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

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush can't deal with random questions that he's not told about in advance. Bush does better with memorizing lines.
Kerry does well with questions out of left field that make him actually think.

If there's no town hall format, the debates will be a joke.

Arnold skipped all but the lamest debate and still won. The voters don't seem to like real debates.

[zachman]

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

Agree. I think this is part of Bush's debate strategy of being able to excuse a possible poor perfomance in that debate. It is also part of the basic expectations game strategy that has served Bush so well.

[YRABNNRM]

I hope he doesn't. The more debates the better!

Bring back the podiums!.

[Lunar]

Us political junkies should all be pushing for more debates.

However, the one ahead always wants to limit them.  John Kerry wouldn't debate Edwards any more than the minimum possible when they were the only two left on the primary campaign trail while Edwards was pushing hard.

[??????????]

You democrat hypocrites! I couldn't wait for this thread to start. Clinton was only in two debates in 96.

[ATFFL]

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.

[AuH2O]

Bush can deal with most questions. The problem is, in a "town hall" situation, a Democrat (claiming to be "undecided") could hit him with something difficult to answer. Maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but that is the risk Bush would like to avoid.

Kerry has no such problem because he doesn't answer questions anyway, so you can't really "get" him.

[Horus]

What was that for?

Anyways, Bush shouldn't have dropped out of this debate and Clinton sholdn't have dropped out of the one in 96. There are only three of them, I'd rather take a chance of getting even higher in the polls than just get a news story of how I never went to the debate.

[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.

[ATFFL]

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.

[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.

[MODU]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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 .

You are very perceptive.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

[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.

[khirkhib]

Balls it up Bush.  Mo' debates mo' better.  I will always want as many debates as possible.  I am not a hypocrite because Clinton only had 2.  The only consiquence of less debaters is less informed voters.  I think candidates should be tested by fire.  Roast them.  Let Kerry and Bush get the real tough questions from the audiance.  Let some neo-con apologist ask Kerry why he is all "nuanced flippity-floppity on Iraq" and let some Demo ask Bush toughh questions too.  Grill 'em.

[A18]

I'd like to see someone ask Kerry if he's going to run for another Senate term after he loses the election.