Will Kerry Let Bush Get Away With Only 2 Debates?

[Placebo]

Poll question: Will Kerry Let Bush Get Away With Only 2 Debates?

If the bush team decides it wants only 2 debates, will Kerry let him get away with it?

I sure hope he doesn't, and I heard that all the debates might end up being SIT DOWN debates, because kerry is so much taller than bush and it would look bad (according to the repukes) to have them standing next to each other.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Clinton had 2 debates in 1996, and Gore had one.

I expect the same thing to happen this year.

I am more troubled about the fact that at least one proposed debate is scheduled at the same time as the World Series. We might get the debates, but only the partisans will watch them!

[Placebo]

2. Yea the Clinton precedent blows...

but I guess you could argue that because the stakes are SO HIGH in this election we deserve to have 3

[IndianaGreen]

5. except that the third debate was with "undecided" voters

That's like jurors on a high profile case that say that they have never heard of O.J. Simpson, or Kobe, or Jacko. These "undecideds" are either liars or too stupid to have remained in the mushy middle for the last 4 years.

That third debate is a sham and should be nixed!

[orpupilofnature57]

14. ONCE WILL BE ENOUGH

If by the time the first debate is held,our problems haven't magi Cally disappeared,it should be a barrel shoot.JOHN KERRY is not an idiot,he just needs to get uglier.Swingers unfortunately need fear,from the other direction.

[Mr Blond]

27. Actually, I think Clinton set a HIGHER precident...

Reagan and Carter only had one debate.

Three debates is something relatively new.

[21winner]

15. Well, watch the baseball game.

No one will hold it against you.

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. I suspect the end result will be worse than that.

Kerry will agree to two. The first will be a "softball" thing where Junior is reading prepared answers either on cue cards or fed to him through his earplugs. The mediawhores will proclaim him the winner, as they did in 2000, despite the fact that anyone with a functioning pair of eyeballs could see otherwise.

The second debate scheduled will be more in the form of a traditional debate, where the Idiot might be put on the spot. A convenient "October Surprise" will allow Junior to weasel out of this using the excuse of "National Security".

End result - one debate, Junior "wins" , Kerry in deep shit.

Way to prevent result - insist that the first debate be a real honest to God debate with no scripted questions, no scripted answers, no earplugs, and the campaigns do not get to pick the moderator nor the panel.

Because if there's only gonna be one (and that's my gut feeling) it's gotta count. And it can't count for Junior.

[neomonkey]

4. Of course he will, what choice does he have?

You lead a monkey too a banana tree, but you can't me him eat.

[Doosh]

6. we'd better hope they agree to 3 debates

if they want to trim it to two or even possibly one, it'll mean that there internal polling shows bush pulling away, so why taking a chance with 3 debates.

[IndianaGreen]

9. You are assuming that Kerry will win the townhall meeting

I rather we skip that one for a variety of reasons, including the composition of the audience (undecideds my ass!) and the fact that Bush does relatively well in a townhall format that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Kerry's strong suit will best be displayed in the other two debates.

[boxster]

17. I'd have to agree.

Bush somehow manages to come off ok in those types of debates; I have no clue how or why, as he always seems to sound like a moron.

Not to mention that the organizers may try to plant audience members who throw softballs to Bush, similar to some of his recent "town hall" meetings.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Kerry will win the other two debates handily

I wouldn't trust any audience participation debate in which the audience is still "undecided." Only a moron would be undecided about this election!

[boxster]

19. Good point re: undecides.

The majority of people have chosen sides. Contrary to Nader's claims, the difference between the parties and the candidates in this election is night and day, particularly on social issues.

Though, there is always ignorance and apathy. If people haven't decided by now, they just haven't been paying enough attention. Those are the last people we want asking questions in a debate!

[DarthDem]

22. I Agree With This

If Baker - - who is far smarter than Rove, by the way, and is simply pure evil incarnate - - wants to cut the "town hall" debate, he is being uncharacteristically stupid. Let's do it. That debate last time out - - the third, IIRC - - did nothing to help Gore. The mediadroids played up Chimpy's folksiness, and then the public moved on to other things. It will be the same this time out, so cut it. Two standard format debates, plus what needs to be an utter dismantling of the Evil Fascist by Edwards, will be - - SHOULD BE - - enough.

[DarthDem]

21. Interesting, But I Don't Agree

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that their desire for fewer debates necessarily has anything to do with what their internal polling is showing - - they want to keep their stupid candidate away from the debates no matter what. To accept your argument, we'd have to accept the premise that if they think they're behind, or in a close race, they want more debates.

I don't think the * team wants more debates under *any* circumstances.

