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

[mddem2004]

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........

[Lunar]

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

Clinton did it too in 96.

[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?

[AuH2O]

While I don't really see how a 3rd debate makes or breaks a voter's decision, Bush should not be afraid of debating Kerry. His campaign wants 2 instead of 3 because that's one less opportunity for a mistake (since that is really what debates get remembered for, if at all).

In other words, Bush could win 2 of them and still lose ground with a gaffe in the 3rd. He can be quite disciplined, but it's still not desireable. The person in front NEVER wants debates. Daschle is dodging debates in SD, and Democrats aren't complaining.

All about risk management. In the debates themselves, Bush will at least tie and probably win, both on points and audience perception.

[lonestar]

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.

[mddem2004]

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 Vice Presidential debates.

Save your outrage for something else a little less hypocritical.

Did I ever say I agreed with that ?......Ah......no

So Chicken sh**t still applies.

[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.

[Rococo4]

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

[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?

[mddem2004]

Besides,
If they are worried about hecklers, that could cut both ways.

Its a lame excuse, for a lame so called president, in an election that people want to hear MORE from the candidates - not less.

AuH2O - "Risk Management?"

Your right, Bush is a too much of a Moron to risk putting out there, for all the country to see taking simple questions from people like you and me, that any college student with half a brain should be able to answer.

Again, What a pathetic chicken sh**t...... *flaps wings*

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It again shows who the real man is. Bush is too scardy to debate, he might have to talk about his record as President. If you want a man, send Kerry to the WH.

[The Duke]

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).

[Hegemon]

This is just Bush lowering expectations once again.  He did the same thing in 2000: remember "the debate over the debates" brouhaha around this time in 2000?  Bush initially proposed only one formal debate against Gore, along with 2 joint appearances with Gore on "Meet the Press", but later relented, and seemingly reluctantly agreed  to three debates, as Gore had insisted on all along.  Bush even ran some commercials   accusing Gore of going back on his word, because Gore had said he would debate Bush "anytime, anywhere".

Bush wanted to portray himself as afraid of Gore's debating skills, and the Gore campaign played right into Bush's hands, with Gore and his surrogates openly mocking Bush as someone afraid to appear before the public in an unscripted environment uncontrolled by his campaign.  Even GOP surrogates played up this angle.  Bill Kristol said this at the time:
 
"Worried, verging on panic" was the mood in GOP circles, according to
William Kristol, former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.
"It's been a big deterioration pretty fast."

It's pretty obvious to me that Bush is employing the sane tactic here.  Kerry's response will determine how effective it will be this time.  Kerry and his surrogates must not play the "Bush is chicken" hand too strongly -- that will only lower expectations for  Bush once again, and make victory in the debates much easier for him.  With lowered expectations fueled by his own apparent reluctance to debate, along with mocking by the Kerry camp, Bush would need  to be merely adequate in the debates in order to claim victory .

[zorkpolitics]

Personally I thinkt he debates are too polished, too canned to realy be useful.  Each candidates gives their prepared answer no matter what the question.

I'd prefer Lincoln DOuglas style debates:  Each candidate has 1/2 hr to provide their vision of America.  Then take quesirosn from the audience.  Travel together and do this every day.

[MODU]

I think in the end, Bush will attend all three debates.

[Democratic Hawk]

Because he knows he doesn't stand a chance in the debates

Dave

[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.

[MODU]

In those cases, the moderator should either reframe the question, or ask for a different person from the audience to address the candidates.  There are guidelines to how the audience memebers are suppose to act during those debates.  

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Wakie]

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.

Carter's complaint in 1980 was that he didn't want John Anderson (who was a Republican running as a 3rd party candidate) to be included in the debates but the Reagan people were insisting.

[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.

[Blue Rectangle]

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.

[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.

[nomorelies]

Isnt this debate that Bush wants to cancel the one where neither candidate knows the style of questions but more importantly its undecided voters.

[The Duke]

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?"