Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley wants his party to lean forward. In an interview this morning with ABC News, O'Malley said that Democrats "have to look to the future." And he wants his party to have more debates.
"As a party, we need to wake up, we need to start having debates about the issues that really matter, like making college more affordable for more families, making wages go up and not down, making the investments that allow us to move to a 100 percent clean energy future as a nation so we can square our shoulders to the challenge of climate change," said O'Malley.
"Until we start having debates and offering those ideas that move our country forward, we’re going to be bogged down by questions of ‘what did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it?
"And we cannot allow our Party to be branded by those sorts of questions of the past. We have to look to the future and we have to offer the ideas that move our country forward for the future. That’s why these debates are so important."
On MSNBC's Morning Joe program this morning, Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley told Mika Brzezinski he'd like to see the number of Democratic debates tripled before votes are cast in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Bill Hyers, a senior strategist in the Martin O'Malley presidential campaign, is calling the new Democratic debate schedule "less democratic."
“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic. The schedule they have proposed does not give voters—nationally, and especially in early states—ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process," Hyers writes.
Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley is blasting his party for limiting the number of presidential debates. It's been reported that the Democrats are planning to hold only six debates in the entire primary.
No one quite knows what the first Republican debate will look like, who exactly will be onstage, or what it means that Donald Trump will be there, too. This, it seems, is the Republican National Committee’s solution to the debacle of the 2012 debates. The problems are memorable: too many primary debates, too many damaging questions from television anchors with liberal biases.
There’s been plenty of sound and fury over the Republican presidential primary debates. Who will make the 10-candidate cut? Who will get left out? Will Ohio’s governor John Kasich be shut out of the first debate, which is being held in his own state? What nutty thing(s) will Donald Trump say?
In this week's edition of the boss's email newsletter -- Kristol Clear -- readers are asked to rank their top three picks for the GOP's 2016 presidential nominee. The boss writes:
With Jeb Bush's entry into the race, it's a good time to get an update on what you think of the Republican presidential race. You know the drill: As of now, who are your first, second, and third choices among these declared and likely-to-declare candidates? ...
More than 50 Republican activists and officeholders in New Hampshire have signed an open letter to the heads of Fox News and the Republican National Committee to "urge" those leaders to "reconsider the criteria and to design a debate that will allow voters to hear from a more diverse and inclusive group of candidates who have filed to run for president."
Last week, Fox News announced its guidelines for the first debate among presidential contenders endorsed by the Republican National Committee (RNC). The network plans to invite the top 10 candidates, with the ranking determined by an average of the five most recent national opinion polls before the August 6 event. This is similar to the approach it has taken in previous cycles.
Joe Biden was forewarned. When he did a walk-through at the site of his debate with Paul Ryan, he asked if there might be double screens when the debate was broadcast. Yes, indeed, he was told, though it would be up to each TV network and cable channel whether to show both candidates at once on a split screen.
On September 2, 1939, the day after Hitler invaded Poland, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made clear in the House of Commons that he still entertained hopes for negotiations with Hitler: “If the German Government should agree to withdraw their forces then His Majesty’s Government would be willing to regard the position as being the same as it was before the German forces crossed the Polish frontier. That is to say, the way would be open to discussion between the German and Polish Governments on the matters at issue.”
In the first presidential debate of 2012, we saw, up close and personal, what Harvey Mansfield called in last week’s issue the ennui of Barack Obama. Obama’s ennui is related to his dislike for the real challenges of governing. More fundamentally, his ennui reflects his declinism. What’s exciting about governing for the next four years if it’s just going to involve managing austerity at home and decline abroad?
In the Thursday night vice presidential debate, Vice President Joe Biden criticized Congressman Paul Ryan for voting to "put two wars"--those in Afghanistan and Iraq--"on a credit card." But as theWashington Free Beacon points out, Biden's suggestion that he didn't vote for those wars is simply false:
Now, last night, this may have actually been the real Mitt Romney, because he ruled out raising a dime on taxes on anyone ever, no matter how much money they make; ruled out closing those loopholes that are giving $4 billion of corporate welfare to the oil companies; refused to even acknowledge the loophole that gives tax breaks to corporations that move jobs overseas.