Whether you call it dodging or not, Dole wanted 4 and Clinton wanted 3. “Dodge” and “duck” are editorial non sequiturs — whether in reference to Clinton or to Bush. Logic doesn’t give a shit about Republican versus Democrat.
At this point, even if Kerry was the only one to sho up at the debate, he’d still lose.
Who the fuck is running this guy’s campaign? A 5 year old?
I wonder why Bush is so worried about partisans sneaking in. Democrats would be the only ones that would pretend to be undecided? It’s either that or he is looking for an excuse in case he does go and gets his bootie whomped. “It’s not my fault. It’s them sneaky libruuhls.”
Kerry should suggest to let Bush out of a different debate. If Bush insists upon this one, then Kerry can show up, harp on it, take questions, etc. That should settle the “less debates” issue.
Kerry will win in a landslide. The Dem 527s will outspend the Republican 527s by 150-300M.
Just look at the Rasmussen poll–it’s a negative bounce, and Rasmussen uses 39%D-35%R weighting. 44%D-30%R will be closer to reality, just look at all the anger out there. So even after the convention, Kerry’s leading Bush by 5 points. These are Bush’s glory days, and they’ll be over soon.
Double-digits victory, the only question is if he’ll take 375+ EVs or 400+. And I’m a freakin’ Republican.
[hijack]I agree with you, WorldEater, and I keep wondering what we can do about it. I’ve seen half a dozen good ideas for TV spots running through these threads, and I’ll bet in the course of a single thread, we could come up with dozens of good talking points for Kerry to hammer. But how do we get through to the campaign?
My personal viewpoint? It’s just about time for a Bulworth. If Kerry doesn’t do something fast, he’s going to lose to the Bozo-in-Chief in a walk. It’s time that Kerry stops trying to appeal to everyone, and just talks straight. Who knows, maybe real sincerity can work.
But how do we get access to the people running Kerry’s campaign? I donate a little money every paycheck, but I’m never going to be able to give enough to stand out in a crowd.[/hijack]
No fucking way, Bush is taking it to the hoop on Nov 3rd. The sheeple demand nothing less.
Dunno Oy!, there have been times when I wanted to call his campaign quarters and ask them what the hell is going on.
Actually I have a friend working on his campaign, maybe she’ll know. Heh we could send him a “kite”
I’m pretty sure I’m being inordinantly stupid here, but I have no idea what you mean by sending him a “kite!”
But yes, I’d appreciate your asking your friend how to get through, or how to REALLY help the campaign. Going door to door is not going to cut it for me. For one thing, I live in NJ, and it’s pretty strongly Democrat.
Think passing around notes in 5th grade when the teacher was writing something on the board. A “kite” is the prison equivalent.
Yes, and Kerry could sit there, debating with himself.
That’s all you got bro. Keep poking holes in little talking points while your “dear” leader drags this nation down the fucking tubes. You must be one dumbass not to see the scam they’re pulling on us.
Oh, I have lots more.
I wish the other side had more too, like a coherent policy on Iraq. Our conflict with Saddam Hussein stretches back better than a decade, across administrations run by both parties.
Kerry’s views toward Hussein, and conflict with him, have not been consistent. He was against the first Gulf War, supported Clinton’s strikes, and is now against the war, though he authorized force in his Senate vote.
Reasonable people might look at these twists and turns and decide that the man making them has no business in the Oval Office.
If Kerry wants to correct this impression, held by a good many honest people, he’d better start talking clearly about what he stands for and what he wants to do.
Complete non sequitor. The debate Bush is trying to dodge is one of 3 debates scheduled by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). There have been either 2 or 3 presidential and one vice-presidential debate in every election cycle going back to 1996. Clinton did nothing out of the ordinary.
Sure, Kerry wants more. In fact, he’s challenged Bush to weekly debates until the election. Those debates might be analogous to what you suggest Clinton avoided; but don’t confuse the two issues. And can you please drop the asinine tu quoque about Clinton you drag up every freakin’ time someone mentions a failing of Bush.
Reasonable people would understand there what Bush has done makes all those things pale in comparison. It boggles my mind how people can truly believe that Bush’s policies have actually made us safer. This war on terror (worst.name.evar) is esentially creating thousands of terrorists in the process of eliminating hundreds. We need to step back and realize that this doesn’t make sense. We need to find the very fine balance of being firm and perhaps disagreeing with our allies on some issues, but doing things in as respectful a manner so as to not turn them away from the larger cause. This “war” has everything to do with being sensitive, and for true results it needs to be fought in the shadows, which of course will never happen. I could go on and on, but I’ve hijacked this enough, so back to why Bush is ducking the debate.
I couldn’t agree more.
What?
All the way back to '96 huh? You MTV kids think the world was created in 1980. And the CPD is not nonpartisan; it is bipartisan. By the way, your link doesn’t work.
That’s not a tu quoque. This isn’t between you and me. Whatever you require of the goose, you must require of the gander. Else, you are partisan.
The argument about the number of debates is a red herring. This is not about Bush wanting fewer debates this is about the specific format of the debate he’s running away from. He’s afraid to face undecidied voters. That’s what makes him chickenshit. If it was really about the number of debates he could skip one of the scripted debates and participate in this one.
Of course, Bush has been running away from things his whole life, hasn’t he?
Huh? Why would he fear a town meeting? That’s his best venue. You would have the folksy, friendly, aw shucks guy from the neighborhood facing the stiff, verbose, hot headed wooden Indian from Beacon Hill.
Typo. 1976. In 1960 there were 4. There were no debates between 60 and 76.
(bolding mine)
Don’t get pedantic. Me. You. My side. Your side. It’s the same thing. You’re attempting a “you did it too” arguement to slam Diogenes or others on the Left. However, as he correctly points out, it’s not the question of how many debates but the format that Bush is dodging. And Clinton is irrelevant, once again.
It’s relevant, in that there was no great media outcry when Clinton agreed to only two debates in 1996.
There’s a double standard at work here.