Bush plans to Bow Out of One Debate.....

[Nym90]

I saw someone on FOX predict it when the polls showed good news.

Clinton did it too in 96.

Yes, but Clinton participated in a debate with a town-hall style format. There has been one of those every year since 1992; this would be the first time since 1988 without one if we don't have it. Personally I really like this format; it makes the candidates answer questions from real people. A candidate who would duck questions from real voters is a coward. Why didn't Bush have a problem with this format when it was used in 2000?

[Nym90]

How many debates did Clinton want in '96 when he was running for reelection.....thats right: 2.

How many debates did Clinton-Dole have in '96??  Oh thats right again....TWO.

Democrats defended it endlessly as well.

Chicken S**t Clinton, right?

Give me a break....you know and I know what would happen if it was supposed to be "undecideds" in there.  You saw the way liberals acted in NY....planned for months to get in the convention and disrupt it...and did on several occasions.  Thats exactly what they would do.  Maybe if liberals could have enough respect for others to control themselves then it would be a different matter, but for now its a smart move politically.

But, I think the Bush campaign should have came out and said that as precedent set by President Clinton during his reelection bid, there will be two Presidential and one Vice Presidential debates.

Save your outrage for something else a little less hypocritical.

Well, I would have liked to have seen 3 debates in 1996; but as I said, Clinton didn't duck the town-hall style debate. Bush doesn't want to take questions from the audience.

Also, there were 3 debates in 1992, when there was an incumbent running for reelection. There were also 3 in 1976. So no, there is no such thing as a tradition that there are only 2 debates when an incumbent runs for reelection.

As for liberals disrupting the debate, if any do, throw them out. Any attempt to disrupt would help Bush more than it would hurt him.

But why would it be a worse problem now than it was in 2000, 1996, or 1992 when these formats were used? And is it really enough of a problem to cancel this debate? Is the problem really completely unsolvable outside of total cancellation of the debate? There's just no way at all to prevent this, no matter what? C'mon.

[Nym90]

Sounds like laying the groundwork for post election excuses after a Bush win......sorry your side is stuck with Kerry.  Wouldnt want to have to defend him either.  attacking Bush is much easier

No excuses at all. I don't see how that would be relevant to the topic at hand anyway. Bush should be willing to answer quesitons from the voters directly. He did it in 2000, Clinton did it in 1996 and 1992, his father did it in 1992. Why not now?

[Nym90]

Lying conniving Democrats.

We all know what would happen at a town hall debate.  Some poor schmuck who got laid off at the washing machine factory because it was cheaper to make whirlpools in Mexico will stand up and ask, "Mr. Bush, why am I out of work so your friends at Enron can make money?"

What is Bush supposed to say?

He could say "But the unemployment rate i only 5.4%, a relatively low number by historic standards."  He'd be right, but it would appear out of touch with poor Joe Blow.

He could say, "I'm sorry, I feel your pain."  And no matter how genuine it seemed, the media would pillory him for not being poor himself.

The townhall debate is the place where ignorant and uninformed people who are too weak to make up their minds before mid-October ask stupid questions to people like Bush and Kerry (both of whom, quite frankly, are above such indignity).

Yes, and some lying, conniving Republican could ask Kerry "Mr. Kerry, why are you unpatriotic? Why don't you care about national security? Why do you support the terrorists?"

All of the attendees are undecided voters. There should be a tight screen on those who want to attend to prove that they are indeed undecided; I wouldn't think this would be too hard, as the demand for getting into these debates on the part of the public must be quite high. I don't know how this was done in the past, but no one has ever asked a ridiculous question in the past. So again I ask, why is it a problem now when it wasn't before?

And just because someone can't make up their mind before mid-October doesn't make them ignorant or uninformed. My girlfriend can debate the issues and the stances of the candidates just as well as anyone here, and she's still undecided. There are millions more like her who will ultimately decide the outcome of the race. A lot of people genuinely agree with Bush and Kerry on about half of the important issues each, and are having a hard time making up their mind.

