[BlackGriffen]

Linky:

ANOKA, Minn. Aug. 26, 2004 — John Kerry challenged President Bush on Thursday to weekly debates from now until Nov. 2 on campaign issues like education, health care and national security.

"America deserves a discussion like we're having here today, which I'm prepared to have with this president every single week from now until the election," the Democratic presidential candidate said.

Kerry issued the challenge while speaking about health care at Anoka Hennepin Technical College, fielding questions from a group of more than 200 people, some of them self-described undecided voters
[...]
The Bush-Cheney campaign rebuffed the debate challenge.

"There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself," responded Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt.

"This election presents a clear choice to the American people between a president who is moving America forward and a senator who has taken every side of almost every issue," he said.
[...]
Kerry also defended himself from Republican charges that he wavers in his convictions on major issues.

"It's standard Republican playbook," Kerry said in response to a voter's question. "They just say it, and if you spend enough money and say it enough, people like you are going to ask the question."

Kerry said Bush has been the one flip-flopping over the last four years standing against the Homeland Security Department, then embracing it; fighting against the Sept. 11 commission, then endorsing it; promising to fund his new education law, then failing to.
[...]

I don't see a good reason for not holding more debates than 3. Hell, more debates than three sounds like a good opportunity to inform the electorate about the differences between the candidates, from their own mouths.

I remember the Bush campaign rejecting a similar offer from Gore? What is that intellectual titan of a man who is Bush afraid of?

The few debates we do have will certainly be interesting. Perhaps debates with DeLay (Republican house leader) and some other Democrat (Obama would be nice, but Pelosi would do) would be nice, too.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

I don't think this is as good of an Idea as Kerry thinks it is. The less people know what he is REALLY for, the better for Kerry.

[vmpaul]

FYI: Here's the schedule as it stands now - http://www.debates.org/

[soul searching]

That'd be way too many. People would be bored by election day. But, more than three is definitely a good thing.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Linky:

.... Perhaps debates with DeLay (Republican house leader) and some other Democrat (Obama would be nice, but Pelosi would do) would be nice, too.

BlackGriffen

I'd like to see Sharpton versus anyone

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't think this is as good of an Idea as Kerry thinks it is. The less people know what he is REALLY for, the better for Kerry.

So why doesn't the Bush camp want to do this? If, as you say, Kerry would lose votes by doing this?

And are there only 3 debates!??

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why doesn't the Bush camp want to do this? If, as you say, Kerry would lose votes by doing this?

And are there only 3 debates!??

Yep:

First presidential debate:
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Thursday, September 30



Vice presidential debate:
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Tuesday, October 5



Second presidential debate:
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Friday, October 8



Third presidential debate:
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Wednesday, October 13

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why doesn't the Bush camp want to do this? If, as you say, Kerry would lose votes by doing this?

And are there only 3 debates!??

They speak about AFTER the convention. Kerry is purposely trying to "over-show" the convention with this stunt.

"There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself," responded Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt.

And I agree.

[vmpaul]

The format:

Format


The format for the debates, as announced on June 17, 2004, shall be as follows:


Each debate shall have a single moderator and last for 90 minutes.

In the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate the candidates shall be seated with the moderator at a table.

The first presidential debate shall focus primarily on domestic policy and the third presidential debate shall focus primarily on foreign policy. The second presidential debate shall be held as a town meeting in which citizens will pose questions to the candidates.

The vice presidential debate shall cover both foreign and domestic policy topics.

There shall be no opening statements; there shall be two-minute closing statements.

The order of questioning and closing statements shall be determined by coin toss.

The moderator's job in the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate will be to introduce and change topics, to ensure that the participants have equal time, and to encourage some direct exchange among the candidates. The moderators will select all topics and questions.

In the second presidential debate, the town meeting participants will pose their questions to the candidates. The town meeting participants will review their questions with the moderator before the debate for the sole purpose of avoiding duplicate questions. The participants in the town meeting, to be chosen by the Gallup Organization, will be undecided voters from the St. Louis, Missouri, standard metropolitan statistical area.

The moderators will have discretion to ask follow-up questions in all debates.

Each debate shall take place before a live audience.

[zigzag]

We're probably lucky to have any debates at all - except for Nixon-Kennedy, there weren't any before 1976 - but it seems to have become expected, which is probably good. I've never heard anything of substance from them but they're an opportunity to see how the candidates handle themselves. Kerry is said to be a good closer and it'll be interesting to see if he gains any ground.

[soul searching]

Originally posted by zigzag:
... Kerry is said to be a good closer and it'll be interesting to see if he gains any ground.

When Kerry was on The Daily Show the other day he said that Bush is an excellent debator and that "he's [Bush] won every debate he's had." I missed the Bush versus Gore debates back in 2000, but given that Bush won, Kerry might be right.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
We're probably lucky to have any debates at all - except for Nixon-Kennedy, there weren't any before 1976 - but it seems to have become expected, which is probably good. I've never heard anything of substance from them but they're an opportunity to see how the candidates handle themselves. Kerry is said to be a good closer and it'll be interesting to see if he gains any ground.

I watched the Democratic primary debates, and the only thing I'm concerned about is Kerry's habit of talking over time allotted.

Unless Bush finds a way to take advantage of that, Kerry will rip him to shreds.

BG

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I've never heard anything of substance from them but they're an opportunity to see how the candidates handle themselves. Kerry is said to be a good closer and it'll be interesting to see if he gains any ground.

