In case you missed it, George W. Bush has agreed to three debates with Gore–once on “Meet the Press”, once on “Larry King Live”, and one of the three formal debates. Gore has, of course, rejected the schedule, insisting that Bush participate in the three formal debates.
If you ask me, the reason Dubya wants to avoid 90-minute formal debates in prime time on all the major networks is obvious–he would get reamed. Whether you think this is due to Bush’s ineptitude or Gore’s slick double-talk probably depends on your political leanings. (As a Nader supporter, I’m inclined to say a little of both.)
My question is, how does Bush defend this? I heard him say that the interactions between him and Gore should take place in a variety of formats, but that would only suggest adding other appearances to the formal debates, rather than replacing them. Gore has repeatedly asserted that he would debate anytime and anyplace, and would likely accept Bush’s plan with the addition of the other two debates. Can Bush spin this to look like anything but avoiding a game he can’t win?
Gore has rejected the schedule as complete. He has agreed to debate Dubya in any forum, but is insisting that he participate in the three official debates.
I agree, and I think that the debates would be mind-numbing. What I want to see is a Minor Party Free-For-All–Nader, Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin, McReynolds, anyone showing up on the ballot in more than one state. There’s your Great Debate!
> What I want to see is a Minor Party Free-For-All–Nader, Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin, McReynolds, anyone showing up on the ballot in more than one state. There’s your Great Debate!
There may be one of these. Gore has reportedly agreed to debate some third-party candidates.
I think they should all go on Jerry Springer. Or maybe Celebrity Deathmatch.
I think teh problem is that Bush had agreed to those prime-time forums
Near as I can tell, Bush is trying to maneuver Gore into agreeing to debate in forums that have a smaller audience and are possibly more Bush-friendly. It’s a win-win scenario for Bush. Either Gore has to agree to the proposed formats, or Gore refuses and the Bush camp can play on the fact that Gore is backing down from an earlier promise.
Bush has a history of avoiding debates on prime-time. In fact, he was often criticized for skipping debates during the primaries. The main reason that i can see is that Bush does not do well once moving beyond a scripted speech. Did anyone see him on Letterman and Nightline*? He gets really nervous as evidenced by his rapid blinking, he makes awful attempts at humor, has difficulty expressing himself, as doesn’t come across as coolly collected presidential material.
*I think it was Nightline. I routinely get the news magaines mixed up.
Is it just me, or do both of the major canidates, nad their wives, just suck at the oratory. Maybe it is just me, but all of the classical examples of great oratory just fail to speak to me. No pun intended. I mean the authors of high-school science papers seem to consistenly do better. Gore’s enthusiasm and great gestures seem fake and distracting. Bush just sucks at speaking. He pauses akwardly for the jokes.
That’s because they are fake. His reputation for woodenness was, no doubt, seen as a detriment to his image, so he was told to be more lively. So he’s trying to be something he’s not and it’s not coming across well.
This election has been dull, dull, dreadfully dull with candidates that are are not as diverse as I would like. If it weren’t the for the fact that we’re going to be stuck with one of these guys for the next four years, I would have stopped paying attention long ago.
Sadly, i think I’m going to have to vote for Gore just because he’s not Bush. Had anyone told me 8 years ago that I’d ever consider voting for Gore I would have laughed.
I’d like to see a realdebate–the candidates have to deal with each other’s questions and posturing. C’mon, Al, let’s discuss whether you’re a corrupt weasel. C’mon, George, let’s talk about whether your IQ is higher than room temperature.
Or, failing that, TampaFlyer’s suggestion of Celebrity Deathmatch would be fun to watch.
Actually, the arguments over debates prove what I already suspected- Al Gore is desperate. He knows that, no matter what the polls say, he’s losing, and will get his butt kicked in November if he doesn’t do something drastic.
To use a sports analogy, a boxer who’s WAY ahead on points late in a fight doesn’t want to slug it out. He wants to play it safe, and win by decision. The guy who’s LOSING by a mile is the one who swings furiously, hoping to land a knockout punch. And HE’S the one who’s going to curse his opponent as a coward or “fag” for not slugging it out.
Similarly, when the 49ers were leading by 5 touchdowns in the 4th, Joe Montana wasn’t interested in aerial shootouts. He wanted to run the clock out. It was his desperate OPPONENTS who wanted to air it out.
