General election when we're picking between two people who hold very different views? Debates seem somewhat of a time waster, designed just to bump up ratings for a TV network.

Now, refusing to answer questions about what a candidate would do as president... that does strike me as a bit odd. Perhaps Romney hasn't made a decision on the issues, but I would guess that his answer is something the mainstream Republican party wouldn't like so he doesn't want to answer and lose party money.

uh, ya! what a weenie.

They're all politicians. And they have advisors. But just for the record, I wouldn't base my decision on whether or not he wants to answer something before or after he's elected. It actually makes sense to me. There really are only two candidates at this point, and only one makes me feel more secure. I choose the better of two evils.