Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain have agreed to participate in a Lincoln-Douglas style forum hosted by the Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC on November 5th, 2011. More candidates have been invited to the event, however, only Cain and Gingrich have confirmed so far. No word on a TV broadcast but I would hope maybe C-SPAN will pick it up.

Report from Star-Telegram:

AUSTIN, Texas — Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain will meet in what’s being billed as a “Lincoln-Douglas-style” debate sponsored by a Texas tea party group.

Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC President Julie Turner says the Republican presidential candidates will meet Nov. 5 outside Houston for a “one-on-one conversation” on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held in-depth debates while competing for Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat in 1858.

Turner said Monday that Gingrich suggested the format after complaining that today’s traditional debates were “sound-bite boxing matches.” Her group knew Cain from his addressing a Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC event in April.

The group has contacted the campaigns of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to see if they would participate in a separate Lincoln-Douglas-style debate.

More details to come as they’re made available.


  1. I find it ineresting that Dr.Ron Paul is not invited to his debate in his home state of Texas. If the other candidates feel he is so insignifigant what would it hurt?

  2. Derick D,

    READ the SECOND SENTENCE! Others were invited and did not respond!! Newt is so superior to the rest with regards to knowledge, speaking ability, a PROVEN record of success in all areas we need the most–balancing the budget, no one else running has ever held the position of Speaker of the House, he made others across the aisle get on board and got things DONE while in office!!! JUST what we NEED!!

  3. Whizkid:
    The article does not state who the “others invited” are. I definitely want to hear Ron Paul in this debate. I disagree with your opinion that Newt Gingrich is superior to all the other candidates. In my informed opinion Dr. Ron Paul stands heads and shoulders above Newt Gingrich in every way that matters. In his leadership, intelligence, ethical practice, knowledge, experience, Presidential presence, voting history, character, and 30 year history in congress. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. Dr. Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment that “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another Congresswoman added that “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few. Dr. Ron Paul has relentlessly worked for an Audit of the Federal Reserve and finally on Oct. 5, 2011, Ron Paul lead Hearings On First Ever Audit Of Fed! In my opinion no one is more qualified than Dr. Ron Paul!

    Here is the reason Newt Gingrich left the position of Speaker of the House!
    House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

    By John E. Yang
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

    The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

  4. There is a reason why Ron Paul’s numbers are so low. His views are considered extreme especially when it comes to foreign policy. His points of view resonate at times just as Ross Perot’s did but in the end they were(are) both found wanting.

  5. I am really looking forward to this debate.

    I have to agree with James in that Ron Paul has some great stances, but in other areas he lacks much. Besides foreign policy, he puts the constitution above morality. Specifically I am speaking about the need to protect marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman. This is an issue that our founding fathers never had to deal with and it is therefore not addressed in the constitution. I believe that this is a moral imperative and supersedes even the constitution. This is also why our founding fathers made provision for the constitution to be changed, but Ron Paul believes that the constitution and the rights that it attributes to the states takes priority. I agree with him that state rights have been stomped on, but the constitution still has not been supernaturally inspired.

    Now back to the debate…

    Has anybody heard whether there will be audio or video feeds on the internet?

    Personally, I am supporting Herman Cain, but I am continually impressed by what I hear from Newt. I’m a bit concerned about his being a career politician and also acknowledge that he has some issues in his past, as mentioned by Windisea, that raise questions about him. But I also think that he would be a great asset in a GOP administration. He could not be the VP if Cain is the candidate (both from GA), but he could be Secretary of State or some other cabinet member. Even if just as an adviser Newt could be bring some good stuff to the table.

  6. James Lester and Joel: There is no comparison between Ron Paul and Ross Perot. Ross Perot withdrew from the 1992 Presidential Campaign after his family was threatened. And the once highly persuasive proponent against the NAFTA agreement, “That Great Sucking Sound” suddenly reversed himself, in support of NAFTA.

    Ron Pauls’s poll numbers are not low, however, corporate sponsored mainstream media does have a history of reporting low numbers or ignoring him altogether. I urge you, Whizkid, James Lester and Joel to look, question and research and verify. YouTube is a great resource for viewing past Presidential Debates and interviews, review the 2007 Presidential Debates. Truth is extreme.

    Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed
    By John Hudson | The Atlantic Wire – Mon, Oct 17, 2011 Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits — Real Clear Politics’s aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent — has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the “primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.”

    Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy is extreme and dangerous to those who are profiting from from the current policy and they will do anything to protect their interest’s. His policy may seem extreme to those conditioned to believe that the current Foreign Policy is normal, or to those who haven’t served our country in the failed, immoral and dishonorable history of deception, involving the American people in undeclared wars of aggression. More veterans support Ron Paul than any other candidate. Most veterans will tell you that this is the real failed Foreign Policy: Vietnam, Cambodia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraqi Surge, Afghanistan Surge, Libyan Drones and financial support. Next Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Syria, North Korea? From Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat, this policy has not CHANGED. Ron Paul is known and respected by individuals and leaders around the world. He offers a very radical answer, Stop, close the unnecessary military bases around the world and bring the troops home to America so that we can defend ourselves if we are attacked.

    Immorality has free reign when one group of people believe that they know what is correct and moral for all individuals and band together to control them and enforce their own ideal, “for the others own good”. The Constitution is the vehicle created to protect the freedom of the individual and their moral choice, as long as no harm is done to another individual. This high moral philosophy is the core of our Constitution and our Freedom; The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Ron Paul supports and promotes the protection of these rights by adhering to the Constitution, and knows it is not the business or obligation of the Federal government to enforce or legislate otherwise in these matters for the promotion and gain of any certain group’s agenda

    Joel, consider if the leading group decides that “only” marriage between same-sex partners is moral, and right and the Federal government enforces this group’s will. Under the Constitution it is your personal and individual right to engage in one-man one-woman marriage if you wish, but with a narrow view and enforcement from the Federal government this right can be taken away from you by a group with a different agenda when our Constitution is ignored.

    Herman Cain is completely inexperienced in foreign policy, he has no experience representing Americans in any capacity and defended the Federal Reserve Bank. He is still developing his ideas and unsure of what he believes in, there have been several recent interviews in which he gave different answers to the same question during the same interview, this will be of particular importance to you because one of the topics discussed was his view on abortion rights. If morality is really an important issue for you how do you overlook this.

    You feel that Ron Paul values the Constitution above morality, I say that he upholds the Constitution because it allows the freedom for individual and moral choice in America.

    Joel, I ask you, as a person who cares about Morality, can you ignore Newt Gingrich’s lapse of Morals?

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment

    Published March 08, 2007

    Associated Press

    Read more:,2933,258001,00.html#ixzz1cD3GRXwK

    Influential men and women may have some good qualities, but without understanding and protecting the Constitution, without the experience, commitment, high principals, character, and the courage to live up to and by their convictions no matter the cost, how can you have faith in one of them to be the next President of the United States? This is why I and millions of others stand by and support Ron Paul For President 2012!

  7. My father-in-law is one of the staunchest Ron Paul supporters that I know and has put forth most every argument in support of Ron Paul. This has caused me to have to go back and really assess my position and understand why I believe what I believe. So here are my responses to Windisea.

    First, concerning poll numbers… I really admire the Ron Paul machine. He has VERY loyal followers and I do understand why they give him their support. He is the most consistent candidate I have seen in any political race over at least the last 20 years. Ron Paul’s poll numbers are consistently between 8-12 percent. These numbers are skewed in many polls if the polls depend upon candidate supporters participating or prior to the field being fully defined. Since Ron Paul’s supporters are so loyal, and have been so through multiple election cycles, he does very well in some polls simply by getting more people to vote, such as straw polls. This definitely is something to admire about his supporters. However, polls that can’t be manipulated come back to 8-12% support and 2-3x that amount opposed to him. These numbers will make it tough for him to win no matter how much his supporters like him.

    That being said, this also explains somewhat of why the media is overlooking him. But I don’t think this is anything that is unique to Ron Paul. All of the candidates, other than Romney or Perry, have had difficulty getting media coverage. Even Herman Cain, until very recently, kept being discounted by major media as someone that had no chance of winning and therefore didn’t need to be seriously followed. While it would be nice to be able to get solid coverage on all of the candidates so that we have all the information we need to make our own, truly informed decision, it is also understandable that the media is going to devote their limited resources, print space, or reader/listener/viewer attention spans to the candidates that are leading. Another consideration is that the Ron Paul position has been very consistent, so what can additional media coverage say than hasn’t already been said.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of isolationism.

    Concerning your statement “More veterans support Ron Paul than any other candidate.”, please support that with actual poll numbers and referencing the polls. There are many websites that state Ron Paul’s support for veterans, and even sites that show veterans supporting him, but I can’t find any polls that support your statement.

    Now, concerning your view on morality and how much authority the government should have to legislate it, I think we have a much deeper difference that requires more thought and discussion.

    The place that we need to start is by defining religion as it is used in the constitution. Since our founding fathers all practiced religion as some form of christianity, that is most likely what they were thinking when they created the constitution. However, we have since had many other religions enter this country and some cannot even be expressed in terms of “god”. In addition, religion is often limited to organized religions, but the constitution has no such limitation. So what is a religion? The best definition that I have found for religion is “the search for ultimate truth.” This definition encompasses all religions, whether they believe in god, some other diety, or pertaining to enlightenment. Taking the definition a step further, it has the idea of searching for what is ultimately right and wrong. Additionally, even atheism is a religion, just one that searches for ultimate truth in nature, science, or simply an individual’s own beliefs.

