Bush and Kerry Are Told to Hush and Commit

[Rose Siding]

That's the gist of a stern letter the Commission on Presidential Debates sent yesterday the campaigns of President Bush and Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.

The commission, which coordinates the quadrennial event, told the campaigns they must settle their differences over the fall debate schedule by Monday if the group is to meet a variety of logistical deadlines.

"These are very demanding, exacting television productions," said Janet Brown, the commission's executive director. "It isn't something you can turn around and do overnight."
....
Former secretary of state James A. Baker III, the president's debate negotiator, and attorney Vernon E. Jordan Jr., who is handling the negotiations for Kerry, continued their discussions yesterday. The Kerry campaign agreed to the commission's schedule earlier this summer, but the Bush campaign has taken no official position -- except that there will be debates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24540-2004Sep15.html?nav=rss_politics

*sorry about the enfuriating title!

[PartyPooper]

1. Junior is going to weasel out of these debates for "National Security"

reasons.

Bet on it!

:eyes:

[Southsideirish]

2. I definitely sense a "weaseling" coming on - he knows he will lose

any debates with Kerry who is a master debater.

[friesianrider]

3. LOL I said the same thing yesterday...

Bush'll stage a terrorist attack so he doesn't have to debate!

I say if * doesn't show up, Kerry gets to talk to himself for two hours on prime time TV...period.

[tridim]

4. Gawd, that headline reeks

Kerry needs to commit? Whatever WP.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. To be fair, Bush is dragging Kerry down by challenging the formats etc...

so Kerry would have to commit to Bush/Baker's lame ass changes.

[Ducks In A Row]

5. I heard Kerry already agreed to the terms

bush is the wuss holding things up.

[bagnana]

7. this is his m.o.

He always tries to get out of the debates, thereby creating a stir suggesting he is afraid to debate and will suck, then manages to say his name w/o stumbling, then declares victory. I remember this from 2000, and apparently he pulled the same crap in his gubernatorial debates. So are we going to be suckered, again, into claiming victory in advance, only to gnash our teeth when the media proclaims him "suprisingly prepared" when it is all over? The guy manages to insert his message into every answer he gives, no matter how inapplicable or inartful. Come the debates every answer will be "he flip flops, I'm steadfast, terror, 9/11" over and over and over. The "debates" are full of crap anyway -- not real debates at all -- in that the politicians are allowed to get away with answering every question with an unrelated "on message" answer, but until any politician is called on it, they will all be crap and he will always be able to survive them while staying on message.