Well, who’s eager for debates, and who’s cool to the idea?
THAT should tell you who’s winning, who’s confident, and who’s desperate.
Gore really played this one dumb. Over the past few months, he has agreed to something like 50 offers. Heck, he even agreed to the forum put on by Judical Watch, the Clinton Hunters.
Now Gore knew very well he wasn’t going to be held to these. He was just trying to appear ready and willing. Well, Bush got the list of possibilities and basically said “Ok, I’ll pick one from column A and two from column B.”
Gore has no choice but to put up or shut up. Bush (or at least his campaign) really outfoxed Gore’s people on this.
It’s my understanding that Gore agreed to Bush’s debates, plus the already mentioned formal debates. The ones that were to be on network tv. Bush defended his position by saying something like “The ball’s in his court”.
Sounds like Bush want’s to take his ball and go home.
I don’t like either one of them, but I think Gore’s going to win this one.
Remember though, whoever wins has to represent the U.S. to other world leaders. :eek: He may also have to stand up to congress.
Peace,
mangeorge
The bipartisan formal debates (3 in all) are a great danger to him as he is likely behind slightly in the popular vote but still slightly ahead in the electoral college.
Anything can happen. Dads after all was caught glancing at his watch during his (2nd?) debate with Clinton. Many took that as a man disinterested in both the debates and the election.
Morphing the bipartisan debates into 2 appearances on Larry King Live (btw, Larry never really knew Sandy Koufax) and Meet the Press allows Dubya to rehearse and rehearse one liners, jokes, and zingers that might not fit into the more formal debates.
Limiting the time to 60 minutes (actually more like 35 on Meet the Press and 25 on CNN when you count in commercials and the dronings of Tim Russert and Larry King), limits the possibilities of goofs. So does that fact that the other networks won’t cover these shows leading to more people watching a Survivor rerun on CBS than watching Bush possibly call someone an a**hole.
The danger is that Gore and Lieberman might argue that 1) these bipartisan debates were years in the making with full participation of the GOP. Dubya tries to claim to be a “bipartisan player” but this is how he really plays.
2)Gore might succeed in persuading people that no, a debate is not a joint appearance on Letterman, Leno, Larry K, or even Meet the Press. Gore might agree to all those joint appearances so long as Dubya meets the 3 real debates. Then it could be a game of saying who’s running scared.
New theme for the empty “w” campaign - duck and cover.
Bush’s search for “structured” “debates” might give him a new nickname - sadly, “Dear Leader” is already taken by the dictator of the robot republic of North Korea.
Can anyone imagine John McCain declining 3 chances to go after Al Gore for 90 minutes on all the major (and minor) networks? Sounds like the wimp factor is back in play.
I haven’t read any articles that discuss this yet, but has George W. Bush Jr. mentioned why he only wants to participate in one of the three debates organized by the independent Commission on Presidential Debates? So far, the only reason I have seen (of course this is not a reason advanced by the Bush campaign team) is that the debates proposed by Bush would have a much lower number of viewers, and that Bush would appear at a disadvantage in a debate which is why a lower number of viewers would benefit him.
I just realized that I duplicated exactly what the original poster was asking. Sorry!
I don’t think that this will be enough of an issue to seriously influence many Bush or Gore supporters to change their minds about their chosen candidate.
This myth of “Dubya” being an idiot is sort of getting annoying. Didn’t they both go to the same school and id not GWB actually do better from an accademic standpoint. Not like either of them could ever get laid in college, or ever smoke MJ, or whatever.
Now Celebrity Death Match, that sounds fun. Who would win? Gore is always talking about how he lifts weights, but is it just me, or does this whole “Alpha Male” attempt contradict the personality of a flaming-heart liberal?
This is what I don’t understand. How does the debate structure favour his style? Again, the only difference I’ve heard is that with Bush’s debate “structure” there would be less viewers.
Dubya actually made an astute move in agreeing to do the LK and TR formats IMHO. Keep in mind that Gore origionally said he would love to do a debate in both arenas. Thus this gives Dubya the ability to point out another “waffle” by Gore apparently appearing to refuse formats that “favor” Bush.
Frankly, at this point, I veiw the “presidential debate format” as being relatively mindless. I would perpher that the questions are asked by a two person panel [one from the left/one from the right] that forces each to actually answer a question directly and not take a little sidestep (that seems to occur with great regularity).
