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
Instead of contrasting the difference between their candidate and Bush, McAullife would much rather tote the CBS memo story, or say Bush was AWOL, or say Bush lied to Americans about Iraq, or claim Bush actually lost the Presidency back in 2000.
All rhetoric....no substance and fact. This is the leader of the DNC?
It would be hard to find anything to "prove" this statement either right or wrong, since it is full of speculation and subjectivity:
"Posing as a nonpartisan institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people. The CPD, co-chaired by the former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties, secretly submits to the demands of the Republican and Democratic candidates."
Where's the evidence that the commission is only "posing" as nonpartisan, or that it "secretly" submits to party demands? Even if the questions weren't approved, are there really any questions that can be asked that the candidates won't be "prepared for"? I don't think so. I think there has to be some way to avoid a free for all where extremist wackos get a forum to spew hateful rhetoric rather than asking intelligent questions.
I wouldn't disagree with the part about excluding third party and independent candidates, but I do think that the tough questions usually get asked, maybe not in as strident a manner as some would like, but I think it's to everyone's benefit to try and keep things civilized. I do believe there IS a concerted effort by both parties to keep other voices out though.
"Where's the evidence that the commission is only "posing" as nonpartisan, or that it "secretly" submits to party demands?"
This statement can be disproved if there is evidence that the
Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President. -- Theodore Roosevelt.
Edited 9/21/2004 3:43 pm ET ET by debateguy
Pages