Why would he fear a town meeting? Maybe because he has shown no ability at all to go off script. Because he clearly has no command of the facts execpt for what is spoon fed to him at appropriate times. His handlers are saying they’re afraid he’ll be ambushed by covert “partisan” posing as undecideds. What kind of Potus can’t handle a partisan? Clinton could do it in his sleep. Kerry doesn’t seem to be afraid of it.
I think the Bushies are genuinely afraid that Shrub simply does not have the wits or the acumen to defend himself from a hostile question. For some reason, they seem to be afraid to ever expose him to any dissent at all.
Kerry has at least kept his appearances open and has done town hall style events where he has answered some extremely hostile questions from “undecided” Bush voters. Such is politics. If a guy can’t handle tough questions from the opposition- if he can’t handle it that some people aren’t going to like him- he have no business in politics.
Why, you might as well ask the sun not to rise in the morning, the tides not to ebb and flow, spring not to follow winter. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim.
If what you say about his “handlers” (I presume you mean his advisors, and that that is what you would call Kerry’s people) is true, then it belies their understanding of the American electorate, in my opinion. Please consider that this is a society in which Creationists routinely thrash Evolutionists in public debates because it isn’t about facts and figures and who is smarter than whom. It is about who is more likeable. I think that only a minority looks to government (especially the president) for academic leadership. Americans are an opinionated bunch, and the last thing they want in the White House is a know-it-all. That isn’t to say that they want an idiot, but American people still believe (naively, in my view) that they, in the end, are at the helm of their own government. It can be to a candidate’s detriment if he comes off as too smart. That’s why Clinton never played up his Rhodes scholar angle. What gave him such broad support, even among moderate to liberal Republicans, was his easy-going country manner and Southern charm.
Huh? If by “public debate” you mean “yellin’ at the outlander down the combination Moose lodge / post office / general store in Pigs Knuckle, Missouri”, I’ll give it to you.
On what planet do Creationists “routinely thrash” Evolutionists? And what the hell is “likeable” about them in the first place?
There’s a difference between homespun charm and sounding like a moron. “Ob-Gyn’s practicing their love?” Come on … the man is a horrible public speaker. Especially without a script. He mispeaks more than Mel Tillis on a caffiene binge.
I fail to see how the general public welcomes those sort of traits in their leaders.
I guess I’m just a simple boy from the norther wilds, but it seems to me that the actual debate and discussion items have been turned by the right into meaningless blather about non-issues.
I would like Bush to answer the questions that are still out there:
Why were we lied to about WMDs?
Why were we lied to about Saddam’s ties to OBL?
Where is OBL and why didn’t we aggressively pursue him?
Why did we abandon Afghanistan?
Why was Chalabi, a known criminal, installed in the Iraqi power structure, then canned?
Why, if we don’t want to be permanently ensconced in Iraq, are we busily building multiple military bases and a $1.5 BILLON embassy complex?
Why was ENRON given a sole source contract worth megabucks?
If Bush can answer these actual unresolved issues without his nose becoming a redwood, THEN I will entertain debate on what Kerry did or didn’t vote on.
So what’s the problem? Undoubtedly the electorate, incensed with Mr. Bush’s cowardice at ducking a contentious debate, will infer that Kerry is the better candidate and flock to him in droves, right? I don’t understand why the OP is complaining – I thought you WANTED people to vote for Kerry, and if what you say is correct, then this will hurt Bush and cause more people to vote for Kerry.
You’re missing the fact that even some of us liberals cling to this old-fashioned idea that the President is directly answerable to the voters, and that it is the president’s obligation—maybe not one spelled out in the Constitution as such, but an obligation nonetheless—to respect that relationship by occasionally opening himself up to unscripted questions or even—gasp—criticism.
When it comes to cowardice in facing his own constituents, this president is in a league of his own. If Clinton (or any Dem) had demanded that attendees of his rallies sign a loyalty oath before being permitted entry, Michael Savage’s head would have already exploded.
The President is answerable to the voters in a way that is spelled out in the Constitution: the voters have a chance in two months to vote in slates of electors that will remove him from office. Right?
Given the cowardice and the unwillingness to answer unscripted inquires, it would seem clear that the voters will near-universally reject him. Right?
You have more confidence in the elctorate than I do, Bricker. I understand what you’re saying logically but I just haven’t seen any evidence that the masses are following closely enough to appreciate how gutless this is for Bush to do, nor do I trust the media to hold his feet to the fire.
The Bushies’ stratgey is to spin this as a “numbers” thing and point out that Clinton only had two debates in '96. The problem is that Clinton did not turn down the Town Hall format. Like I said. If Bush were to cancel one of the scripted debates and do the Town Hall, I wouldn’t make an issue of it.
