A) What Reuben said.
B) I expect him to follow the Schwarzenegger (sp?) model for debate. ie… Dont do it unless questions are provided, and only speak in soundbites and generalities (with extra patriotic flair).
This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen in this forum, and that’s saying a lot. Close runner ups are all the other folks who predict that Bush will do this or that to avoid or slant the debates. There are established protocols, people, and it’s pretty damn sad that your vitriol leads you to stick your head in your ass like this. As someone noted in a parallel thread, this is precisely the attitude that loses elections.
Presidential debate protocols have always been whatever the two campaigns agree to. The organization you linked to is how they’re implemented, not the true rulemaker.
Now dump the vitriol. You do claim to dislike it.
I’ve seen Gore speak in other venues in which he was very personable. He can be witty, compelling and even humorous. I think that he just listened too much to the wrong people about how he should comport himself during the debates. It gave him a bad image.
If Bush “won,” it was by dint of affibility alone.
-
If the Democratic nominee is dumb enough to let GWB dictate the rules of the debate as suggested in this thread, than that Democratic nominee deserves to lose.
-
Where did I claim to dislike this far-left vitriol? As I said, it’s just this kind of attitude that loses elections–for Democrats.
OK, you hate vitriol and are deeply, deeply concerned about the well-being and future of the Democratic party.
Splendid. If this next election be lost due to “attitude” after four years of mendacity, buffonery, and a foreign policy more suitable for a demolition derby, then we are a doomed people.
Worse, we will deserve it.
IOW: “Sure, I’ll promise to say, in one year, that I’ll reduce troops.” Heh. He could have at least made a joke of it. Still, it was an improperly phrased question.
Funny thing for someone who makes a few mistakes himself now and again to appeal to in order to ignore the question entirely.
Mr. Reilly, since it seems not to have been clear, the vitriol I was referring to is your own. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. Thank you.
Pity, contempt, and sadness (at what the party of FDR and JFK has come to) is not the same as vitriol.
What kind of attention do you require from me? A dictionary for Christmas?
That’s what “stick your head in your ass like this” means in your dictionary? Take it to the Pit, child.
I think the real question is whether the media will give him the same sort of extreme light-touch treatment they did last election. My guess is that they will, and anything even approaching an equal level of scrutiny will be denounced by the right wing as bias.
Ironically, this is an idea you and that poster are parroting from… wait for it, the very same sort of nasty political screed that’s said to “lose elections.” The fact is, there is no “vitriol gap,” and indeed, the right wing complainers are much louder (in terms of audience time and devotion and number of outlets), nastier, and more openly partisan than anything the Democrats have on their side. If this sort of thing is what loses elections… then why has it worked so well for the right? Why did Bush pick Rove, probably the nastiest political gun available, to run his campaign? The fact is, nasty has worked great for the Republicans. The only difference is that they’re better at it.
Indeed, Apos.
I think Bush’s Democratic opponents ‘misunderestimate’ the man at their own peril. Seriously. He’s not a great public speaker, by any means, but he does come off as honest and intelligent in debates.
Frankly, I think all this ‘Bush is dumb’ hysteria does nothing except to lower expectations for his performance…so that when he gets through an entire debate without a major gaffe, the media breathlessly report, “Wow! Bush was GREAT!” Ask Al Gore how “terrible” Bush does in one-on-one debates. Gore, with his reputation for being intelligent, quick-witted and articulate, was absolutely awful. Bush, with no pretensions, answered questions honestly and directly. I hardly think Bush won “by default,” either: his strategy clearly won, as Gore’s own advisors admitted to the Washington Post about two months after the debates. Gore appeared clueless and scared, Bush stuck to his guns.