And not just any debate but the only one that might yield any tough questions. Drudge is reporting that Bush wants to weasel out of the debate scheduled for Oct. 8 in Missouri. This was to be a “Town hall” debate with questions posed by undecided voters. The Bushies, in all their cowardice and naked terror of exposing their idiot candidate to a fair question or an unscripted moment apparently want nothing to do with undecided, unvetted, unbrainwashed, open minded voters and are running shit-scared of this debate.
This is only up on Drudge so far but Drudge claims it’s going to be in the Washington Post soon. If this turns out to be true can we all agree that that Bush is a fucking chickenshit weasel with no fucking balls and no respect for the electorate?
And will the media call him on his chickenshittery or will they apologize for it like they always do.
Not to hijack or anything, but isn’t it time Drudge redesigned his page so it doesn’t look like a Jr High School student who just discovered basic HTML made it? Holy crap, I have terrible web page design skills but I could blow a more interesting looking page into my BVDs with a wet fart.
I hope they’ll put the debate on as scheduled, whether or not Bush shows up. It would be a perfect venue for Kerry to talk with the undecideds and answer any and all questions posed to him. I don’t see how he could lose.
Quite frankly, if his people prepare him right for “likely partisan screeds disguised as questions,” I don’t see how a man of even average intelligence*, with the experience Bush has fielding questions doubting his actions, couldn’t handle that sort of thing. We aren’t talking about professional reporters, after all (assuming someone doesn’t decide to go undercover).
*Let’s wait until we know more before we bash the man more, eh?
If Bush does indeed skip out on this debate, it would be in Kerry’s best interest to harp on this fact as much as possible. If possible, he should show up to the debate without Bush and lament how his opponent doesn’t want a real discussion of the issues.
May we take it that this is your position on all politicians who do not want as many debates as their opponent? Do you want the inevitable parade of cites, leading to the obvious conclusion that 9/10 of all politicians of both parties have “run from debates” at one time or another?
It isn’t a question of the number of debates according to these folks (or, at least, that’s what we’re being told). It’s a question of … well, res ipsa loquitur.
You aware of any stance taken by the Bush campaign equivalent to “…don’t want as many debates as [the] opponent [does]”?
The argument of the OP is that Bush avoiding debates is “chickenshit.” My question was whether or not all candidates who avoid debates are chickenshit.
90% of any politician’s decision on whether to debate, how often, and in what format is based on what will help them. Thinking otherwise is naive.
According to the headline on Drudge, Bush wants 2 debates instead of 3; so yes, that is “not wanting as many debates.” Bush thinks he has the lead, and will avoid debates, just as hundreds of Democrats have when they had leads. He can’t avoid them completely without looking bad, though, so both parties will jockey for what format works best for them.
And no, the res doesn’t ipsa loquitur (I probably ruined that). Why should partisan citizens be denied the chance to participate merely by virtue of being partisan? Why shouldn’t a random Dem have the chance to ask a tough question of Bush that he feels hasn’t been asked by the media (or vice versa)? I suspect that the Bush campaign’s concern was not about partisans per se sneaking in, but about certain kinds of partisans asking certain kinds of questions. And on balance they decided that wasn’t a format they wanted. Just as Kerry would have if he felt it was a bad format for him.
You have to understand. The man is used to speaking before a highly filtered crowd. Questions which might put him in a negative light are verboten.
Can you imagine Kerry being intimidated by the possibility of having to answer questions from any Republican partisans that might slip through?
Maybe Bush will consent if he gets the questions two weeks ahead and has his answers on a teleprompter. I cannot believe that this man holds the highest office in the land.
The incumbent has always wanted fewer debates than the challenger. That’s why in 1996, Clinton wanted 3 debates while Dole wanted 4. When Dio, bless his heart, editorializes about politics, you have to keep in mind his… passion.
Obviously, a challenger who is behind always wants more debates. However, 3 debates were used in 1992 while Bush I only agreeded to 2 in 1988. Clinton did not attempt to dodge debates with Dole.
I say it is time to dig out those 1992 chicken costumes. Bush II surely remembers what happened to his father in the second debate when his father was shown looking at his watch and Clinton answered the question on the national debt.