    From here we need to ask if ALL religions can coexist. They can as long as they have certain common standards… like murder is wrong, robbery is wrong, lying and cheating are wrong, etc. These are the obvious common standards, but they extend far beyond that. There are many examples in our country where we have stated standards that defines the extent of our individual religious freedoms. History has many religious examples of cannibalism, sacrificing children, wiping out your enemies, etc. All of these are not tolerated in the US, even though they could fall under the practice of religion. Limitations also don’t just focus on situations where another individual’s rights are affected. Let’s think about polygamy, Mormons used to have this as a belief, and some smaller Mormon sects still do, but it is not considered a protected right under the laws of the US, even though it may only affect the individuals involved.

    So, to say that all moral choices are protected by the constitution is just naivety on your part. Moral choices are limited within our government and even general laws are dictates about what is right and wrong… which ultimately gets back to morality.

    Finally, I am concerned about Gingrich’s past and that is why he is not my choice for president. But that does not mean that he does not have a skill set that would allow him to be an asset to a GOP administration, just not the leader of it. I really have the same opinion about Ron Paul. I would love to see him lead an audit of the Federal Reserve. Despite the problems that I do have with him, I believe that nobody would scrutinize the Fed the way that Ron could. I just don’t feel that he would be the best person to be president.

  8. I want to hear Ron Paul in this debate.

    “A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged”, RON PAUL, “once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.”

    I and millions of others support Dr. Ron Paul for President 2012. Ron Paul is running again because of our determined insistence that he do so. He is The “Pendant” who is strengthened and supported by an unbreakable chain of individual, grass-root supporters.

    My conviction is not determined or changed by Poll numbers, I’m not a follower, robot or paid supporter. I first became aware of Ron Paul during the 2007 Presidential Debates and was highly impressed. I’m an individual politically-independent American who looked, listened, researched and verified the content and veracity of Ron Paul’s message and the credibility of his character before committing myself to the responsibility of recommending and publicly supporting him. Ron Paul supporters are passionate because truth is so convincing, because of this they are relentless in their support and determined that his message be heard, seriously considered and debated.

    Please support your statement: Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of isolationism.

    Ron Paul’s answer: Isolationists, Paul said, want to close the U.S.’s borders and cut off trade relationships with other countries.
    Paul explained he’s not in favor of that, but claimed he does want to dramatically decrease the U.S.’s international military presence and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Ron Paul’s response on YouTube:

    Candidate Paul rejects ‘isolationist’ label
    By Jordan Fabian – 06/22/11 12:14 PM ET

    Citations supporting Ron Paul’s military donation claims:
    Federal Election Quarterly Report-Ron Paul
    Federal Election Quarterly Report-All Candidates Ron Paul receives the most military donations, again
    by W. E. Messamore
    Tue, Jul 19th 2011
    Although he clashed with other Republican candidates over the nation’s foreign policy during the 2008 presidential primary, Congressman Ron Paul outraised every single other presidential candidate in both major parties when it came to donations from the military.

    Jul 27, 2011
    Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers
    By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY
    Updated 2011-07-27 11:02 AM
    By Patrick Semansky, AP
    GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul consistently has said that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and that American military bases around the world should be closed.

    In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates. That analysis comes from Paul’s campaign and was confirmed recently by Politifact, the fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times.

    Religion is a personal choice, protected by the Constitution, as long as it doesn’t cause harm to another individual. I respect your choice and don’t see a need to have a dialogue about your personal religious and moral beliefs. However, I clearly see the need to uphold the Constitution so that Freedom of choice is protected.

    I stand by my statement that Corporate-sponsored mainstream media outlets have a history of reporting low numbers and ignoring him altogether. In addition, they manipulate and skew the results and make embarrassing attempts to denigrate him as viable candidate. This behavior raises serious questions and fuels me to continue to proactively speak out in support of Ron Paul.

    After years of fighting for an audit of the Federal Reserve a partial audit uncovered this.
    During a 2½ year period starting at the end of 2007, the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in secret bailouts to banks and other companies around the world, according to a government audit of some of the U.S. central bank’s operations.

    As to Newt, he is seriously compromised and I have had enough of that in any capacity.

    YouTube videos showing clips of the media ignoring Ron Paul.

    I want to hear Ron Paul in this debate.

    • Windisea, Maybe I wasn’t clear in my first message. Ron Paul’s libertarian views are not mainstream. I believe most conservatives would agree with some of his views but when taken as a whole they are too extreme. He will likely get 2-20% in most states just as he did in the last election. He will not be the nominee.

