Gotcha, Izzy; sorry for the confusion.
Arnold, there are many people, myself included, that finds the debate format of the Commission to be…well…boring is a good phrase. What GW has done is really provide a true picture of each candidate to be made visible to the public.
First, he said he would do 1 of the PC debates. That ought to satisfy the policy wonks and those who like the pure debate format. Second, Larry King would be more humanizing in that his format runs along the more emotional lines. Why would you want to do that? Why do you FEEL that way? Third, Tim Russert should be somewhat harder hitting thus forcing the candidates to dig deeper to explain their polices.
Thus we (the American public) would have three different opportunities to view the candidates in different settings and with questions coming from differing points of perspective. ALSO, Gore was the one who first suggested meeting on these formats and already agreed to do them. Why is Gore waffling now??? Is he afraid? I would think out of these three formats 1 would favor Gore, 1 would favor Bush, and 1 would be relatively neutral. What could be more fair? Gore is showing the conteniousness attitude that will continue to provide gridlock during the next administration if unfortunately he is elected IMHO.
BTW, the last time that major candidates appeared on LK the viewing audience was 11 times higher than usual. If people are interested they WILL watch. And, if anything outstanding happens, I assure you the major networks will run the highlights regardless of their reluctance to show it live.
Highlights are NOT the whole story. Do we need this world run even more on soundbites? Has someone decided that this world has tooo much substance? Honestly, people, this is the PRESIDENT, not Tom Cruise. Larry King Live is not the place! Foreign leaders do not meet on Larry King Live, they meet in situations where good debateing skills are very very necessary.
Bush is weasling out. He’s running scared.
even sven
The debating skills you are referring to are NEVER used in international negoitations. They are much more delicate and carefully placed on the table amidst much posturing and above all carefully finding the the points of agreement and building from there. Gore’s style is “divide and conquor.” And, he does NOT have the personal charisma that Clinton has exhibited to rebuild the bridges after his tongue has done its work.
Why not? Does information have to eminate out of ivy-covered walls before it is deemed good information? It appears to me that Prince Albert laid the rug out and now that GW is standing on it, he wants to pull it away! Please be aware that there is NO long standing precident for the PC debates. The candidates are free to choose the time, place, and venue IF they agree. Isn’t it ironic that GW agreed to meet Gore in venues that Gore himself selected and is now weaseling out? I’m sorry, but your point is invalid IMHO.
Phil - regardless of the fact that Larry King’s viewership may well rise if a debate is aired on his show, the estimates I’ve read in several news sources claimed that several million people less would view the debates if the schedule proposed by George Bush Jr. were accepted vs. the schedule proposed by Al Gore.
I’m not so sure that I agree with the statement that “Al Gore is weaseling out.” My impression was that Al Gore had said he would debate George Bush “anywhere, anytime” as long as George Bush participated in the three October meetings organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Today’s Los Angeles Times (I won’t link to the article because LA Times links don’t work after a few days) says “Although Gore had regularly stipulated that additional debates hinged on the three commission sessions, the ad cites two occasions when Gore assented to debates on the two programs. In neither case did he mention the stipulation.” They are referring to George Bush’s latest “attack ad” (what happened to the promise of positive campaigning?) that focus on the debate issue. It looks like Gore slipped up on a couple of occasions and forgot to mention his primary requirement, but I don’t know that those two occasions are sufficient reason to charge him with lying.
I personally think that we already have too much “dumbing down” in society as it is. If George Bush wants to have a cozy chat session with a talk show host he can appear on Letterman (or Larry King), but you can’t really call it a “debate”. Though some might sneer (or be bored) at the formality of a traditional debate, more valuable information will be gathered (IMO) than with the appearances suggested by Mr. Bush.
Hey I’m still waiting for them to SMACKDOWN! their opinions. :rolleyes: At least Jesse Ventura is asking that third party canidates be invited, it only makes sense and all since they are having him moderate.
Debates have nothing to do with running a country but they have alot to do with whoever is the better debater.
