Arnold: The originally proposed debates would take place on a TV set nestled within an audience of several thousand. Bush’s choice is to do away with the audience. Also, one debate would require candidates to speak behind a rostrum. Bush is apparently more comfortable sitting.
I think some Gore detractors are missing a point. Gore appears ready to accept debating on Meet the Press and schmoozing with Larry King; he just wants Bush to agree to the debates scheduled by the (non-partisan) Commission on Presidential Debates.
For a take on how Bush’s actions are affecting one discarded debate site, see this Reuters story.
There is some missing of a major point here. Gore did not agree to a Bush proposal for a debate because Bush has not proposed a debate. Instead, he suggested that he and Gore appear together on a talk show. That is not a moderated debate; it’s a jabbering head show.
A debate is the traditional format, with moderators, questions, the usual. There is a reason that the other networks declined to carry the “Larry King” appearance idea: why promote another networks’ talk show? Let 'em debate, then they’ll show it.
This is what I don’t understand? How has Gore “arranged” a debating itinerary that was prescribed by a bipartisan commission, and that’s been the normal debating format for the last several presidential elections? Help me out, divemaster.
I don’t mean “arranged” in the sense that Gore came up the idea all by himself. I mean arranged in the political strategy sense. There’s no law that says any particular debate format must be followed. Bush obviously feels it is in his best interest to accept one of the typical debates, and branch out to other fora. One can hardly fault a politician for looking out for his best interests.
Gore would have more of a point if he wasn’t the one who agreed to debate in any and all other formats in the first place. When Bush called him on it, now Gore decides to squawk?
One factor being left out of all this analysis is that Bush is not being hurt by the lowered expectations of him in these debates. If he can merely break even with Gore, it will be construed as a huge victory.
Good grief; ideologue much? That’s even more disturbing, Izzy–I thought you conservative-types liked to accuse the liberals of thinking that the end justified the means.
So if Gore wins, would you support a coup attempt? (Not necessarily a facetious question–it was tried during the Roosevelt administration)
Right, because it doesn’t matter how much our new president can understand and articulate his policy goals in the face of inquiry. O-kay.
It’s only disturbing if you believe the ability to quickly recite/quote numbers, statistics, and sharp retorts are the only signs of a good leader. Frankly, I would rather have someone who maybe ponderes thoughtfully, seeks qualified outside guidance, crosses polictical and cultural differences to gain concensus, and once upon deciding his position on an issue doesn’t change at the slightest shift of public opinion. These are the characteristics I like about Bush (my vision of a strong leader). I am not at all sure that the debates will allow this to be shown to the American public given that Gore is considered to be a strong debater.
My perception of Gore is that he will use whatever the polls say his position should be and then “reinvents” himself to say whatever the majority seems to want to hear AT THAT TIME. IMHO this indicates that Gore is a perfect follower (of the masses) rather than a leader. I would prefer to vote for someone who even though I disagree with them on some issues, will not suddenly change their position on the public whim.
I don’t fault a politician for looking out for his best interests. But I am interested in trying to understand the motive that determines what the politician thinks his best interests are.
If someone told me “Politician A thinks it’s in her best interest not to participate in debates, but go to talk shows instead”, I would, as a voter, ask my self “Why does the politician not want to debate? Is it because a close examination of her ideas would reveal flaws, or points that would be unpopular with the public? Is it because the candidate does not have a firm grasp of the issues? Is it because the candidate has a physical disability that prevents her from standing for more than an hour behind a rostrum?” etc…
Hey, Iz? That’s supposed to follow from the thing I quoted right above it:
“Not to me it isn’t. Anything that helps out my man Bush.”
Ends: helping out your man Bush. Means: anything, apparently. Implication: relatively obvious.
Natural follow-up question: If Bush fails to gain office through traditional democratic means, would you favor an alternative method such as a coup? What if the election were really, really close? What if Bush won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college? Hey, remember: “Anything that helps out my man Bush.”
Honestly, it’s thinking like that which makes me understand the Liberal Media thread a hell of a lot better.
Is it really so obvious? Honestly, it’s difficult to reconcile the image of the man who posted an intelligent analysis of Supreme Court nominees with this sort of silliness.
Fine, Izzy–what did you mean by “Anything that helps out my man Bush?” Explain, please.
What I hear you saying is that if the traditional format of debates will make Bush look bad, then he shouldn’t participate in the traditional debates. If a debating tie will be perceived as a substantial Bush win, it doesn’t matter what that says about Bush’s relative ability to govern or about the state of the media; all that matters is that it’s helping Bush to win. How am I misrepresenting your views, and how does that not equate to the means justifying the end?
Thank you, by the way, for the compliment. I worked a long time on that post. Too bad astorian hasn’t seen fit to comment on it, considering that it contradicted much of what he said in his original post. Oh, well.
I was commenting on the foolishness inherent in having a draw be perceived as a Bush win. You found that disturbing. I don’t. Suppose masses of people would suddenly become convinced that electing Bush would make their houseplants grow better, and that this overriding concern would give him a big push in the polls. I would welcome this silliness too. I would rather have the guy win on his merits, but I’ll take a foolish win over an intelligent loss.
This has nothing to do with what actions I would advocate to insure a Bush win.
Too bad astorian hasn’t seen fit to comment on it, considering that it contradicted much of what he said in his original post. Oh, well.