Talk:2008 Republican Party presidential debates and forums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Debating (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Debating, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DebatingWikipedia:WikiProject DebatingTemplate:WikiProject DebatingDebating articles

United States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

NPOV

I added a NPOV tag until the bias is fixed. Too much pro-Paul, too much anti-Romney. 76.165.32.196 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your NPOV tag - whoever you are. All sources are clearly cited. All statements are neutral. You are free to add more information about other candidates without the distracting tags. JLMadrigal 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

What does this sentence mean? (May 3 debate section) "As for Sen. John McCain's performance, there was universal agreement that he was intensely passionate, but somewhat forceful in responding to the questions regarding the War in Iraq and Iran." Why the "but"? Tvoz |talk 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul...

Is it really necessary to have three paragraphs wherein the Ron Paul sputniks attempt to lend credence to their manufactured spike? 70.16.21.122 05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's too much emphasis on Paul, but I would think it better to find information on what the other candidates said, rather than take out much of the Paul information. Granola Bars 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul is interesting because he stands out as someone different from the other candidates with respect to his opinions and perspectives. It's natural he gets more emphasis as a result Gautam ^Discuss 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this article, it did surprise me to learn that Paul is credited a number of times with winning polls based on debate performances. At first it seemed a little POV, but the claims are fairly-well referenced. Hunh.Happysomeone 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so ridiculously biased towards Ron Paul.

Unsigned statements without any examples to back them up do not usually result in people coming around to your line of thinking. - 24.23.37.62 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly biased

First of all, Mitt Romney did not say he wanted to deny them access to attorneys. Second, I find it notable that the poll Ron Paul won were non-partisan, meaning his success was likely because of Democrats who are more likely to blame America for its attacks than Republicans. Third, most television hosts I heard(On Fox News and MSNBC) agreed that Mitt Romney won the first debate, because he came out clean, clear, precise, competent, and prepared. That is the concensus and clearly the author of this article is either a Democrat or just biased heavily in favor of Dr. Paul. The concensus about the victor of the second debate is that Giuliani won because of his quick and tough to Ron Paul's assertion that America is responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Giuliani got all the coverage, save little of Romney, and McCain's attack on Mitt Romney's political honesty. Ron Paul clearly lost the second debate because of Republicans' anger over his comments. I dispute the neutrality of this article. It needs editing bad. Anyone who can, please do something about this. I find this akin to vandalism or just heavy bias. Biashater24 6:50 PM EST, May 25, 2007

Perhaps. But I think you should edit it as you see fit, although be prepared for someone else to revert those edits. It's IMPERATIVE that all material here on the debate pages be FACTUAL, and no interpretation at all. Gautam ^Discuss 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your post is biased. Obviously you believe that what the media pundits say is the end all be all of debate commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.210.163 (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN + YouTube

During the NH debates on 6/5 (maybe 6/3, too), CNN was running ads about a debate they are sponsoring with YouTube in July. I can't find any information about it on CNN.com or YouTube.com. Does anyone know anything about it?--1pezguy 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/the-skinny-on-cnn-youtubes-presidential-debates/ Leebert 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be added about the controversy surrounding the selction of questions asked by Democratic activists tied to candidates. Ucscottb4u 14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were six or seven self-professed Democrats asking questions who were presented as "undecided Republicans". Wikipedia is doing a good job of helping with the coverup of this election reporting fiasco.

The criticism did not extend to the persons asking the questions, but also to the questions themselves which showed a typical navel-gazing liberal obessession with Republican social issues. Few of which are even of interest to Republican primary voters as there is much agreement on them. It would be like obsessing about Affirmative Action in a Democratic Primary debate (an issue which the party largely agrees, but where many Americans view their position with disdain.)

