Comments on: The Bush-Kerry Debates

By: blog.mintruth.com

blog.mintruth.com — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:10:40 +0000

Debate Transcript!
We've got it here folks! You can read a transcript of the first of three Presidential debates between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush at the Ministry of Truth Wiki now. Suprisingly Bush actually showed up, although he may not show up...

By: BOb

BOb — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:16:56 +0000

in short w is an idiot who has so much to hise and so much to run from he wouldn't be caught dead inside a room full of common folk asking real un editied questions about his record and his future plans for a country that is in such a mess

By: The Moderate Voice

The Moderate Voice — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:52:07 +0000

Bush Likely To Agree To Only Two Debates, Not Three
There are two ways of looking at leaks from the GOP camp indicating President George Bush may only agree to only two of the three debates with Democratic challenger John Kerry. (1) George Bush has already held fewer press conferences

By: Peaktalk

Peaktalk — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:00:48 +0000

END OF THE BOUNCE
When I did my bounce roundup the other day the underlying message was: there are no solid numbers to be had anywhere, although all things considered there probably was a very decent post-convention bounce for Bush. Mark Kleiman crunches a

By: vdibart

vdibart — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:34:16 +0000

I think most of this grossly misses the point. This is a long-standing Rove tactic. He did it with Gore, and apparently no one's going to call him out on it this time. It goes like this:

1) resist debate format, schedule, etc.
2) give the impression you're afraid to debate
3) then begin talking up the opponent's debate skills (Rove I think is quotes as saying Gore was one of the elite debaters in American history, a ridiculous claim).

Then the payoff comes - there's little or no way W can dissappoint because expectations of his performance have been so thoroughly lowered. Kerry would have to truly bury him just to make it seem like he made any headway, whereas W. would just have to hold his own to come out looking like a rock star.

Don't fall for it. There will be a 3rd debate.

By: Wizbang

Wizbang — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:18:56 +0000

The 10 Spot Ten things you might not have seen on the wondrous interweb... The super secret Kerry-Edwards '04 office floor plan may have something to do with the fact that "Kerry-Edwards" is now the punchline to Genesis Space Capsule jokes. Anyone who...

By: Michael Demmons

Michael Demmons — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:42:15 +0000

Bush has virtually nothing to gain True, But isn't the point of a debate to let the people see where the candidate stands? I don't think Bush should agree to every debate. That would be nonsensical. But it is very "political" to say he shouldn't debate because he has "nothing to gain." Again, the debates aren't "for him." You could say that people could know where the candidate stands just by reading the news or the candidate's Web site. But I don't think anyone would say it is a bad idea for two candidates to go head to head in a forum. I also agree that some of the questions that come out of a community forum are ridiculous to the extreme. But to refuse to do them is probably more politically bad than to accept them. Like Kerry said, "Bush has won every debate he's ever had." You make a good point though: But presidents make decisions in the deliberative privacy of the Oval Office, surrounded by advisors, and at their own pace. The ability to memorize clever gotcha lines and insert them at the proper time in the debate is handy preparation for, well, other debates. Still, not a good reason not to have debates when people want to see them.

By: dw

dw — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:40:40 +0000

But the thing is, Dubya is an underrated debater. Even when Gore won last time, Dubya came away with strategic gains. The reason is Bush is very good at staying on-script, and that's what the moderater-driven debates really are. You know what the question is and you know how to answer it. It's a larger version of Lincoln-Douglas debating. These town hall style debates, though, are classic extemporaneous debates. Even if the questions are idiotic, they're not scripted. Dubya's biggest weakness in debates is his inability to handle the hard, unscripted question. It also has the potential for a huge payoff for him. Yes, maybe it's a good idea for him to duck this style of debate, but if he does, he looks like a chicken afraid of what ordinary Missourians might ask him. I don't think he has a choice but to go through with it. If he can keep a level head and answer truthfully, he'll fend off Kerry. Besides, Kerry could stumble, too.