How do we know we really got 3 debates?

The primary justification for the slanted rules seems to be that "we got 3 debates". Did we?

We just made an agreement with a known liar of gigantic proportion. He lied to the world to start a WAR - and people seem to think we can trust him at his word to have 3 debates?

Apparently it has never occurred to anyone that despite this little agreement bush might, oh I don't know, LIE.

How do we know we still won't get only 2 debates? What if he takes advantage of the rules slanted in his favor for this debate and the next one, but skips out the 3rd leaving us fu**ed? (or hell even the 2nd depending on which one Rove decides he should miss)

Looks like no one took this in to account. All it will take is a "Oh gee I'm sorry I have to miss this, we just went to orange alert and I put the safety of the country first" scheme and he's out.

It's kind of interesting all of a sudden everything is assumed to be good "yay we've got 3 debates!" when the only thing holding the known liar to it is a non-binding agreement which he would have no problems with not honoring. I hope there is a backup plan for such a scenario.

I immediately took this to mean that there would be only one debate and the repukes wanted it to be *bush's "strong point".

Because of his degenerative mental capacity, I think they will only show up for one debate.

I could be wrong, but like you, I don't think we or Kerry should count on three debates.

this is the way they wanted it. Bush looking competent enough to stand and continue breathing is about all they can expect and it will be enough to declare a victory in the spin game. If he forgets to breath we might have a shot. Curse you involuntary muscle contractions!

that if the RULES are not followed, he will bail out of the subsequent 'debates'

Why does * want all the rules in his favor? Does he have something to hide ?? I think he would want 3 debates if he is so sure of what he believes. I believe if it was a "real" debate * would have declined all of them, knowing full well that he would lose even more credibility with the entire world. GO KERRY/EDWARDS..

But what's the option? Should Kerry have refused to debate President Bush on the reasonable grounds that he thinks that Bush will try to disengage himself from the rest of the debates?

Secondly, you do have to know that if President Bush backs out of the other debates the talking points on the democratic side practically write themselves (of course there's no guarentee our "stalwarts" will make them, but they should). Bush is is a coward. Bush can't even handle a little debate. And so on and so forth.

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

Kerry needs to hit now like he has been doing recently...he has to raise doubts in possible Bush voters that bush is not the man

He likely will not get another debate because wimpy will wimp out if they break the rules.

I think that Kerry laid down on the debate rules so that he could say "i gave him every reason to come and he refuses to discuss the issues"

If * does not want more debates...then Kerry should show up anyway and debate a cardboard cut out of the president....and he will blast him on anything kerry would like to ...especially not having the brain or backbone to debate for the office of president...

They will say he is resolute, a man who sticks to his principals. He is not a coward, because he is taking a great chance in not debating. He is the kind of man that will stand up to terrorists, too.

Kerry had no options, because the media will spin anything. That's why the grassroots campaign is so important. The internet and word-of-mouth is Kerry's best chance.

we will have great points. But who will air them to the masses? FAUX news?

I've always wondered if there would be 3 debates. When the agreement was made, and I heard that Bush would only debates if the rules were followed, I've had in the back of my mind the thought that the "rules" WOULD be broken, if not by Kerry (to his advantage) or by the MEDIA (Hmmmm, Fox is running the cameras and now says it will not be bound by the rules), thus giving Bush and Karl and Dick a way out.

But you know the Repugs love the short, sweet, simple messages, so if Bush does drop out, then the Dems short, sweet, simple message is this:

"How can you say 'Bush is strong', when he won't face Kerry and the American People and discuss the issues?"