And regardless of its effect on the election, you should want to see both candidates face fire from the public, should you not? The way that candidates interact with the public tells a lot, especially when the public is truly public.
Here are some tips on debating creationists that I devised and posted the first time around:
1. First and foremost: Respect your opponent. You will not, repeat, will not win a debate by hurling insults at the ICR scientists. Acknowledge their credentials. This establishes that you take the argument seriously. They are mistaken, not uneducated. Nothing makes a debator look sillier than pretending that his opponent’s argument lacks any validity whatsoever. You leave your audience with the impression that you didn’t understand some of the creationist’s points. (Remember that even lurkers here are an audience.) 2. Don’t dodge the questions. Yes, you do have to explain how human beings can arise from hydrogen. The audience understands that there has been a continuum of sequence from the Big Bang to the present day. You can’t just act like you’re exempt from dealing with the bigger picture just because natural selection deals only with biology. Show the flaws in the probability statistics offered by creationists. Explain how “remarkable” it is that a poker player is dealt a 3S-5H-7C-JS-KD hand. 3. Don’t misrepresent your opponent’s position. The more you do this, the worse it gets. And it is the very thing you’re accusing them of doing. See how silly this looks to the audience? You leave them scratching their heads and going, “Gish didn’t sound vague or fanatical to me.” Their positions are a matter of public record. You’ve lost when they can replay the tape and show that they did not, in fact, define macroevolution the way you say they did. 4. Don’t get lost in the details. You aren’t teaching for a pop quiz. What you see as vagueness in the creationists is what you need to master. Generalize. Don’t make your audience’s eyes glaze over with post doctoral scientific jargon. Don’t spend precious time citing the particulars of twenty-seven speciation observations. Just say, “There have been more than two dozen documented observations of speciation which are detailed in the hand-outs I’ve provided to you and to Dr. Gish.” Then sit back and let Gish spend the next half-hour rebutting each of them. 5. Don’t act like you have a grudge. Be folksy. Gish is a master of this. Don’t seem desperate. Keep your cool and select your battles wisely. If you don’t do this, you end up looking like you are trying to settle a score. Don’t use sarcasm. Don’t glare at your opponent, physically or verbally. Don’t let the audience think that your blood pressure is high, or else you’ll end up looking like a soaked-face Nixon debating against a cool and suave Kennedy. 6. Respect your audience’s faith. Remember that your target audience is Christian. If it comes to a choice between their God and your science, they couldn’t give a rat’s ass about your science. This is utterly unnecessary, and guarantees you an opposing voting block in perpetuity. And be careful how you word this. Don’t say, “Evolution has nothing to do with God.” Say, “Many scientists find that evolution is compatible with their faith.” Do you see the difference? The first one sounds like Madalyn Murray O’Hair on steroids; the second one sounds deferential and respectful. 7. Don’t pile on. Give your audience credit to know when you’ve won a debating point. It is tempting, once you’ve caught Gish in a trap, to go in with guns blazing. DON’T DO THIS. You look like you’re kicking a man when he’s down. Instead, give him a gracious out and then let him deal with it. Say, “Dr. Gish, I’m sure you didn’t mean to say so-and-so. Given this study I’ve cited, could you clarify your point?” This makes Gish look fallible and you look gracious and merciful. Your audience will make the connection that you have taken on the attributes of Jesus, Whom they adore. Gish, having taken on the role of fallible mankind MUST now humble himself before you of his own accord, else the audience will connect him with an unrepentant Pharisee. (See how this stuff works?) 8. Don’t act holier than thou. This is closely related to number 1, but differs in that, even though you acknowledge your opponent is not an idiot, you act like you yourself can do no wrong. You can’t win every point. Sooner or later, Gish is going to catch you unaware, or make a point that is tough for you to refute. (Remember, not every point they make is baseless.) You’ll be in a lot better position if you can humbly laugh at yourself than if you find yourself like a deer caught in the headlights. The taller your pedestal, the further you will fall. 9. Don’t carry baggage. Leave your agenda at home. Don’t come in like the crusader who is trying to save the world. Don’t tell them that their children will be destroyed by creationism. History and common sense testify differently. This is simply not as important to them as it is to you. The more nonchalant and less impassioned you can be, the better. You aren’t pushing evolution on them because it is morally right; you are presenting evolution to them because it makes sense. Don’t waste time insisting that evolution is a fact while creation is a myth, unless you are prepared to pass around a fly that they can watch evolve into something else. Gish and company are absolutely delighted when you start stomping your feet and screaming, “Those are MY cigarettes, Nurse Ratchet!” Simply say calmly, “I didn’t witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but I can see the signatures.” 10. Know your enemy. Be prepared. There is a myth afloat that creationists are rigid dogmatists who never change their positions. Believe that at your own peril. You will be submarined when Gish calmly states that the data has convinced them that new species can come from old species and that they now hold the position that microevolution occurs within a higher order than species. Bang, you’re dead. Half of what you had prepared as argument is now out the window. Don’t let them sneak up on you by using old notes. Go straight to the horse’s mouth, the ICR. Browse their website. Read their latest press releases and papers. Don’t think you’re dealing with a bunch of fools.