Arnold, I am unaware that Gore had earlier stipulations. If this were so, where are the sound bites? Where is the documented proof? I would assume if there were any, Gore would be splashing the airwaves right now. Gore had made a big deal out of distancing himself from the follies and lying of President Clinton. That he is his own man. I am curious who that man really is, because MY perception is that of a Clinton clone who will say anything, do anything to maintain the center of power. I favor including the less formal format for my earlier reason: it will give a more rounded veiw to the american public of who these men are, not who is simply the best debator. Bush was merely defending himself against the attacks of the Gore camp. I’ll grant it was an attack…a counterattack. Even Clinton choose only two of the debates the last election. Was he treated like Bush has been on this? Where the hell is your sense of fair play? By this time the debate issue may be moot anyway since I understand there is negoiations underway between the two camps.
As a previous post points out, Gore offers a long list of options for debates, and says ‘Any time, any place, any format’. Then Bush takes him up on his offer, picks two informal settings (and one formal one, just as suggested). Now Gore is trying to get out of it.
How is this not weaselling? Gore says one thing, and then does another as soon as he perceives as not being to his political advantage to follow up on his commitments.
It is not like we haven’t seen this sort of thing almost non-stop for the last eight years. I seem to remember a political associate of Gore’s promising to co-operate fully with an investigation shortly before lying under oath. You think this is different?
Does Nader have a website?
IMHO the purpose of debates is to display depth of knowledge with an issue. I am voting Democrat because I believe Gore has a full grasp of the issues in depth. When the Bushlet gets outgunned, he just throws around words like “compassion” and “character” and other basically meaningless words. Gore is a political intellectual. He understands our place in the world, and he understands how this country needs to be run.
I live in Texas, and being a medical student, have seen the health care system inside out. We have 19-22% uninsured in this country, the highest in the nation. Two weeks ago, a judge ruled in a class-action lawsuit that the Medicaid system is woefully inadequate. Here is a CNN article.
How did the Bushlet respond?
“We’ve got a good record signing kids up for Medicaid. We intend to continue to do so,” Bush said, adding, “We’re a compassionate state.”
It’s not even a rebuttal! It’s not even a defense of the system that he is supposedly running! It is like he has no grasp of the issue, and is just spouting off his standard answer to everything!
This is why I want to see 3 bipartisan commision sponsored debates. Gore spouts off this polician-ese from time to time as well, but at least he seems to know what is going on in the world. The Bushlet more often seems to be completely oblivious to the issues, and totally unconcerned at times. I want to see if this is actually true, and I think that 3 hours of in-depth discussion of the issues is the best way to do it.
The sentence of 19-22% uninsured in this country should read county, being Harris County. Sorry.
If Bush wants to be really informal, yet have a large captive audience, he should accept the offer from WWF to appear on Smackdown, and answer Jesse Ventura’s questions. How can Gore get around that?
Also in Bush’s corner if he were to go on Smackdown, is that he could be sure to reach millions of people that he has a “fairly” good chance of being smarter than. And if he screws up, its not like any wrestling fans vote…
Lets see…
Meet the Press Sunday Mornings Relatively early. Low number of viewers.
Larry King Live Late evening. Cable only. News only network. Lower number of viewers.
Formal Debate Prime Time. All Big 3 networks, plus PBS, CNN, MSNBC, radio, etc… HUGE numbers of potential viewers.
Seems to me that GW is afraid to put his message in front of large numbers of people without a tightly scripted appearance. (Talk show hosts are almost always given lists of topics not to ask their guests about. Some, like Letterman, will ignore these lists, mosts don’t.)
Anyone else ever go to the Presidential Selction quiz at SelectSmart.com? It asks about 15 questions on major issues, and you rank your beliefs on a sliding scale (1-5, Agree or Disagree, for example). During the Primaries, BRADLEY was the winner, based on people that came to do the quiz. Followed by McReynolds. GW came in next to last. (Gore about 6th, I think.) Mind you, this is if people actually took the time to analize all the candidates, and compare their stated views with yours, and voting accordingly. Kind of Utopian.
Phil_15: Arnold, I am unaware that Gore had earlier stipulations. If this were so, where are the sound bites? Where is the documented proof? I would assume if there were any, Gore would be splashing the airwaves right now.
All I know is what I read in the Los Angeles Times (and actually in a couple of other articles.) I figure Gore doesn’t need to be splashing the airwaves because polls show him ahead right now and typically politicians that are ahead try to appear “statesmanlike” by avoiding to kick the guy that’s down. As Bush was doing when he was on top. In any case, I can’t speak for the Gore campaign.
