Wow...Democrats don't want anything to do with defending the indefensible

[sirs]

This is apparently how bad its gotten for some Democrats, trying to hold onto power....

Incumbent Democrat Senator Mark Udall wants to limit the number of "open and honest" forums, by declining any actual televised debates with GOP candidate, Cory Gardner. thereby working to ensure that as few voters see them as possible.  Imagine the outrage if this were a sitting Republican Senator, declining all televised debates against a Democrat, at the tail end of the 2nd Gulf War

Other vulnerable Democrats are adopting a similar approach.  New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen has avoided holding open town hall meetings (a Granite State staple), and North Carolina's Kay Hagan is bowing out of major debates (she did poorly in her first meeting with Republican Thom Tillis; the GOP is now hammering her for dodging debates, a criticism she successfully leveled against her GOP opponent in 2008). 

Perhaps these Senators would prefer not to be challenged over their lock-step pro-Obama voting records, or their false promises on Obamacare.  That would be a safe bet

[Christians4LessGvt]

I think most Democrats don't want Obama visiting their state before the election either.

They know so many Americans have lost faith in Obama and see his presidency as a failure!

[sirs]

Here in lies the "problem" that the GOP has.....in that the 2012 Presidential election was theirs to lose....and they did.  The Senate should become Republican controlled this year, but somehow, the GOP Establishment manages to alienate enough voters with their attempt to "get along", that they could snatch failure from the jaws of victory  Dems have no interest in that....they have 1 agenda, pushed by the hard left....fundamentally change the landscape of the electorate to get more folks either working for or beholden to Government services.  That's it, and damn any casualties along the way....in particular liberty & freedom, as clearly outlined by the Constitution

The GOP needs to articulate exactly why such an intrusive and pending ever-expanding oppressive Government is a BAD thing.  Not just to the country, but to individuals  And at the same time, they need to have concrete plans/ideas to push, in order to replace current out-of-control government services.  For instance, the GOP has a myriad of health care ideas, but they can't seem to manange to talk about them with any clarity & conviction

[Xavier_Onassis]

The only healthcare message I have heard of from the Republican'ts is REPEAL OBAMACARE. There is no plan that even a majority of Republican'ts  can agree on. They were happy as clams when millions were shut out of insurance entirely because of the "previous condition" trap.

[sirs]

That's because your blinders are fully in place, so that your ears aren't allowed to hear anything not pre-programmed to hear as well.  Multiple plans were on the table, both before and after Obamination care.  But since prescious little to any of those plans required massive Government intervention & regulation, they were ignored

[sirs]

Couldn't help but notice the professor's silence towards multiple Dems avoiding debating their opponent counterparts.  No surprise there     

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am all for debates. I would be even more for them if they were really serious debates, which they tend not to be.

If we want better campaigns, we should force this by requiring debates. Rick Scott is not debating Charlie Crist, and both sides are resorting to stupid and mendacious slander.

[sirs]

I am all for debates. I would be even more for them if they were really serious debates, which they tend not to be.

And what parameters would those be?  So are you actually criticizing Udall and these other dems for trying to duck these public debates?

[Plane]

I am all for debates. I would be even more for them if they were really serious debates, which they tend not to be.

If we want better campaigns, we should force this by requiring debates. Rick Scott is not debating Charlie Crist, and both sides are resorting to stupid and mendacious slander.

   I totally agree.

[sirs]

I am all for debates. I would be even more for them if they were really serious debates, which they tend not to be.

And what parameters would those be?  So are you actually criticizing Udall and these other dems for trying to duck these public debates?

I suppose we can expect the professor from critizing anyone with a (D) after their name, in trying to avoid actual dialog with the constituents, that they proport to represent

It would seem that they just can't be bothered with trying to defend the indefensible

[sirs]

"I am not Barak Obama, and I approve of this message"

[Xavier_Onassis]

I said what I said. I think elections should be be publicly funded, private donations forbidden entirely and airtime donated to anyone polling at least 10% of the vote by radio and TV stations with no all negative ads allowed. Debates should be required. This goes for Democrats, Republican'ts, Teabaggers, Libertarians and vegetarians, everyone.

[sirs]

Good thing then, this country has a 1st amendment, and someone like you isn't in charge

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why? Do you think that selling politicians as we do now results in anything remotely superior?

[sirs]

Who's selling anything??  Complete disclosure.  You give what you want to whom you want.  We know who gives to whom, and how much.  No secret PAC's with cool sounding names like "the Americans for freedom for all Americans", where folks like Soros can dump billions into.  That way everyone can decide if there are any underhanded quid-pro-quo actions by subsequent legislation being pushed directly helping the Soros-like PACs or persons, and the people then can vote their sorry asses right out of politics.....thus removing any buying of politicians