First, Bush was not speaking extemporaneously when he made that gaffe; he was reading from copy. Second, people who do not hate him already are as likely to be disarmed by his clumsiness as offended. And third, people prefer what they perceive as a truthful man who is as tongue-tied as Lincoln over a liar who shakes a finger in their face.
I know this is what YOU want from the debate, but that’s not the purpose of any debate. It is nothing more than a campaign event, a chance to get on national TV and look presidential. If Bush thinks this format will make him look bad (and a couple of partisan cranks will definitely make him look bad) then the smart move is to decline.
The purpose of the campaign is to win the election, not bare your soul to the electorate. If Bush keeps making smart moves while Kerry doesn’t, Bush will get his 4 more years, regardless of how bad he’s running the country.
As someone who’s going to vote for Kerry, the only thing that pisses me off more than the guys wringing their hands about “I KNOW Kerry’s going to lose!” is people who wring their hands, say “I KNOW Kerry’s going to lose!” and call the general public stupid as result. (Using the stupid, I’m-a-smarter-than-everyone-else-leftist term “sheeple” is an extra minus.) People are not sheep because they disagree with you politically. People are sheep because they are panicky, stupid, watch too many of them watch TV shows with Paris Hilton in them, and believe lots of stupid things. Politics doesn’t even rank in the first tier. If a majority of people vote for Kerry, will they not be sheep (this year), or will they just not be idiots?
Me? I think your average person is a dope no matter who they vote for. I’m big on equality. I hope Kerry can convince most people to vote for him because as a candiate, that’s what he’s fucking supposed to do. I don’t care much if they’re stupid, there will be idiots voting Democrat, Republican, and Other. There are too many stupid people in this country to ignore them as a voting bloc.
In your view, it’s gutless. My point is that if the majority of voters do not agree with you, then does it matter? There is no Constitutional requirement to engage in debate prior to the election. I have a feeling that if Presidents Ecks, Republican or Democrat, was up in the polls 40 points, he’d refuse to participate in any debates at all. The debate is simply another campaign tool, with each side hoping to use it to their advantage.
Mr. Bush’s strengths have, in my view, been in the area of quick and decisive action in national defense, in a sound tax cut, and in the appointment of judges who tend towards proper construction of the Constitution, among other things. His strength does NOT lie in extemporaneous public speech. There is no rule or principle that says a sine qua non of a good President is talent in extemporaneous speech.
No. It tells more about the candidates’ abilities as public speakers and debaters, true, but as I suggest above, these skills are not essential ones for the office.
It’s true that we will likely never elect a habitual stutterer, for instance, but that’s because the skills to campaign are not necessarily the skills to govern. As long as each candidate has the opportunity to present his platform, I don’t need particularly need to see how well he does under withering cross-fire.
Demonstrating at least a grasp of the issues, however, is, and the candidates should have to display that in some way other than reading pre-prepared speeches, since just about anybody can sound informed in that context. (W sometimes has trouble even there, but anyway…)
If anybody ever asks me for an example of “bullshit populism,” Moto, I hope you don’t mind if I use this quote.
Marley23, use the quote all you want too. Just keep in mind that the speech it came from is one of the most famous political addresses of the 20th century.
Senator Clark’s speech where he referred to people as “the masses” is now as forgotten as he is himself.
You might want to keep that in mind. Words do matter, and the way you express yourself tells a lot, not only about you, but how you feel toward others. Diogenes is an eloquent man, far more than I am, but he has a contempt toward the American public that his rhetoric does nothing to hide. In fact, he reveals this contempt through his choice of words.
Contempt does nothing to push an agenda, build a consensus, or win elections. Reagan understood that, at least.
Granted. I’m sure Bush’s phrase “axis of evil,” or at least that part of that SOTU address, will be one of the more famous of the 21st. It’s still complete bullshit. “We will bury you!” is a famous quote, after all.
I’m sure there have been enough discussions of the ‘liberals have lots of contempt for the American public’ idea that we don’t need to burden the hamsters with another one. I think I just saw it in some thread in GD anyway.
I stand by what I said. A vote for Bush is a vote for ignorance.
They’re sheep for a plethora of reasons, some of them listed above. I also include being totally blind to what’s happening to our nation, or if aware, not giving a shit.
I guess just idiots, unless they suddenly stop caring about Paris Hilton.
I agree with this. Do realize that my beef (at least in this post) isn’t with the politicians taking advantage of the populace, it’s with the populace being so easily convinced with lies.
