BUSH DUCKING DEBATE
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 09-15-2004 - 10:45am |
Presidential Debates and Missed Opportunities<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Wednesday, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />September 15, 2004; Page A24
The president has been offered a rare opportunity to discuss key issues and concerns with Americans and appears to be leaning toward declining it . President Bush seems to be concerned about the town-hall-meeting format of the second debate, in which undecided voters picked by the Gallup Organization would ask the candidates questions. The Post noted that the Bush campaign is concerned that "people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans."
Can't the president answer citizens' questions, partisan or not?
+++++++
I am extremely unhappy about the prospect of the president skipping the most critical of the three debates. But I am not surprised, given that the 1992 town-hall-style debate is largely seen as the nail in the coffin of his father's reelection bid and given the great pains the White House has taken to insulate President Bush from criticism and the opinions of Americans who are not vocal supporters.
Rather than canceling the town-hall debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates should leave an empty stool on stage next to the candidate who does show up. That might make for the most interesting presidential debate in years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21915-2004Sep14.html?referrer=email
Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President. -- Theodore Roosevelt.

Pages
He's considering not participating in one of the debates, not all of them. His campaign's concern is that there will be partisan folks posing as undecideds in the audience, not true undecided voters, which would basically be a political ambush. My personal opinion is that he ought not to be afraid of answering questions from anyone, however I can see where he might not want a nationally televised incident where someone could start spewing hateful rhetoric and have to be physically removed from the audience. He WILL debate John Kerry, no question about it.
The other debates would be conducted by impartial moderators, from what I've heard, not by loyal Republicans. Don't think any pres candidate would get away with insisting the debates be conducted only by his own supporters, that's just silly.
I don't think the other two debates are going to be using only "approved" questions-the difference is that they will be asked by newspeople etc. so there will be no chance of some lunatic getting through and getting his chance to rant and rave on live TV. My guess is the moderators will ask some very tough questions of both candidates, as they usually do. I would prefer to see intelligent questions myself, rather than someone standing up and screaming "Bush, you lied!" or "Kerry, your purple hearts are phony!".
Even Dan Rather seemed to take a very long drink before doing his "memogate" report.
Maybe it's because I'm very anti Bush, but I don't agree. I see and here alot more negative damning language and stuff coming from the "right." Especially alot of name calling, not just towards Kerry but towards all Dems, liberals, non conservatives, non Bush supporters, etc.
Venus
"It is definitely more prevalent on the Kerry side."
And how would you, or anyone else for that matter, know this?
"I don't think the other two debates are going to be using only "approved" questions-the difference is that they will be asked by newspeople etc. so there will be no chance of some lunatic getting through and getting his chance to rant and rave on live TV. My guess is the moderators will ask some very tough questions of both candidates, as they usually do."
From what I understand, both candidates do approve the questions that will be asked so that they can prepare their responses.
Pages