Yes, a lot of undecideds are uninformed (many of them wait until the last minute to become informed, because there's really no reason why they have to be informed until they actually go in vote). But again, a tight screening process can ensure that no one gets in who is ignorant or uninformed on the issues and positions of the candidates.

[Nym90]

Many said I was crazy when I said this way back in mid August......

But......

Chicken Sh*t Bush indeed plans to bow out of one debate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html

If this guy can't look the out of work Misourian in the eye and tell him why he can't find work, what does that say about his "Strong and Steady Leadership"? If he can't do that....simply think on his feet - unscripted -  what does that say about his grasp on the real issues that ordinary folks face everyday?

Bush got used to many "ticketed events" I say.....

What a freaking Coward........

Ummm, you should know that 3 debates is not really the norm.  Indeed Chicken sh**t Carter would only debate Reagan once in 1980.

And I would have agreed then, Carter should have debated Reagan more, as should Clinton have debated Dole more. But I fail to see how that's relevant to the current situation.

There were 4 debates in 1960, 3 in 1976, 1 in 1980 (actually 2, but only 1 between Reagan and Carter...also 1 between Reagan and Anderson), 2 in 1984, 2 in 1988, 3 in 1992, 2 in 1996, and 3 in 2000.

Although I support more debates, my main criticism is the attempt to duck the town hall style debate. When there were only 2 debates in 1996, one of them was still a town hall debate.

[Nym90]

Here's a little conspiracy theory:
Since the Bush team agreed months ago to three debates, this story will be denied and there will be three debates.  The purpose of floating this idea is to create the impression that Bush is chicken and a weak debater.  Thus, when Bush does OK, he'll be heralded as far surpassing expectations.

Of course, this theory fails Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is that there's no reason to debate when you're ahead.

Yes, I agree, a lot of folks on this Forum could use a healthy dose of Occam's razor from time to time...

Though, if Bush fails to debate, Kerry could make an issue out of it, and thus Bush could start to see his lead drop if the impression takes hold that he is afraid to debate. Kerry has to make it in Bush's rational self-interest to debate due to the threat of losing votes if he refuses to do so.

[Nym90]

Nym,

go to the C-SPAN site and wathc the debate tape from 1992.  I especially enjoyed the ignorant woman who asked George Bush "How has the national debt personally affected you?"

Yes, I realize that there are some ignorant, uninformed swing voters, but many of them aren't also. And like it or not, these people are the ones who will decide the outcome of the election, so their concerns, regardless of how ridiculous they might be, are important. I think that a candidate who knows what he's doing should be able to have a logical response ready for anything like this.

I agree, this question was somewhat silly; the basic idea behind it was valid, however, in as much as the deficit was an issue that Bush had to explain and it's fair to make him defend why running a deficit was ok given the circumstances (a valid case can certainly be made, and I don't think it's too much to ask a candidate to defend the running of a deficit).

A tighter screen should have been applied perhaps, but I don't think that it's a good idea to get rid of this format altogether.

[Nym90]

Many said I was crazy when I said this way back in mid August......

But......

Chicken Sh*t Bush indeed plans to bow out of one debate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html

If this guy can't look the out of work Misourian in the eye and tell him why he can't find work, what does that say about his "Strong and Steady Leadership"? If he can't do that....simply think on his feet - unscripted -  what does that say about his grasp on the real issues that ordinary folks face everyday?

Bush got used to many "ticketed events" I say.....

What a freaking Coward........

Ummm, you should know that 3 debates is not really the norm.  Indeed Chicken sh**t Carter would only debate Reagan once in 1980.

And I would have agreed then, Carter should have debated Reagan more, as should Clinton have debated Dole more. But I fail to see how that's relevant to the current situation.

There were 4 debates in 1960, 3 in 1976, 1 in 1980 (actually 2, but only 1 between Reagan and Carter...also 1 between Reagan and Anderson), 2 in 1984, 2 in 1988, 3 in 1992, 2 in 1996, and 3 in 2000.

