DU THIS!! BUSH TO SKIP LAST DEBATE!!

[goodwalt]

This morning I was struck by a startling revelation- Bush is NOT going to attend the last debate. What's more, I believe that avoiding debate on domestic issues was their plan from the start.

Knowing how poorly W comes off when on the defensive, I have been smacking my lips in anticipation of the final debate. W's domestic performance has been abysmal: Record deficits, record gas prices, the first net job loss since Hoover, million+ Americans have slipped below the poverty line, million+ have lost their health coverage, stem cells, drugs from Canada, Enron, Haliburton, the environment, and on, and on, and on.

A domestic policy debate means 90 minutes of W squirming on the defensive, making excuses, and blaming others. Bush can only lose a debate on these issues- and lose badly.

And then it struck me. If I can see this train-wreck coming, Karl Rove must be able to see it too. Rove would be a fool to send W out to the last debate knowing he will be slaughtered. It would be better politically to bow out than to let America watch Kerry beat up on W in their last head to head.

Then the other shoe dropped and hit me smack in the forehead. THEY NEVER INTENDED TO DEBATE DOMESTIC POLICY!

Was anybody else surprised that notoriously question shy Bush agreed to THREE debates? They call it a negotiation, but the truth is the incumbent always has the whip hand in these matters. The challenger always wants more debates, and the sitting President always wants fewer to give his opponent less time in a forum where they are of equal stature. Bill Clinton, master orator that he is, only allowed ONE debate during his re-election bid. So why did Bush agree to three? Because it was the only way to avoid debating domestic issues AND provide himself political cover.

Consider this:

Not debating was not an option. Even our current lap dog media would make THAT the story for the rest of the election and he would be eaten alive.

If they agreed to only ONE debate, half of it would go to domestic issues, and the damage would be done.

If they had signed on for TWO, one would logically be on foreign policy, the other domestic. Foreign policy is considered W's strong suit, and offered the best opportunities for flag-wrapping himself and calling Kerry a flip-flopper. Still, considering W's lack of debate skills, they HAD to allow for the possibility of losing even that debate. Refusing to debate again after losing the first would be political suicide. Swing voters would reject whatever excuse they offered as just that- an excuse.

What was needed was a THIRD debate nestled between the two, where Bush was guaranteed to at least hold his own. Something that wouldn't really be a debate at all, and could be scripted in advance- and that is exactly what they got.

Has anybody wondered about the reason behind an unprecedented 36 pages of minutely detailed debate rules? Here's the reason for it- it will serve as W's excuse for bowing out of the domestic policy debate.

DEEP INSIDE KARL ROVE'S BRAIN

If my idiot charge wins the first debate- great. The worst he can do, after proper spin control of course, is Tie in the second. After all, it's more of a media-op than a debate. Since we will have the questions in advance- he'll just have to deliver scripted answers. We will be ahead on points when we opt out of the third by blaming Kerry. It will be Kerry's fault because, with 36 pages of minutia to follow, there WILL BE numerous violations that we can complain about.

Even if W screws-up the first debate, his scripted performance in the second will have to be better. He will be hailed by all as "The Come- Back kid". We can spin that W isn't AFRAID to debate, Hell, he was on a roll and had the momentum. No, the reason is that since Kerry refuses to play by the rules, we'd rather not play than stoop to his level.


So what can we do about Rove's evil plan? GET OUT IN FRONT OF IT! Write letters to the editor, letters to TV stations, letters to politicians and pundits predicting this scenario. Tell everyone you know about this. Go on conservative talk radio and let them call you a conspiracy nut. DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to get this into public discourse BEFORE the second debate.

For all the world, it looks to me that this is what they are up to. If I am wrong, no harm done. Bush gets smeared in the last debate, and Kerry wins. If I am right however, WE MUST ACT NOW! After W calls off the last debate, this will all be written off as partisan spin. By acting pre-emptively, we may be able to alter their plans, or at least throw a wrench in the Republican spin machine.

[Zensea]

1. Even Bush is not that stupid

n/t

[cheshire]

2. Yes he is but someone like Rover won't let him.

[zbdent]

12. What, with the liberal media shouting in unison that W is showing

his presidential strength by passing up on not just the last debate but also the second?