Hopefully someone can re-write this section to better describe both the nature and the size of the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul again

Removed a conspiracy theory about the person who excluded Ron Paul from the June 30th debate being a supporter of McCain. It may be true, but since McCain isn't participating in the debates there is obviously no connection. 141.157.100.29 01:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that since the claim bore a reference from a reliable source, you shouldn't have removed it. Instead, you should have found a counter statement from another reliable source and post that. 67.186.34.123 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, McCain - as well as, aside from Paul all of the Republican presidential candidates in the debates thus far - seems to have been invited to the event. Granola Bars 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 30th Debates

Did they happen????? There was NO news coverage of them??? Gautam ^Discuss 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard nor seen nothing about it. I vote to remove it from the list of debates, since at this point it seems more like a stunt to hurt the excluded participants. BarkerJr 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The event in question did occur. However, it was not billed as a "debate," but rather as a "candidates forum." Due to its lack of complete participation from the Republican field and the fact that it was not televised, I will remove it from the article. Etphonehome 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanopoulous vs. Paul

Removed the following from the section on the upcoming August debate:

moderated by George Stephanopoulous, who recently gained negative publicity in an interview with up-and-coming GOP candidate, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas). In the interview, Paul informed Stephanopoulos that one of his goals as a candidate was to win the nomination, to which Stephanopoulos curtly remarked "That's not going to happen." Since the interview, Stephanopoulos' remarks have been viewed tens of thousands of times on Youtube, providing increased momentum for the steadily rising success of the Paul campaign.[1]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter myself, but this doesn't belong here. It's not relevant to the debate. 74.65.13.42 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the section on the June debate, the claim of "much concern about the media silence" regarding Paul needs to be supported by more reliable sources than Lew Rockwell and Students for Ron Paul. Miraculouschaos 02:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the source is quite reliable because it links directly to the information sources, and provides screenshots of the data - better than linking to the sources individually.JLMadrigal 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can't find how to submit non-video question for Sept 17 YouTube debate

The article says the public can do so, but Googling for a long time found nothing, not in YouTube, CNN, or Google itself. Who can help with a link?? Korky Day 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

Heard news that it is postponed to Nov. 28 and all candidates but Romney are in...someone verify? 70.17.195.147 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added info on this and a link to USNews & world report article confirming.66.190.165.212 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBS/Morgan State

Whatever happened to our data on that? Was it cancelled? 151.196.55.108 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering this, too. I was planning to head over there and attend... This is very odd! It still seems to exist at http://www.aboutus.org/2008_Presidential_Elections/Debates 71.61.81.160 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit responsible is 22:32, 31 July 2007 69.69.123.246 (Talk) (17,016 bytes) - is this legit? 71.61.81.160 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-adding it. The date is confirmed by a report on pbs.org here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/blog/2007/08/king_of_the_virtual_world_camp.html 71.61.81.160 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer, that's not a debate. It's an issues forum. Only Ron Paul has agreed to come. --130.108.192.181 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is still on and will remain on schedule as planned, according to the event organizers (source Sept. 7th, 2007 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.debate07sep07,0,5775286.story)

Event organizer Smiley said "If it's just me and Tom Tancredo or me and Mike Huckabee, we are going forward," he said. "We are staying on the 27th. If they don't show up, it's on them." --138.88.170.94 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 20th Debate

I have visited the UNR website as well as the ABCnews website and the Brookings institution website and can find no information about this debate at all.

Is it a real debate? There are no sources in the article referencing that debate, someone clarify this, and give references and time and broadcast information.

I finally found some information on this and according to This Its not actually a debate but a "issues forum" and apparently no republican presidential candidates will even be there, and it certainly wont be a "debate."66.190.165.212 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Romney, Giuliani and McCain probably all pulled out because they knew Ron Paul would win!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 (talk) 16:12, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

watch video online?

I figured, if YouTube is sponsoring the debate, the debate would probably be available to watch on YouTube but apparently its not. Where can you watch the debate online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.100.54 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth College Debate Sep 27

I added a clarification about this. It's been a year since I've done much on Wikipedia so if protocols or procedures have changed I apologize if I should have done this differently. Feel free to standardize my edit as needed. BTW, I'm almost sorry I haven't been here to see how you guys have been dealing Ron Paul. I'm sure it's been a real circus. --◀Puck^talk▶ 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed that there is no longer any debate planned at Dartmouth College on Sept. 27th, so its been removed --138.88.170.94 16:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 9, 2007 - Dearborn, Michigan debate and Alan Keyes' exclusion

Fred Thompson announced for President 9-6-07 and participated in the debate. Alan Keyes announced on 9-14-07, after Michigan's 9-11-07 deadline, and was barred from the debate by the Michigan Republican Party's chairman, Saul Anuzis, who had the authority to admit the only African-American candidate in the Republican presidential field.

