• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Obama debate Rush?

Should The Obama debate Rush? Will he?

  • He should; He will

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He should not; He will

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55
A more interesting debate pairing would be Michael Moore v. Limbaugh.
They are both nuts....extremists and entertainers.

I have to agree with that. :cool:
 
If that were true, then The Obama should jump at the chance to publicly embarrass who He described as the 'leader of the GOP', and you should encourage him to do so.

No, rather than putting up, The Obama will shut up.

Why should the Dodgers embarass a little league team. That would just be cruel. Rush is playing outside his league...and the fact that so many in the GOP are looking to this minor leaguer as their savior speaks volumes as to the disarray in the GOP these days.
 
Why should the Dodgers embarass a little league team. That would just be cruel. Rush is playing outside his league...and the fact that so many in the GOP are looking to this minor leaguer as their savior speaks volumes as to the disarray in the GOP these days.
Just remember:
When asked to put up, The Obama shut up.
 
Let's see here....Obama can't win the debate, not if it's given on fair and equal terms....

And the spectacle of the President of the United States deigning to get into what amounts to a verbal spat with a journalist....what's after that, Obama mud wrestling Hillary?

Obama's been wrong on everything he's done so far, he doesn't need to "debate" Limbaugh to prove it.
 
For what idiotic purpose would Obama agree to this stunt?

That's like a little league team challenging the Dodgers to a game.
Sure, the little league team and their parents would love to see it happen because it would be prestigious for them...but why would the Dodgers ever agree to something as silly as that.

Yeah, the Limbaugh Dodgers would run wild over the Obama Juniors.

I wonder if Rush would do a Caller Abortion on Obama?
 
I voted "he should, he would not" because I'd love to see the carnage. However I agree with Crip and Zyph in reality.

It would be entertaining alright, but he definitely should not do it. In addition to the reasons stated above, there's nothing that Obama could possibly gain from such a debate. An debate between POTUS and a radio personality is just a big-boy version of fighting a girl. If you win its no accomplishment, but if you lose you lose a hell of a lot
 
There is one thing people are getting to caught up in, regarding this issue. For everybody it seems they believe its simply a matchup of wits and/or intelligence. That debate is too subjective to pick a winner, and I am sure the partisans have already declared their winner.

What is ignored, is that as POTUS Obama has a fount of knowledge of what actually is going on in the White House, due to him being President. Things cross his desk that Limbaugh has no idea about. Some of these things are probably not released out to the general public, for whatever reason. I would have been willing to bet that GWB could have wasted any political commentator(even Jon Stewart) if he went on their show and just spilled the beans of what the situation really is out there. Not because I think GWB is some intellectual giant in hiding, but because he has the resource of knowing whats really going on. He's been in the secret meetings, behind the closed doors, and has that fount of information at his disposal from which to make decisions. Obama has that same resource now.

Since, in some cases, it may behoove the administration to not talk about every meeting or piece of paper that crosses the desk(particularly ones that have not been finalized or signed yet), this automatically puts the POTUS at a disadvantage when debating their actions, thus making a debate with a talk show personality, be it TV or radio, during their presidency, a lose-lose situation.
 
No Obama needs to busy himself pulling my life savings out of the crapper!!!! Meanwhile I'll just continue to buy buy buy and hope it's not a going out of business sale.
 
There is one thing people are getting to caught up in, regarding this issue. For everybody it seems they believe its simply a matchup of wits and/or intelligence. That debate is too subjective to pick a winner, and I am sure the partisans have already declared their winner.
The whole point of the exercise is to illustrate how stupid it was for The Obama to target Limbaugh. Did anyone that pays attemtion think that Limbaugh would NOT use this to his advantage, both personally and politically?

From now on, Rush can say that The Obama backed away from a fight He started - and he'd be right.
 
No he shouldn't. The President shouldn't entertain hyper partisan entertainers simply because they have a bully pulpit. Rush isn't a political leader, he's a talk show host. The President should focus on running this nation and not engaging in contests with hyper partisan talking heads.
You see I have the same dilemma, from a citizen point of view I might like to see such a debate, but from the point of view of the President I'm not sure. It's certainly not very presidential to engage in such a debate with a single citizen. I pretty sure of what the outcome of such a debate would be; and Obama has everything to lose and not much to gain. Rush is really not the party leader, only in Obama's mind.
 
