Lee Anderson To Propose New Debate Format?

Yesterday, I covered Lee Anderson’s desire to avoid debates with 12th District incumbent Congressman John Barrow.  The posturing was also noted by both The Savannah Morning News and the AJC’s Jim Galloway, who added:

There is talk that Anderson is ready to heap on more requirements intended to even the debating field: Barrow would be required to shave his eyebrows, wear a clown suit with large red pom-pom buttons, and issue all his responses through a nose whistle.

But we have not been able to confirm this.

Peach Pundit has learned Anderson is preparing not only alternate demands, but an alternate format.  Also unconfirmed, the news came to us via our tipline with a subject line that read “Fear The Tractor”, a line Anderson supporters/trolls have used here from time to time.  It appears to be the setup Anderson will next demand as a pre-condition to meet Barrow in a faceoff:

No word yet if the winner will be allowed to make dancing legal in Georgia 12.


  1. jackson says:


    Would you mind sending me a link to your posts complaining about Barrow refusing to debate his last two opponents? I must have missed it. You must really think debates win campaigns!

    • Charlie says:

      I think you have the rest of the world’s roll confused with your.

      YOU are paid to win campaigns (or lose them. Either way, the pay is about the same. I can only presume this because you seem to lose a lot of them yet still eat well).

      The rest of us have some desire to see the person that gets elected is actually fit for the job. Ducking all debates doesn’t help us with that.

      • Napoleon says:

        First I’ll say I have no dog in this fight, except my usual partisan leanings.

        Debates usually benefit the challenger and most incumbents avoid them like the plague. It is normally a challenger trick to run around getting media attention by showing how the incumbent won’t debate you.

        I find it very telling that here the incumbent wants to debate. He should be ignoring Anderson, but is giving him a lot of press. Anderson can also claim that Barrow is running scared.

        If I was advising Anderson, which I am not, my advise would be to let Barrow keep whining.

        • KD_fiscal conservative says:

          I think your wrong. I’m also not advising Lee, but both candidates need just over half of the undecideds to vote for them to win (according to Lee’s own poll). I have a hard time believing that these undecided voters appreciate someone running for office that doesn’t even what to go face to face with their opponent. Its not about how many people watch the debates, or how much “Barrow whines” but just the mere fact that Anderson is not willing to debate is not going bode well with a certain percent of that crucial cohort of undecided.

          Also, this is also a very close election, incumbents usually blow off weak challengers who have little or no chance of winning. Barrow has done that many times in the past….but I can’t think of a time in recent history in a dead heat race where either candidate flat out refuses to debate.

          With that said, there are some extremely bright political minds running that campaign…I would be willing to bet this whole “Barrow has to admit he loves Obama” thing is likely a political stunt bring free media attention to the fact that a Barrow is voting for Obama. I think Anderson will eventually agree to a debate at some point in the next 7 weeks.

  2. IndyInjun says:

    Barrow san accurately and appropriately respond by holding a “debate” against a dirt clod on a stool. (Yes, I love double entendre.)

  3. jackson says:

    Oh Charlie. How you have mastered that which your are actually criticizing others for doing: avoiding issues.

    You haven’t found the post, likely because you never made one. Your feigning indignation at Anderson seems rather petty in light of the fact you never mentioned the fact that Barrow did the thing.

    As far as the “roles” we play, you seem to dispense a lot of campaign advice in your blog posts and articles. The problem is, while you may enjoy others reading your opinions, when it comes to campaigns your advice many times is about as informed as that of a Starbucks barista reading USA Today at the end of their shift. Just because they have ability to read a newspaper, doesn’t mean they should get in the PR business.

    The whole point of my response is to show how disingenuous it is to claim that somehow these debates even matter, or that you care when we both know niether the case.

    As a side note, I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say I’ve lost a bunch of campaigns, as I have never run for office, but I do agree i eat a little too well and good stand to lose a little weight.

Comments are closed.