September 3, 2004
NONE SEEMS AMPLE:
Bush's camp may cut 1 debate (Billy House, Sept. 3, 2004, Ariziona Republic)
President Bush's campaign won't say for sure whether he will agree to the three debates proposed by the independent Commission on Presidential Debates, or if a Republican strategist was right this week when he said the Bush campaign would agree to only two debates.The commission, without a formal agreement by the Bush camp, set debates for Sept. 30 in Coral Gables, Fla.; Oct. 8 in St. Louis; and Oct. 13 in Tempe. A vice presidential debate between incumbent Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, was set for Oct. 5 in Cleveland.
GOP strategist Scott Reed was quoted by the Reuter news agency this week as saying the Bush camp's position is that "two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule."
"Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics," Reed was quoted as saying.
The Kerry campaign--a.k.a. The Worst Presidential Campaign in American History--will almost certainly fall for this ploy, declaring the President is afraid to face the Senator and thereby lowering expectations for Mr. Bush who would otherwise have pretty ones after annihilating Al Gore. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 3, 2004 11:20 AM
Yeah, but this is going to make Bush look like a wussy who's afraid to debate Kerry.
Posted by: Governor Breck at September 3, 2004 11:41 AMOoops, I didn't read what you wrote. This is what happens when I post from work while in blind rage. Never mind!
Posted by: Governor Breck at September 3, 2004 11:42 AMI want more debates because the more people see Kerry, the more they'll dislike him.
However, 2 should improve the President's approval ratings. He's doing Americans a favor by keeping politics off the TV, and why shouldn't voters reward him for that courtesy?
Posted by: pj at September 3, 2004 12:03 PMHere's the line I want Cheney to use-- "Senator Edwards, I know Dan Quayle, and you're not even a Dan Quayle."
And I too wish that the Bush Campaign would show some leadershp and say there will be zero joint appearances disguised as debates, "Why should we help our opponent dig himself out of the hole he's made when that would take a backhoe?"
If there are to be debates, Bush should insist that he be allowed one where focus groups, selected by a panel of pollsters from each party, do the questioning. Bush has the ability to connect with ordinary people. Kerry has less of a common touch than Queen Victoria.
Posted by: Bart at September 3, 2004 12:45 PMBart, don't insult Queen Victoria.
Posted by: Peter at September 3, 2004 1:18 PMIt shouldn't take 3 debates to get to this question: "Senator Kerry, in your 20 years in the US Senate, what one bill are you most proud of for having authored, sponsored and sheparded through the process to become law?"
And the follow up: "If you could go back in time and change one of your votes on the floor of the US Senate, which one would it be and why?" (of course, you'd have to remind the Senator at this point that one means "ONE" and there is a time restriction to answer the question).
Just to give you a taste of how far into Cloud-Cuckoo-Land the Left is flying, here's a sample from a poster on another message board I frequent:
"Bush could still win, and very well might if enough voters give way to despair about getting him out, but a couple of weeks of improved poll numbers (up from record lows for an incumbent) could be long forgotten by November, especially if Kerry does well against him in the debates, where Bush has to speak off-book with no handlers to whisper in his ear."
Ah, how soon they forget just how thoroughly GWB cleaned Gore's clock at the debate podium in '00 "with no handlers to whisper in his ear"...
Posted by: Joe at September 3, 2004 8:23 PMThe debate point is just dumb, but the other point is key. Kerry got the nomination by being every Democrat's idea of everyone else's pick. No one's thrilled by him, but they're are willing to vote for him in order to win. Good enough as far as it goes. But if he can't win, who'll vote for him? That's why the Democratic Party has to go to him and force him to drop the nuance and come out foursquare against the war. He'll still lose, but it won't be the Democratic cataclism it might otherwise be.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 4, 2004 1:12 AMSpeaking as a left-of-center non-democrat, I would have to say that Kerry spanked the President and he is running away as the wussy-boy he is. It's such hard work for baby Bush. Aww..
Posted by: Tag at October 3, 2004 7:34 PMSpeaking as a left-of-center non-democrat, I would have to say that Kerry spanked the President and he is running away as the wussy-boy he is. It's such hard work for baby Bush. Aww..
Posted by: Tag at October 3, 2004 7:34 PMKerry really cleaned up.
And what was wrong with Bush? Got looked like he was hit by a car or something? Early Alzheimer's? Bizarre. Lost in La-La land.
Salon reports that Bush had an earpiece!
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/
Posted by: v at October 8, 2004 6:30 AM