How will Presidnet Bush deal with having to face very tough questions presented to him next year during the debates? I don’t think there will be anyway to avoid the questions or use the Saddam was a bad man line. So what will he do when confronted with point blank questions with follow-ups?
IMO, this is definitely counting the chickens before they hatch. How do you know he will agree to any debates in which he might be asked such questions? How do we know his opponent will have the spine to ask them if the press won’t?
I’m sorry Hydro whatever the hell, but that is a trick question and I refuse to answer.
Next ?
[sub]
Link
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your National Security Advisor, in charge of the management of the administration’s Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she’s been in charge? And the second question, can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?
The President: The second question is a trick question, so I won’t answer it. [/sub]
London_Calling: And the second question, can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?
President Bush: Yes. A year from now I will promise that I have reduced the number of troups in Iraq. Next…
Did he participate in debates in the past election ?
He will only participate if he is falling behind… otherwise he will stay away from debates.
Gonna explain that, Milum? LC was giving a direct quote from his last “press conference” - what point were you making?
Lying works better than dodging. That’s Milum’s point.
How will he handle them? His advisors will prepare him for every tough question. They will work long into the night, day in, day out, for weeks coming up with satisfactory answers to all these questions, or sophisticated ways to deflect the questions or give a non-answer.
There will be mock debates to practice in. By the time the debate comes, Bush will have pat answers to all of the likely difficult questions.
Pretty much the way every other politician handles tough questions in debates.
Sentence order. If a reporter asks the President of the United States of America an ungrammitical question as a million people listen and watch on national television, she is rude.
And rightly, the President should not answer her “trick” question.
What did you want Bush to do…call her stupid?
I don’t think you guys are getting it.
He’s a good debater. Sure he, comes off clumsy sometimes but when he’s prepared he does a good job.
I personally thought the way he bitch-slapped Gore in the debates changed the course of the election last time. And it wasn’t even GWB who did anything. With Gore going from soft to mean to in-between in the three debates he undercut his perception in the public.
Meanwhile Bush just answered the questions as he’d been briefed and came off as prepared, in control of himself, and consistent.
That’s a huge accomplishment for a man who wasn’t used to political debates.
Best guess is he does all right with his prepared answers.
But there is NO WAY he’ll dodge debates. That’s too big an issue to give his opponent in what I think will be a close race. He might negotiate the structure of the debates but there will be debates.
I personally hope Wes Clark accepts the nominees VP slot so I can watch Clark and Cheney go at it. That’s a popcorn and beer night if ever there was one.
I had exactly the opposite opinion of Bush’s performance during the debates. I think he “won” by default. The debates were like watching a man with no arms fight a man who has both hands tied behind his back.
Gore did an astonishingly poor job. I’ve seen the man speak. He’s intelligent, articulate, and quick on his feet. If he’d let loose, he could have wiped the floor with his opponant, but for some reason, he held back, much to his own detriment. Gore’s handlers cost him the election, in my opinion.
Well, I think that’s what I meant. GWB stuck with his game and let Gore lose it for himself.
If that’s not a ‘good’ debate style I don’t know what is.
No, what it means (to me, anyway) is that against someone who’s on his game, Bush won’t hold his own.
Bush is a skilled bullshit artist, but I’ve seen no proof that he’s a “good debater.” And yes, there is a difference.
I’m looking forward to the Bush/Sharpton debate next year.
I wish Dennis Miller were running…can you imagine the Franken/Miller debates? lol, I’d pay good money to see THAT!
-XT
“Hello, Kettle. I’m Pot. You’re black.”
Milum, gonna explain why you think a straight question about troop strength is a “trick”?
I would be slightly surprised if Bush participates in a debate where he doesn’t get to see the questions ahead of time.
Bush ain’t no great debater. But, the consensus among the nonpartisan commentators I saw was that he (narrowly) won the dabate against Gore. But Gore is a bore, and a pompous one at that. I suspect he’d have a tough time against Dean or Kerry, although the latter guy will have to be careful about sounding too condescending. Lieberman has that droning monotone that is a bit irriatating, but he does seem pretty relaxed and knowledgeable. I haven’t seen much of how the other folks handle themselves on their feet.
My WAG: I think he’ll simply ignore questions he doesn’t want to answer by waffling about 9/11 for a couple of minutes, safe in the certain knowledge that no-one’d ever be un-American enough to disagree with the Prez on anything even tangentially associated with that topic.