[goodwalt]

18. Which is worse?

From where Rove is sitting,which is worse- showing up for the last debate and watching W get his ass handed to him, or letting the national media wrangle over who is responsible for W backing out-W or Kerry?

[deadparrot]

3. Naah. The election would be over.

The Bush camp may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know what it would do, ESPECIALLY if Kerry showed up to the debate. Kerry's favorability would skyrocket, and * would plummet.

But believe me, I'll gladly eat my words if * doesn't show.

[kymar57]

6. An amen and kick

:kick:

[phish420]

7. i dunno...

not if there was an 'event' that gave him an excuse to cancel it...

[deadparrot]

10. It would have to be something big...

like a massive terra-attack on US soil, and if they stoop to that level, I'm getting the hell outta this country.

[goodwalt]

23. They can't count on an event

and without blowing something up themselves, it would be too transparent to have Ridge jack up the "Terr Alert" to magenta based on old chatter. A "Rules Violation" appears to be what they are after. Have you not heard all the crap already out there about Kerry's pen? I admit they will take a hit by ducking the last debate, but it will be much more manageable than W passing the buck left, right and sideways on everything from deficits to the assault weapons ban. LOSING BIG in the last debate is the worst political possibility facing them now. Ask yourself- if you were Karl Rove, would you gamble the entire election on W's debating skills?

[deadparrot]

27. There's just as much to be lost by pulling out.

Bush could strip, run around naked, and crap on the floor, while Kerry could be just as poised and articulate as he's always been, and a good chunk of America would say that * won, hands down. The mediawhores have expectations for * so low that by simply uttering a complete sentence * would be declared winner of the debate and the election.

[David Zephyr]

4. Bush Can Not Be "AWOL" on the 3rd Debate.

That would be the final nail in his campaign.

[MoonRiver]

5. Is there a poll? When one says "DU" this, I snap to action!

But, aside from that, if * chickens out on either or both of the next two debates, he's out. Weasely little AWOL just wouldn't be able to pull off another cut and run.

[LiberalEsto]

8. They will cook up an emergency, a terra alert

or something like that to create an excuse to bow out of the last debate.

I agree that Bush and his handlers are afraid to go up against Kerry on domestic issues. The question is, how will they bail out? Seems to me like a domestic security threat would provide the excuse, as well as an opportunity to flaunt his "national security" credentials. This could also be the October Surprise.

[childslibrarian]

9. They were saying last night he might skip Friday's debate

because they had "not agreed to terms". Heck, he might skip both...

[goodwalt]

13. No they won't

They CAN'T refuse to debate having lost the last one. The swing voters-and even normally W friendly media types will say he is afraid to get beat again. But if he IS planning to skip the last one, wouldn't quarreling over the second serve as further support for bowing out of the third on "principle"?

[welshTerrier2]

11. my two cents ...

is bush skipping one or both remaining debates possible ... absolutely ... they would provide some bogus excuse about Kerry's cheating or the networks violating the terms they agreed to ... if they did this, the price they would pay would be extremely high ... kerry has all the momentum since the last debate ... without another debate, kerry will be very hard to derail ...

i also think you're a bit optimistic in thinking that bush will get killed on domestic issues ... i completely agree with you that he's extremely vulnerable on the mess he's made of the economy ... but his goal for the debate would be to put the focus back on Kerry ... Kerry voted for this and voted for that and the cost would have total X bizillion dollars ... bush will try to make Kerry's voting record the issue ... Kerry will try to make bush's economic mess the issue ... I don't think it's likely to be quite as one sided as you portrayed ...

of course, I still think Kerry will destroy bush in any subsequent debates ... if they occur ...

[goodwalt]

15. It's offense or defense

I heartily disagree. NORMALLY President's have to run on their record. This one isn't- he's running away from it. When Kerry is asked about job losses, health care, deficits- he can naturally blame the PRESIDENT, you know, the guy that usually is ascribed credit and blame for the countries well being. As 1 Senator among 50, Bush CANNOT credibly shoot back that it is Kerr's fault. Bush WILL be on the defensive throughout- but obviously, I don't think that's going to happen.

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. I've said this for weeks....

What more convenient for Team BCE than to pull an October Surprise that is conveniently timed for him to call off the third debate, with the excuse of "National Security".