[partygirl]

7. The way I have heard it

is that James Baker (?) is playing hardball. Right now there are 3 scheduled--the first is domestic policy on Sept 30, then the town meeting, and last the debate on foreign policy. Kerry has agreed to all 3 debates. Baker has said---no we will only do the domestic policy and foreign policy debates. If Kerry does not agree to this quickly--they won't do the domestic policy debate on the 30th and there will only be the one--on foreign policy. No danger of this--Kerry will capitulate and agree to the 2 debates in plenty of time.

Bush is in a better position for this negoitiation---he does not NEED the debates (and does not want them)--all they are for him is a chance to screw up. But for Kerry, they are a chance to make his case to the people. So he NEEDS them badly. Baker does not care if there are two--or indeed on only one if Kerry does not agree quickly to 2.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Carter refused to debate Reagan and he led in the polls

At the last minute Carter decided to have one debate with Reagan. Carter lost the debate, and Reagan became Prez.

[n2mark]

11. What if...

Kerry agrees to two debates, then says, if Bush doesn't want a third debate, I'll be more then happy to be present for a third to answer questions and demand the debate be open to those who accept the invitation? Shrub, crap, why do I say Shrub? If Karl Marx Rove makes derogatory comments on the third debate, Kerry can say, where were you? It is like, if you did not vote, you shouldn't complain.

Who is the president of our country? Cheney or Rove, forget the idiot, we know he is a body with controlled strings.

[partygirl]

12. He could show up and do the

town hall meeting on his own--but only if he pays for it out of his own campaign chest. I am sure he is welcome to do this, and I doubt that Rove, Baker or any one else would object.

[partygirl]

13. I should add--without the

presence of the president it would just be like another campaign stop---a VERY VERY expensive campaign stop. I also doubt he would get prime time tv coverage without a debating partner--it would basicallly be just another whistle stop.

[fearnobush]

10. They want the debates done sitting down. GOP afraid of 6'4 Kerry.

Considering Bu$h at 5-11 or 6'. WTF, whats an other 4 inches. Haa Haa. But Bush is a better debater so, what does he have to lose?

[shivaji]

29. Shrub will bring a thick seat cushion to the debates LMAO

[boxster]

16. Kerry isn't "letting" Bush get away with anything.

Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. I don't understand why DUers are so quick to blame him for everything that ever happens that they disagree with. I'm so glad that we're all so supportive of him. :eyes:

Really - why does Kerry always get the blame for everything? He's not personally negotiating these debates, and he wasn't responsible for the precedents being set when Clinton ran.

Perhaps instead of blaming Kerry, you should provide an alternative. If you're so certain that there is a way for Kerry to "force" Bush into more than 2 debates, let's hear it.

[Placebo]

20. Oh be quiet...

we aren't blaming kerry for anything, stop being so reactionary!

if a thread doesn't start with KERRY IS GREAT AND IS GOING TO WIN, SO... you people attack the rest of us

[boxster]

23. Oh, please.

My point is - if you're going to whine about it, provide a solution instead of the same stock response of "why doesn't Kerry demand blah, blah".

Instead of just complaining about it, provide a solution. The problem with your assumption that Kerry can "do something about it" is likely that he can't. If you believe otherwise, let's hear it.

Reactionary? Too funny. You do realize that's exactly what your post is, right?

[Placebo]

24. You're living in fantasy land

There is no point in offering a solution on a WEBSITE. it's pointless, you should start asking the kerry campaign to come up with solutions instead of our fellow democrats.

so i give a 'solution'...and? it changes nothing, just like my post changes nothing

[boxster]

25. Nice excuse.

If you don't have a solution, just say so. Getting defensive about it is rather misguided.

"you should start asking the kerry campaign to come up with solutions instead of our fellow democrats."

Yeah, our fellow Democrats should just butt out of the process. That's a great strategy. Kerry has the time and energy to address every issue, every criticism, and every demand like this personally. No one else needs to get involved.

/sarcasm

Besides, the Kerry campaign HAS come up with solutions to the vast majority of issues being discussed. If you believe that issues aren't being addressed, you're relying too heavily on the media for your information.

And, if he could do something about the debates, I'm certain that he would. In case you've forgotten, he quite publicly requested that there be many more than the 2 or 3 we'll end up with.

As far as posting solutions on a website being pointless, the concerted effort here at DU to prove the Parlock incident to be a fraud certainly didn't seem pointless, especially if it helped/helps get the story out.

Do you disagree? Or, should we all just whine and complain about every negative aspect of this campaign as if it's personally Kerry's fault? If DU's only reason for being is to complain about our party's candidate, a lot of us are definitely in the wrong place.

[Julien Sorel]

26. Yet another wonderfully worded post,

that echoes right wing talking points. You could have worded it even better, though. You could have said, "Will the French-looking Kerry flip-flop yet again and let Bush get away with two debates? And can someone who won't stand fast on the subject of debates be trusted to defend our country against terrorism?"

What a gang of losers.

[shivaji]

28. 1 debate will be enough to see Kerry beat the @@@@ out of *