Why a Kerry-Bush debate would be a bad idea:

[Jackpine Radical]

Americans, it is said, have a basic sense of fairness. If Kerry were to debate Bush, I think it would be seen as engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

I think that was what befell Gore too.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. I think Kerry will crush him in a fair way...

We won't lay it on too thick...it will be measured and focused...like a father politely scolding his child.

[ewagner]

2. If I am judging Dubya's personality right

he'll "roll over" for the sympathy. That's the kind of attention he likes.

[Alex146]

3. or

they might see it as a debate between a brainless asshole and someone who can really run our country.

[DAGDA56]

11. I have visions of Bush suddenly blurting out...

...I know you are, but what am I?

[Warpy]

4. What befell Gore was his unwillingness

...to call Bush on his outrageous lies about his Texas record.

Bush took credit for child health insurance, when he fought it, vetoed it, then delayed funding it for over a year after it was passed over his veto, preferring to fund giveaways to oil barons than healthcare for children.

Bush took credit for the Patient's Bill of Rights, when he fought it, vetoed it twice, then petulantly refused to sign it after it passed over his veto.

If Gore had called Bush on this crap, more people would have known exactly what Bush was. Gore didn't, and that cost him heavily.

[whistle]

5. Well, let the debates begin....

:toast: :bounce: :eyes: :crazy: :nopity: :hurts: :freak: :beer: :wow: :nuke: :kick:

[BostonTeaParty04]

6. Um, let's see, Bush is the testosterone SAVIOR,

protect us from all the evils of the world President....

And we're worried he will appear feeble in a debate and elicit sympathy?

Uh, I will take my chances...

[BostonTeaParty04]

7. Also, I could go for more of what befell Gore....

He got 1/2 million more votes than GW.

[Emboldened Chimp]

8. It's different this time

He's got a record (ahem) to defend. And he's starting to look and act like the job is getting to him.

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

9. I agree about your assessment of Bush vs Gore, but...

that is a whole other era which bares little resemblance to today. Gore didn't have 4 years of Bush's failed presidency to work with. And, neither did the audience. Also, democrats were not as united, and there was not the clear democratic support, as there is today, for someone who can aggressively oppose Bush. Frankly, I hope the debate is a bloodsport. And I think most democrats are really hoping Bush in the debates with Kerry will be like a canary in a Tiger cage. Kerry does have a quick wit and a sharp tongue when he chooses to. But will he choose to? If he goes easy, allot of democrats will not be motivated to vote for him.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. I was being kinda half sarcastic when I started writing this post,

but started thinking seriously about it as an explanation of the Gore Debate Effect as I wrote.

Really, though, I think Gore's main problem was that the media called it unfairly. Kinda like having the ref walk over to the KO'd fighter, picking up his glove as he lies there unconscious, and declaring him the winner.

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

17. Actually, I think your right, in so far as the...

Bush administration is definitely trying to use some sort of sympathy effect. That's why they are trying to paint Kerry as an "elitist". "Aw, look, that big mean elitist is pickn' on poor wittle, verbally inept, Bush." It's rather pathetic. Unfortunately it plays well with the ignorant many who feel threatened and intimidated by people who are more knowledgeable then themselves. It's the same insecurity all right-wing to fascist regimes play on to turn the people against the "intellectual elitists". But, allot of people tend to trust the un-intelligent over the intelligent, because he speaks their language. "He's the real deal". In other words, "he's to dumb to be a threat to us". Anyway, Kerry really laying into Bush would definitely be used to motivate some of the retardicans to go defend their "good ol' boy", against the "elitists". But I think it's worth it, because it would energize so many more democrats then republicans. Those scenes looped over and over on TV and on magazine and newspaper covers could really re-energize the movement to kick Bush out of DC.

[senseandsensibility]

10. I'm all for them debating

but you have to ask yourself, after the media's truly sick response to *'s pretend press conference last night, what's the point? The media whores will just spin it that* was humble, down to earth, simple, etc. Well he will be simple, that's guaranteed. And some Americans, to their discredit, are influenced by this spin regardless of what they see with their own eyes.

[Liberal Christian]

13. What sank Gore

is that he didn't know who to be in the debates. He listened too much to his handlers and to focus groups and tried to please everyone else. The only problem is that he came across as fake because he was trying to be someone he wasn't. He should have grabbed the pedantic geek persona that was most truly his and made it into a positive. Instead, he was three different people in three different debates.

If Kerry knows who he is, is comfortable with that person, and answers questions directly and as completely as possible from his reservoir of knowledge, he'll stomp Bush in the debates.

[TimMooring]

14. My Favorite Martian

The antennae may help.. but if last night is any indication I'd suggest depends under his flightsuit.

[fujiyama]

15. Kerry needs to

loosen up. I remember in some of the primary debates, he was pretty funny and had some great one liners. I hope he uses that wit. After all, nuances are NEEDED when governing but NOT when campaigning. Appear firm and decisive. This is something that really hurt Gore. He appeared to be a 'panderer' (I remember somebody using the term "pander bear"). Another thing Bush did have goin' for him the first time was this myth that he would be a "compassionate conservative". Many were duped by this.

Gore had a differnt attitude in each debate. In one he appeared to be an ass (he sighed...not smart), in the second he was too soft on Bush, and I honestly don't even remember the third.

Bush also used his low expectations game. While he obviously was the same fool he always is, he did give some coherent sentences, therefore, he was a freakin' genius. Plus, the media whored for him afterward, claiming he "won".

[wickerwoman]

16. I'd be surprised if there was a debate at all.

Are they required by law?

If they aren't absolutely written in stone, watch Bush try to wriggle out of it. He'll say he's too busy leading the nation and in this time of crisis, blah, blah, blah.

He has to know he'll get his ass handed to him, and now that he's in a position of greater authority, why should he bother answering questions at all?

Schwartzenegger's one mini-debate was a test run, I'm afraid.

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

18. I'd hate to see another "terrorist attack" excusing Bush from debating...

Realistically, that's the only way I can see Bush getting out of the debates. I don't believe they are written into law, but even so, if Bush doesn't have a "National Security" excuse, the media will be all over him the way they were all over Condi before she caved to the Commission's pressure to testify.

[notbush]

19. Bush will debate

I guarantee it.
He's tough to beat in a debate because the public has such low expectations of his debate ability going in.
If he puts together 2 or 3 coherent sentences .....he's declared the winner by the press. Just ask Al Gore.

[napi21]

20. Low expectations is a good point, and they are already

pushing that line again. Although it's a hard point to dispute that Bush isn't a good speaker after his MANY failures, I think Kerry is going to have to be strong, but not flattening. I hopethere are a lot of coaches helping him to come up with that ONE GREAT "one liner" that sticks in everyones mind.

Remember the Reagan line "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" Thay all still use that one today!