Will there even be one debate?

Let's face it, all of the front runners would likely clobber President Bush in the debates, particularly if they were debates instead of joint press conferences. So here's the strategy as I see it.

1. Set the republican nominating convention so late that there is little time for debates. This will limit the potential number of debates.

2. Argue that the debates serve no useful function (the right wing media will help out here). The differences between the wise and noble President Bush and whoever the Democrats decide to put up are clear. This won't eliminate the debates, probably, but it will further limit the number of debates.

3. Make it clear that the Liberal media is not to be trusted to present President Bush clearly. Again this might help eliminate the debates, but it ensures that that "Liberal" media will bend over backwords to appear "fair."

4. Argue over the format. The best format is to have the questions provided to the candidates in advance, with no interaction between the two (the format dubbed the joint press conference by cynics (like me)). The worst format would be an actual debate between the candidates.

So how do we combat this strategy? Well, we have to make sure that people know why debates are important. Even if you think Presidetn Bush is doing a great job, there's nothing wrong with him answering some questions, and so on. Also, of course, we can call President Bush a coward for refusing to debate whoever the nominee is.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Of course they will be the "joint press conference" types that have become the standard. Look for two presidental & one VP "debate", each one of 90 minutes. I think the questions will be unscripted.

With democratic candidates rasing record amounts of campaign funds, one thing we can count on is that no Bush antics will go unchallenged. Can you imagine the politcal hay we could make on TV ads if Bush refused to debate? It would actually be a goldmine for dems if he did decline.

Just becasue a person is more articulate doesn't mean they win a debate.

In 2000 it was ok for us to have a frat boy president, because we thought things were going great. This time around we've had september 11th. A guy who can pull off being an adult will make President Bush look like a kid.

Get a bunch of people on the other side to continue to spread the "Bush is an idiot" line so that you can lower expectations substantially. Then (just like 2000) shrub just has to show up and avoid tripping over his shoes and, voila!, he "wins" the debate.

Only one or two of our candidates this year can fairly be compared to Gore in tems of raw intelligence, and shrub was perceived as "winning" two of the three debates. Why do we have to go into this months ahead of time and set the bar so low?

More than one Democratic opponent has said that it was a mistake to assume that shrub was an idiot.

Although there is plenty of evidence that President Bush is an idiot.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

technically won the debate with JFK as far as debating goes. What he lost was the image of the Presidency because of his unkempt appearance and so forth. The TV camera is unforgiving.

So, again and to no one's surprise, I think Clark would do best against Bush because he looks like a president, knows how to conduct himself on screen and can dance circles around Bush on just about anything except ranching in Crawford.

If Clark is the nominee, I think Bush will pass on the debates even if it gives us another hammer to hit him with. The risk would not be worth the prize.

If Bush has a big lead, he'll avoid debates. Why risk his lead?

If Bush is losing, he'll push for debates hard. He'll gamble on winning the debate because he'll have to do 'something'.

If it's close, he'll push for a debate that makes him look good while avoiding the ones that will make him look bad. (Joint Press Conference)

"I look forward to the debate."

@ 21 minutes: rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/iraq/iraq121503_bush.rm