Will Bush debate the Dem?

[leyton]

My mom and I were discussing John Edwards tonight. We both like him. I figure the nominee will probably be either him, Clark, or Kerry. All three would be formidable debaters - they have style and poise and all that good stuff Dubya only aspires to.

Could Bush get away with not debating the Democrat? It seems to me there have always been these debates, and if the offer was made publicly by Edwards or Clark or Kerry, Bush couldn't turn it down. Even citing security concerns wouldn't work - Edwards or Kerry could just say, "Well, I think the Capitol or the White House is pretty secure. So, the only question is, my place or yours?"

Could Bush get away with it? Will he try it?

I want him to be pummeled on debate night. I want the election itself to be an afterthought.

[HuckleB]

1. I suspect that Bush will try to get away with as little as possible.

In terms of debate. If he doesn't have to do it at all, he'll take that option.

[leyton]

3. Good point.

He might try for the question-and-answer session, so his answers can just be recited.

I still say, we should make him think on his feet.

Even if it means giving up one or two debates, we should make him show his stuff and lack thereof.

[wryter2000]

2. Don't know

I think he'll try to get out of it if he can. If he can't, they'll probably try to structure the debate(s) in a way that's favorable to him.

I'm looking forward to a debate, too. First, the man is a clueless moron. Second, he's ruined everything he's touched.

[Monte Carlo]

4. Bush and his handlers will do their best to get the fix in.

By restricting the format, packing the crowd, or whatever.

Bush knows the answers to about a dozen questions. They will be the answers he gives to any question asked. Whoever the nominee is will have to force Bush to debate because he won't voluntarily.

[dennis4868]

5. Why would Bush not debate?

No matter what his performance is, the media will crown him the winner (like in the Gore/Bush debates). So why would he not debate the Dem?

[GainesT1958]

6. Actually, debates were only revived after 1960...

In 1976, with the push that it WAS the Bicentennial year, and all that. For years before 1960, and afterward until '76, debates were NOT often held, and more often not held at all.

It wouldn't surprise me--in fact, I've kept this one in the back of my mind for awhile now--that "Chip" Rove would keep Dub out of a debate this year. He may even go so far as to cancel one at the last minute, saying Dub's just too busy with "Terra-ist-related" stuff to travel to a debate site, or to appear in a remote hook-up. Were I the staff of the Democratic nominee, I'd be willing--demanding, in fact--to debate an empty chair in that case.

B-)

[Sir_Shrek]

7. I think he'll debate him....

...whoever he is.

He has to, and people are used to him and his style.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. No doubt that his fraudulency will try to use the scripted sit down format

Where he can recite the answers pre-written for him by his PNAC puppeteers. Our nominee must insist on a REAL debate and expose this fucking coward for the braindead simpleton he truly is.

[PDittie]

9. Yes, but there will only be one

...mmmaybe two.

There's a commission that manages Presidential debates (I believe it may be associated with the League of Women Voters) and they coordinate with both campaigns on the number, dates, location, etc.

The Republicans will stall until late September or October, a good ways before the election, so that whatever Dubya screws up he's got time to recover from.

Kommandant Rove knows he's got the weak hand, so he can't afford to overplay it, especially against someone like Kerry, or Clark, or Edwards, or Dean, or Kucinich, or LaRouche...;)