Phil_15: I favor including the less formal format for my earlier reason: it will give a more rounded veiw to the american public of who these men are, not who is simply the best debator.
I personally disagree with that point of view. I think most of the campaigning is in the less formal format - candidates speaking to groups of supporters and pressing the flesh at fund-raising dinners. There is enough of that already.
Phil_15: Even Clinton choose only two of the debates the last election. Was he treated like Bush has been on this? Where the hell is your sense of fair play?
I’ve heard this argument before. Does this mean that everytime I say something about a candidate (either positive or negative) I’m supposed to mention everyone else that behaved in a similar fashion? If you want to discuss the problems with Bill Clinton’s previous presidential campaign, go ahead and start a thread on that subject. And also I’ll remind you that everytime you say something good about George Bush you are obligated by your own moral code to say something good about Al Gore, and every time you criticize Al Gore you have to throw in a criticism about George Bush. :rolleyes:
rs0522: Gore offers a long list of options for debates, and says ‘Any time, any place, any format’. Then Bush takes him up on his offer, picks two informal settings (and one formal one, just as suggested). Now Gore is trying to get out of it. How is this not weaselling?
As I mentioned in my post above, I have read in the Los Angeles Times that Al Gore’s offer was contingent on George Bush accepting the three debates organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Asmodean: Debates have nothing to do with running a country but they have alot to do with whoever is the better debater.
As I alluded to a few paragraphs above, I think debates are just as valid (if not more valid) a way of evaluating a candidate as the constant speeches to supporters, and photo opportunities of a candidate riding a tractor with a straw hat, that are usually shown on the evening news. See also edwino’s post that addresses the issue.
Determinist: Does Nader have a website?
Green Party USA
Ralph Nader for President
For oldscratch and the others who suggested “smackdown”: I’m not so sure about the Smackdown “debates”. I think I would prefer to have the candidates go to the nitty-gritty, and have a judeo-roman wrestling contest. Who would win then? I have to admit that I think my candidate (Nader) would probably do poorly in such a forum. 
After reading about and distilling the issue down as far as I can, I have to conclude that they are both trying to weasel.
Gore may have had some stipulations when negotiating with the Bush campaign, but he didn’t mention them in his sound bites. When speaking to the press and the people, “Anytime, anywhere,” was his message. It doesn’t matter what was said in negotiations, he promised us, the public, that he would debate him without conditions.
Bush, on the other hand, knows he is outclassed in the debating arena. He fervently wishes to avoid answering tough questions with non-answers, something I have seen too often from him. A nice, cozy interview with a host, rather than hardball questions from real journalists, together with a smaller audience, would do his campaign the least harm, and he’s going to try and keep it that way. His campaign seems to have focussed more energy on his character and charm than on issues, and he will try to keep it that way. Besides, you never can tell, maybe that asshole from the NYTimes would be submitting questions in a real debate. 
Do all these Gore partisans here seriously claim that there is no such thing as debating skills separate from the merits of the issues? I find this hard to believe. And if not, than Bush’s purported attempts to avoid debates are irrelevent.
lawoot:
It’s going to be a “special, prime time edition!” of Meet the Press. But yes, you’re right that they are going to have much fewer viewers watching.
One problem I have with the CPD is that they are bipartisan instead of non-partisan. If they were non-partisan we’d have Nader in there too.
IzzyR, you seem to be assuming here that a person’s skill at debating has no possible relevance to the tasks they should perform as president. Which in my mind is by no means something that can be accepted as fact.
- Skill at debating can be viewed as a possible indicator of intelligence.
- Doesn’t the president sometimes host peace talks amongst opposing world leaders? I seem to remember leaders of Arabic countries and Israel being invited to Camp David for peace talks. Wouldn’t debating skills be useful in that situation?
- A person that can debate an issue well shows that they have a good knowledge of the facts underlying that issue. And I would assert that knowing the facts behind some of the issues on which our president will be making decisions is a good thing.
Or, to ask another question - Amongst the current campaigning activities that candidates engage in, which do you think are a better method than the debates, to help people decide which candidate is the best choice?