Although I support more debates, my main criticism is the attempt to duck the town hall style debate. When there were only 2 debates in 1996, one of them was still a town hall debate.

StatesRights, this is for your benefit, you must have missed it the first time I posted it....

[Nym90]

Bush may well agree to only two debates.  Clinton only wanted two and Carter would only agree to one.

Clinton also dropped his weakest style of debate.

Bush has a few strengths as a debater.  He connects well with an audience (which is a plus in teh town hall style) and he listens to his caoches/handlers.  The latter is a very rare element in a candidate.

His biggest weakness is he is slow on his feet.  He takes too long to respond to unexpected questions.  This would be a huge negative when a Kerry operative asks a pointed question that his handlers did not anticipate.

I didn't realize that a 3rd different style was going to be used for the debate that Clinton didn't attend. They had one "traditional" debate with a moderator and podiums, and one town hall style. What style was the one that Clinton dropped? I would have assumed that it was another traditional one, and Clinton did at least do one of those. If Bush had already agreed to one town hall debate, then refusing to do a second one wouldn't be that bad.

[Nym90]

Bush may well agree to only two debates.  Clinton only wanted two and Carter would only agree to one.

Clinton also dropped his weakest style of debate.

Bush has a few strengths as a debater.  He connects well with an audience (which is a plus in teh town hall style) and he listens to his caoches/handlers.  The latter is a very rare element in a candidate.

His biggest weakness is he is slow on his feet.  He takes too long to respond to unexpected questions.  This would be a huge negative when a Kerry operative asks a pointed question that his handlers did not anticipate.

I didn't realize that a 3rd different style was going to be used for the debate that Clinton didn't attend. They had one "traditional" debate with a moderator and podiums, and one town hall style. What style was the one that Clinton dropped? I would have assumed that it was another traditional one, and Clinton did at least do one of those. If Bush had already agreed to one town hall debate, then refusing to do a second one wouldn't be that bad.

It was either going to be another traditional with a panel questioning or a semi formal, with the candidates seated at a table with the moderator.

Ah, ok. Thanks. I couldn't recall. Clinton should have debated 3 times, and his failure to show up at the 3rd debate should have been used by Dole as a campaign issue. Dole should have debated Perot instead or some such, with both ripping on Clinton for not being there.

[Nym90]

Bush may well agree to only two debates.  Clinton only wanted two and Carter would only agree to one.

Clinton also dropped his weakest style of debate.

Bush has a few strengths as a debater.  He connects well with an audience (which is a plus in teh town hall style) and he listens to his caoches/handlers.  The latter is a very rare element in a candidate.

His biggest weakness is he is slow on his feet.  He takes too long to respond to unexpected questions.  This would be a huge negative when a Kerry operative asks a pointed question that his handlers did not anticipate.

I didn't realize that a 3rd different style was going to be used for the debate that Clinton didn't attend. They had one "traditional" debate with a moderator and podiums, and one town hall style. What style was the one that Clinton dropped? I would have assumed that it was another traditional one, and Clinton did at least do one of those. If Bush had already agreed to one town hall debate, then refusing to do a second one wouldn't be that bad.

It was either going to be another traditional with a panel questioning or a semi formal, with the candidates seated at a table with the moderator.

Ah, ok. Thanks. I couldn't recall. Clinton should have debated 3 times, and his failure to show up at the 3rd debate should have been used by Dole as a campaign issue. Dole should have debated Perot instead or some such, with both ripping on Clinton for not being there.

Nowhere is it required that there are to be 3 Presidential debates.  In fact, I don't think debates (in general) are required.

Right, and Bush is free not to debate if he so chooses, but at the same time, Kerry is free to make an issue out of it. Debates are a good way to hear directly from the candidates in their own words and cut through the mudslinging. It's the best way to compare the two candidates for someone who is undecided.