Anuzis' neutrality was called into question due to financial ties between Anuzis' employer and the Romney campaign.

A statement regarding Keyes' exclusion is posted at alankeyes.com or can be view by clicking here.

I think a candidate being barred from the debate is a matter that should be included in the Dearborn paragraph ... any thoughts?Savvyconsumer7 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included. Consider linking to Saul Anuzis. Medtopic 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 6, 2007 - Exclusion of 2nd tier candidates from Dec Fox Debate

I removed a sentence that said "All Major Candidates were invited". Feel free to disagree, but major by whose account? Ron Paul raised $4.2 million in one day, but stands to be excluded. So I removed it until Fox announced the attend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.48.22 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of candidates on page

How are they ordered? I put them in alphabetical order by last name, and an IP address-only user who's made quite a few edits on this page switched it back around... it seems just as random for the Democratic presidential debates, 2008 page. Défenseur (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people keep switching the order of the candidates in the article. I have just changed it back to alphabetical for the third or fourth time. If you change it again, please explain it here.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a Florida Debate

The Contents box is missing a Debate scheduled Jan 24 at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, FL. I should know, that is my school. http://www.fau.edu/debates/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.148.75 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tancredo and Hunter are not "former" congressmen!

I've repeatedly edited the listing of candidates to correctly annotate Hunter and Tancredo as current - not former - congressmen. Yet someone keeps changing them back, evidently (and erroneously) believing that they are "former" congressmen. A quick check of their individual Wikipedia entries confirms that they are both still in congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Table

I like the debate table that someone just added. I think if might be incorrect with regard to Fred Thompson. He entered the race on September 5. But for the two debates that occurred immediately after this date (Florida and Maryland, I believe), he is marked as not being in the race.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Thompson article:

On September 27, 2007, PBS television hosted a Republican debate in Baltimore, Maryland, at Morgan State University that aired live on PBS and on www.pbs.org. Thompson, who missed his first debate opportunity since declaring his candidacy, was criticized by event organizers and other GOP candidates for his absence. The October 9, 2007, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and the University of Michigan-Dearborn hosted Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, at the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center featured Thompson in attendance.

It would be unclear if he was invited to the Values Voter Debate since he declared his candidacy so shortly before the debate occurred. The PBS debate is legitimate though. Calwatch (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears from the article here [2] that he was invited, as it refers to him as a no-show candidate. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another link. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=43702] JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Cox inclusion

If I'm not mistaken Cox was in two debates. Why is he not listed on the major chart. This is a breach of wikipedia's non-bias standard Casey14 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in the Debates

Since the GOP race is pretty much over, how about condensing this section so that it just lists all the candidates, instead of having the list of McCain and Paul and the list of other people? We could keep the withdrawal dates and everything, but just have one list. Any thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Y--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Republican Party presidential debates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Republican Party presidential debates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Republican Party presidential debates and forums, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Republican Party presidential debates and forums, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_el_pr/romney
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.update08.foxnews.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/06/347294.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/wanted_ron_paul_vs_mike_huckab.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516203523/http://www.migopdebate.org/ to http://www.migopdebate.org/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/debates/republican-debate-polls.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50521
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025090513/http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/elections/aarp_iptv_2008_presidential_candidates_forums_in_d.html to http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/elections/aarp_iptv_2008_presidential_candidates_forums_in_d.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/10/29/cnnyoutube-republican-debate-major-players-onboard/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFlMWExYWIxYzg2MWI1NDU1N2U3NWI2Yzc2OWZlNWM=
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/republicans_debate_whose_show.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/progcal/dispDNR.aspx?id=010708_28
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025090513/http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/elections/aarp_iptv_2008_presidential_candidates_forums_in_d.html to http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/elections/aarp_iptv_2008_presidential_candidates_forums_in_d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]