Last edited:
No he shouldn't. The President shouldn't entertain hyper partisan entertainers simply because they have a bully pulpit. Rush isn't a political leader, he's a talk show host. The President should focus on running this nation and not engaging in contests with hyper partisan talking heads.

The President has already engaged both Rush and Sean Hannity by calling them out on national tv. I don't believe Obama or his administration have a problem "engaging in contests with hyper partisan talking heads", they just don't want a fair contest. If the President is man enough to make comments about Rush and Sean then he should give them a forum to debate their points of view. The fact that he uses the media to make his comments instead of doing it face to face doesn't speak well of his character. On the other hand Obama would have everything to lose and nothing to gain from a debate so it will never happen. If he refuses the debate then we should never hear Obama say the names Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity again as long as he The President.
 
The President has already engaged both Rush and Sean Hannity by calling them out on national tv. I don't believe Obama or his administration have a problem "engaging in contests with hyper partisan talking heads", they just don't want a fair contest.
Exactly right. The Obama expects to be able to take a few shots and not have to deal with the retalliation.
 
Would he? No way, he'd lose hands down even if Rush let him use a teleprompter and he knows it.

Should he? No way, he's the PotUS. The fact that he's already putting so much effort to target Rush already makes me lose what little respect I have for him. He's needs to grow some thicker skin.

Debates should have been done back during the primaries.
 
So... The Obama has no need to put his money where His mouth is -- for HIm to snipe from a distance and not back up what He says and believes is OK.

Let's be honest here. The point of the "debate" would not be to beat Obama with facts. It would be to drag Obama down into the mud and exhaust and frustrate him with red herrings, distortions and rants.
 
Let's be honest here. The point of the "debate" would not be to beat Obama with facts. It would be to drag Obama down into the mud and exhaust and frustrate him with red herrings, distortions and rants.


yes indeed, that is what obama would try.
 
Let's be honest here. The point of the "debate" would not be to beat Obama with facts....
On the contrary -- that's exactly what it would be.
And that's why The Obama doesnt want a thing to do with it.
 
yes indeed, that is what obama would try.

Excellent example. If you were offered to go on national television to debate someone who used the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal you just used here, and you were in a position where you needed to appear dignified, would you bother?
 
On the contrary -- that's exactly what it would be.
And that's why The Obama doesnt want a thing to do with it.

Hardly. We all hate internet trolls, but we secretly delight in when the troll's primary target is someone we don't like. And that's exactly why conservatives on this thread are creaming their pants at the idea of Rush getting into the ring with Obama.

But it's going to have to remain a wet dream for you, sorry.
 
Why would he do that when he couldn't even manage to let congress debate the stimulus package thoroughly?

I don't like Rush, but Rush would tear him apart in a one on one. And also don't think the president or his administration should be getting into it with entertainers.

I agree with you for the most part. Rush is a bore.

If he is only an "entertainer" then Obama should be able to hold is own.

I'd like to see Obama defend his politics using facts, something he hasn't done yet.

This debate would be wonderful.
 
Excellent example. If you were offered to go on national television to debate someone who used the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal you just used here, and you were in a position where you needed to appear dignified, would you bother?



Would I bother with you? Not even to have you wash my car..... :2wave:
 
If facts are on The Obama's side, as you seem to think, why would He NOT want to debate the man He described as the leader of the opposition?

What better way to show everyone that His vision is what will save us?

Or, perhaps, He was merely behaving in the manner an internet troll, spewing out basesless poo, all while lacking the capacity and the fortitude to back it up.
 
If facts are on The Obama's side, as you seem to think, why would He NOT want to debate the man He described as the leader of the opposition?

Facts have nothing to do with it. Get over it.


Or, perhaps, He was merely behaving in the manner an internet troll, spewing out basesless poo, all while lacking the capacity and the fortitude to back it up.

The troll works best against someone who needs to appear dignified, as certainly the president would need to be. Rush, being the troll, needs to be as outrageous as possible to garner the ratings. And his conservative listeners would eat it right up. I've noticed that the difference between radical conservatives and radical liberals is the conservatives really don't care who's saying the message so long as it's directed against someone they disagree with. If this were equally true of radical liberals, liberal radio stations wouldn't keep failing over and over and over again. As NCFY said, liberals don't particularly like to have their opinions shouted at them.

If there actually were a debate between the two, radical conservatives would be much less interested in Rush being proven right, and much more in Obama looking frustrated.
 
Back
Top Bottom