  9. James Lester,
    Ron Paul’s policies are an extreme right-turn back to the true vision and purpose of the of America. Millions of Freedom loving, Independent thinkers, blue-Democrats, Libertarians, Conservatives, Republicans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party, Occupationist’s and young people absolutely agree with and are on board with Ron Paul’s vision for America.

    What you don’t recognize is that Ron Paul’s vision has evolved into powerful movement, propelled by same thinking individuals across all party and generational lines. The Republican Party is merely the tool, the vehicle carrying Ron Paul to the Presidency and because Ron Paul’s supporters come from every party it isn’t mainstream anymore! The current candidates and mainstream media recognize this and are now publicly acknowledging, paying homage to and adopting Ron Paul’s vision and policies!

    RON PAUL IS a viable candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party!
    Individuals such as we won’t settle for less. Mislead, manipulated and lied to in the past our eyes are wide open now and we won’t be fooled again and will not compromise!

    This is the reason that millions of individuals have registered as Republicans, but are not Republicans’. We see the bigger picture, we may “do as the Romans do, when in Rome” but we think independently and act for the cause of Freedom. We are American’s and we consciously, intelligently and passionately support RON PAUL and we will carry him through to the nomination and Presidency in 2012!

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.~Gandhi

    RON PAUL 2012!

  10. Windisea’s note above about Gingrich being sanctioned is partically correct. However, in my experience its best to look at the full context before throwing mud.

    Ethics sanctions

    Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations.

    During his term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him; eighty-three of them were dropped. The remaining charge concerned a 20-hour college course called “Renewing American Civilization” that Gingrich had taught through a tax-deductible foundation, Kennesaw State College Foundation. Allegations of tax improprieties led to two counts “of failure to seek legal advice” and one count of “providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate” concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement. Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 “cost assessment” to recoup money spent on the investigation.

    The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated. In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.

    So in short, 2 years later he was actually he was cleared of wrong doing. Yes, he was brought up on charges, yes, he reprimanded, yes, he paid $300,000. “cost assessment” (fine), but he was vindicated by the IRS.

    I’m not even a Gingrich supporter. I just believe before you start spouting off you need to do your own research. We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but no one is entitled to change the facts.

  11. Angel,

    You have misspoken and incorrectly accused me of “changing the facts”, that is a false statement. Below is what I posted from the Washington Post article, using copy and paste, to support my opinion. The citation contains the leading paragraph of a long article, too long to post. Any intelligent person wanting to read the complete article is capable pulling it up on the internet and reading it. That’s why I posted it.

    It’s obvious by the numerous citations that I post that I do my own research.
    I politely state my opinion and make an intelligent effort to support it. Denigration, misrepresenting another’s opinion or intention and flaming are a waste of time and not my goal.

    I don’t “spout off”, but you just did.

    Below is the substantiation supporting my opinion, using copy and paste, and taken from your post.

    “I just believe before you start spouting off you need to do your own research. We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but no one is entitled to change the facts”.

    Check yourself before you make accusations.
    Thank You

    Here is the reason Newt Gingrich left the position of Speaker of the House
    House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

    By John E. Yang
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

    The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

    • I don’t know why you are so defensive (Windisea), Angel seemed to mean you left out some facts, he didn’t say you changed the facts, as you asserted. I suppose what should have been said is, “you left out some facts” rather than “you are partially correct”. Angel did say “look at the full context”. I knew what he meant. Did you or did your partisanship trip you up? The fact of the matter is you are both correct. Read more carefully next time.

  12. James Lester

    My point is this, I cited a news article pointing out that Gingrich has conducted himself in such a way as to cause serious questions about his ethics. I think this is important to know about him and look into.

    As for myself, the next sentence is the most important fact:

    “the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing”.

    I don’t want to be represented by a President who is the subject of that statement and whose behavior causes me to have concerns about his ethics.

    There’s been countless articles written about the charges pro and con, and of course there is much more to the story, thousands and thousands of pages, but what hasn’t changed is that Newt’s ethics still remain in question. It’s up to you as it is anyone to dig into and follow the lead and decide what it means to you.

    But for you James Lester and Angel I’m willing to add this notation………..continued.
    Hope that helps!

    Ron Paul 2012

    CNN Politics
    “The cons are that he has a political record. He has been a career politician in Washington and a House speaker who left under controversial circumstances and that could weigh on voters’ minds.”

    Some Republican consultants also said his personal life, with two divorces, will complicate any potential run because that will not be popular with some social conservatives who are a key voting bloc in key early voting states.

    Gingrich used ethics issues to bring down his foes
    But ethics problems also helped bring down Gingrich

  13. Windisea, Although I personally have an affinity for Newt’s points of view, I agree with your concerns. Thank you for your diligence.

Comments are closed.