And after after watching you post for 4 years, it is apparent that in your judgement, anyone who is not slavishly pro-Bush is therefore anti-Bush. Any appearance of balanced coverage is therefore too liberal to be considered. I offer this belief without proof. Take it or leave it
Update: I can’t find a cite on the Web, but I just heard on the radio that the Bush campaign is threatening to skip the second presidential debate, scheduled for October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Their problem is with the proposed format: It is to be a “town meeting”-style debate where undecided voters will be allowed to pose questions directly to the candidates. The Bush team says it’s afraid Kerry supporters will pose as undecideds and ask Bush loaded questions. Jeez, is that wimpy or what?! If I were Kerry, I would immediately announce: I’ll be at Washington U. on October 8 and I will answer questions of anybody in the audience, even an avowed Bush supporter; if the president doesn’t show up, that’s his decision – and I’ll have all that free air-time to myself.
OK, I found a cite – from yesterday’s (9/08/04) Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html):
:mad: Wimp. I repeat: If I were Kerry I would dig in my heels and say, "I’ll be at Washington U. on October 8 and if Bush doesn’t show up he’s a girly-man."
If Bush won’t show up they should allow Nader and Badnarik to come instead. 
I think this is a serious mistake on Bush’s part (IF he actually doesn’t go…its still a question at this point, not a sure thing).
-XT
The first debate’s coming up this Thursday at 9:00! Last chance to get your pre-debate licks in!
I’ve noticed that both sides are playing the ‘your candidate is SUCH a great debater…I just hope mine is up to snuff’ game. Its actually kind of amusing to see Bush people going on and on about how strong a debater Kerry is, how he’s focused his whole life on debating, etc…and to see Kerry’s people saying what a strong debater Bush is, blah blah blah. I guess both sides are trying to lower expectations.
BTW, I’m glad Bush et al decided to do the 3rd debate. I can’t wait until thursday night to see how it goes. Is anyone going to be watching The Factor this week to seek O’Reilly interview Bush? It will be Mon-Wed…might be worth catching. I’m going to try depending on my work schedule…I might have to fly to a certain embattled middle eastern country this week if we win a contract for IT support.
-XT
No, they’re trying to raise expectations – of the other side!
What, you mean the second scheduled debate? The October 8 debate at Washington University in St. Louis, with the “town hall” format? Bush has come around on that? I hadn’t heard. Yes, I’m looking forward to it too!
! Be careful!
Well, yes…same thing really. Its still amusing.
Yes…my understanding is its a done deal. 3 debates, the second being for ‘undecided’ in the town hall format. Should be great.
My wife is freaking out a bit, but if you look at it from a probability perspective I should be safe enough. Not like I’ll be going where the fighting is after all…and thats only IF the government gets off its ass and signs the contract. But thanks for the thought.
-XT
Prediction: If George W. Bush manages to get through the debates without soiling his trousers or drooling on himself, the toothless conservative media will declare him to be the “winner,” probably on some trumped-up claims that he “held his own” against John Kerry.
I’m in Japan for the month. I don’t want to miss the debates and am hoping they are available on TV here. But if they aren’t, will I be able to see them somewhere on the Internet? Thanks.
I’m hearing that these debates are “scripted.” Is this true? And if so, just how scripted are they going to be? Will the candidates know the questions in advance?
'Cause I’m thinking Kerry could have gotten some mileage by holding out, very publicly, for unscripted debates.
They’re “scripted” in the sense that the candidates know what the topics are and what questions are likely to be asked, and have prepared answers ready - whether or not they match up with the actual questions. Bush can handle that much, in a formalized setting - but the “town meeting” approach will be a problem for him as it would be for anyone with little skill at extemporaneous speaking. Remember all his “endearing” stumbles against Gore that way? No wonder he doesn’t want to repeat it, but doesn’t dare duck it either.
A pro-Kerry bias, someone said? Once again, the Daily Show nails it:
Regarding the town hall style debate, the last I heard was that those asking questions would have to submit their questions in advance to the moderators/ people in charge. Any deviation from the submitted question and the questioner gets cut off by the moderator. Can’t remember where i read it though. 
Now as I recall, Gore shot himself in the foot in the 2000 debates. Debate the first featured him sighing every time Bush said anything and the term “lock box” repeated endlessly. It was pretty much down hill from there. Also he tried to have a personality, which was a bad idea. Seemed as forced as his tongue down Tippers throat. It made things really easy for Bush.
This year, all Kerry should have to do is stick to the issues and avoid trying to outplay Bush. Let him use the buzz words and play the personality. Just stick to getting the Kerry platform out and play a little defense regarding his voting record. That will help him shake the “one note candidate” image and make Bush the bigger target for late night mockery.
I will say that I would like to see Kerry pounce on any Bush mispronunciations. Maybe just correct him every now and again. It could throw Bush of his rythym. It’ll never happen though 
As with all presidential debates, the challenger has the advantage. People already know Bush. They’ve already made up their minds how they feel about him. On the other hand, many undecideds haven’t been paying close attention to the race and are still trying to figure out whether they can trust Kerry with the office.
All Kerry really has to do to “win” is to look Presidential (i.e. exude confidence) and not make any egregious errors. If he can do this, he should get a post-debate bounce, IMO.
Knowing how everyone on this board LOVES Fox, I figured I’d include their take on the debates. Link (actually, its an AP story, I’m just pulling everyones chain here :))
BTW, we didn’t win the contract (at least not at this time) so I guess you guys won’t be getting rid of me yet. 
-XT
Couple of more links …and another .
I just thought of something…doesn’t the taller candidate always win in presidential elections? Kerry is like 6’4"…and I think Bush is like 5’10 or something. I noticed in the Time article linked above that Bush’s people have gone out of their way to make sure the two candidates don’t stand close together…but I wonder if it will be enough.
-XT
I dunno, it hasn’t been working for him so far!
In the 1988 debates, Dukakis stood on a stool or something to raise his height to equal that of Bush I. Of course, at the end he was obliged to step down and meet Bush in the middle for the handshake . . . cartoonists and SNL had a lot of fun with that. I think Bush II will look more mature and confident if he doesn’t try to do anything at all about the height difference.
I’ll add that the very wide spread feeling that Kerry will do this:
gives him a sort of widspread “underestimation” that worked so much to Bush’s advantage in 2000. If Kerry can manage to be just somewhat clear and succinct, I think it will allow him to show that one of the major negative preceptions of him is inaccurate in the same way that Bush being able to string togeather semi-coherrant sentences in 2000 was able to disprove the public preception that he was an imbecile.
Also, I found that 2000 SNL bit with Gore and the “lockbox!!” pretty funny too. In light of our nations current fiscal situation though, I kinda wished the nation had spent less time treating it as an amusing snafu and more time considering it as a pretty good idea.
I think Kerry should get some groovy 1970s platform shoes to maximize the height difference. Maybe even puff up his hair a little.
If I’m Kerry, I somehow work this in:
Mr. Bush, when you asked the Congress to grant you authority to use force against Iraq, we understood that you needed this as leverage in negotiations with that country. You yourself said at the time that this was a vote for peace. Now you say that in supporting you, I was voting for the war. And you dare call me a flip-flopper?
and this…
Mr. Bush, after 9/11 you resisted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, later you embraced it. Then you resisted the creation of the 9/11 investigation committee, then you embraced it. Then you rejected their findings, then you embraced them. And you dare call me a flip-flopper?