Actually, after last week, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he tried to pull out of the seconddebate.

If they use another false "terralert" as the excuse, it's time to call the coward on it. Not even the Busheep are buying the orange alerts anymore.

[m_welby]

16. that seems like a bad stragety to me

It seems to me doing one debate, where * could have used his 'strength' in foreign policy to deflect the domestic issues would work well for them, get some quippy one liners in and hit kerry on his senate record and they could easily have won the spin (if not the debate).

Of course * would have had to actually been able to defend himself coherently on foreign policy. - arf!


as it is now, there's no way to get out of this without serious damage, on the other hand, if they had won the 1st dabate I think they might have backed out of the others in order to keep control of the 'message'.

[goodwalt]

19. He would have run the risk

of losing the whole thing. They have to know that he WILL lose any portion of a debate dedicated to domestic issues. You can't say you are good for job growth when you have lost jobs. You can't say you are good on health care when over a million American's have lost their coverage. He would have gone in KNOWING he would lose at least HALF of the debate, with the real possibility (We now know)of losing ALL of it.

[dave123williams]

17. He *can't* be that stupid...we'd eat him alive if he skipped it...

Of course, it *would* be in character; not the first time he's run from a fight.

[Zomby Woof]

20. He will not skip it

And it just stirs up shit to state your opinion as if it were a news item.

[Mortos]

21. They are already hammering Kerry's illegal pen

On the same sites that exposed the CBS documents. I think GoodWalt is on to something and we need to spread this far and wide. One of three things can happen. GoodWalt's prediction comes true and us predicting it before hand makes team Bush look stupid and predictable or It is spread far and wide enough to alter the plan if it is true and they have to honor the three debates and Bush loses or it doesn't happen at all and GoodWalt looks like another whacko conspiracy theorist.

Spread this everywhere. I am going to start a site tonight that will only have this theory on it. I will post a message later with specifics.

EVERYONE HERE SPREAD THIS WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IT. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, TALK SHOWS, YOUR OWN SITES. TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE REAL BECAUSE IF IT IS IT COULD COMPLETELY ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION.

STAY TUNED.

[LSK]

25. the NYPOST already debunked the pen

It is a non-issue unless you are a desperate rightwing freak

[npincus]

22. I hope you are wrong but

I wouldn't put anything past those scummy bastards

[CrowNotAngelGRL]

24. Is this serious?

I thought they already agreed to do all the debate's? Is there a link for this? I wanna show this to some people. :bounce:

[goodwalt]

26. Yes, this is serious. No, it is not a news

update. Bush has not said he will skip third debate- but it looks like they have stacked the debate deck to COMPLETELY AVOID debating domestic issues- a debate W will surely lose and lose big. When truly unprecedented or nonsensical things occur in the course of an election, ESPECIALLY in an election that Karl Rove is involved in, we need to start paying attention. Does the fact that air-head, empty-sound-bite George Bush agreed to THREE debates strike you as odd? He HAD to do at least one, but not three. Why did they agree to expose stuttering George more than they had to? How about the fact that for the first time, at least in modern history, the candidates will be given the questions IN ADVANCE for the second debate? How about the unprecedented 36 pages of draconian debate rules? If they didn't intend to hide behind them by bowing out of a debate- what purpose do they serve W an Co.? They can bitch about the rules after Losing I guess, but how effective would that be? How much traction do you think W is currently getting from the "Kerry brought an illegal pen" story. All of these seemingly disparate curiosities DO make sense however, if their intention from the start was to AVOID losing a debate on W's domestic job performance, and insure that he would come out of the debate cycle with something that could at least be spun as a tie.

[gordianot]

28. Let Bush skip the debate.

I would rather watch Kerry have 90 minutes free national coverage without Bush.

[goodwalt]

29. Doesn't work that way

No Bush, No debate. No debate, no free national air time. And instead of the country watching Bush lose AGAIN, in the only other REAL debate scheduled, the media will go back and forth over whose fault it was- W's or Kerry's, because after all, Kerry DID agree to the rules, and if there aren't consequences to breaking them, what was the point of having rules in the first place? (A little preview there of the bull-shit media debate that will follow)

[gordianot]

30. I figured that. It was a nice fantasy.