We've had some classic political moments in the debates. These lines are classic.

"Who am I? Why am I here?"

"There you go again."

"I knew Jack Kennedy, I worked with Jack Kennedy. You're no Jack Kennedy."(something like that)

I think this time Bush isn't going to get away with having low expectations. He held his own against Gore only because people didn't expect much out of him. He has some 'splaining to do this time.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I watched the Democratic primary debates, and the only thing I'm concerned about is Kerry's habit of talking over time allotted.

Unless Bush finds a way to take advantage of that, Kerry will rip him to shreds.

BG

I have seen Kerry talk, he's a good - no very good - speaker. I've not seen Kerry debate but if the speeches he makes is anything to go by, he'll do very well. He doesn't shine of charisma like Clinton and Reagan, but like them he has 110% confidence in himself. That works incredibly well in debates and speeches. I hope I'll have a chance to see the presidential debates.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by soul searching:
When Kerry was on The Daily Show the other day he said that Bush is an excellent debator and that "he's [Bush] won every debate he's had." I missed the Bush versus Gore debates back in 2000, but given that Bush won, Kerry might be right.

Considering that Gore won the popular vote (not whining - just a fact), Bush couldn't have done that well, but Gore wasn't much better. What Bush is good at isn't debating policy, it's his demeanor: people really like the good ol' boy act. He's also good at framing things in a digestible form, which is not one of Gore's or Kerry's strong points.

I heard a story recently about Bush's first congressional campaign in Midland, in which he got whupped. It seems that he tried to demonstrate his intelligence and his familiarity with the issues, and the other candidate successfully painted him as an elite carpetbagger from Andover/Yale. The lesson was that people don't want an egghead - they want someone like them. He appears to have learned the lesson very well.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I have seen Kerry talk, he's a good - no very good - speaker.

He is about as exciting as Gore was.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

He is about as exciting as Gore was. [/B]

Not in my opinion. You're free to yours.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why doesn't the Bush camp want to do this?

Maybe because Bush has a day job.

Perhaps if Kerry remembered that he has a day job, he'd realize that he doesn't have the time for weekly debates. Besides, Kerry needs to finish the debate within himself before he can start debating others.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

He is about as exciting as Gore was.

"Lockbox"

that's the only thing I remember from the 2000 debates. Gore must've said that a dozen times.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
What Bush is good at isn't debating policy, it's his demeanor: people really like the good ol' boy act.

If you've even spent a minute reading what others who know Bush say about him, you'd know that it's not an act. That's Bush.

[itai195]

All that I remember from the 2000 debates are two words: 'lock-box' and 'misunderestimate.' BTW, I don't discount the fact that personally I'd probably like Bush better and I think a lot of folks would. I expect Bush to do pretty well for himself. But personality isn't the most important quality in a candidate.

[soul searching]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
...Perhaps if Kerry remembered that he has a day job, he'd realize that he doesn't have the time for weekly debates....

I keep hearing/reading about Kerry being missing from the Senate floor. Don't all candidates put their current jobs on the back seat during the election year? I'm sure Gore and Bush both did in 2000, just as Dole and Clinton must've done it in 1996, etc., etc.

[BlackGriffen]

It's worth noting that Kerry tried the same thing against Howard Dean in the primaries. Thanks to the crowded field, Dean was able to duck out gracefully by saying, "There are more people running that just you and me. It would be disrespectuful to them and the voters for you and me to be the only ones in a debate."

Bush doesn't have that option, so he'll just chicken out.

BG

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If you've even spent a minute reading what others who know Bush say about him, you'd know that it's not an act. That's Bush.

I don't doubt that he's a genuinely affable, down-to-earth person, and in that sense I like him. I don't think that's an act, I just think he makes a conscious effort to downplay his actual background and play up the good 'ol boy persona. He's better at it than his father because it's more genuine to a large degree. But there's still a degree of calculation involved - I think the lesson he learned in the Midland campaign, and the lessons he learned from Reagan and Clinton, have stayed with him.

Look at it this way: I don't misunderestimate him as much as others do. A close friend of mine is acquainted with him (and FWIW was appointed to a commission by him). I think he's a little more city, and a little less country, than he lets on. I've also concluded this from various interviews he's given.

Edit: I just recalled that another poster here once described him as a "physical laborer" with a "working ranch," neither of which is true. But it goes to show that he's been very successful at projecting a certain image that doesn't always reflect reality.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Look at it this way: I don't misunderestimate him as much as others do. A close friend of mine is acquainted with him (and FWIW was appointed to a commission by him). I think he's a little more city, and a little less country, than he lets on. I've also concluded this from various interviews he's given.

Edit: I just recalled that another poster here once described him as a "physical laborer" with a "working ranch," neither of which is true. But it goes to show that he's been very successful at projecting a certain image that doesn't always reflect reality.

I have a buddy who works Presidential detail for the Secret Service (he's not really political), and whenever we talk, he always mentions how nice and friendly the Bushes are. They're also incredibly punctual.

By comparison, Clinton was always late, always trying to hide and disappear from his detail, and Hillary would often scream and yell at the detail as if they were inept butlers.

As for the "Bush working the ranch" persona, I know he's no cowboy. But from what I've been able to gather, he enjoys the outdoors and physical activity, and even when photographers aren't around, he struts around his property in his free time and finds activities to satisfy his exercise cravings. He likes to fish, too.

My point is that it's not a chore to get Bush outdoors for a photo shoot. On the other hand, when I see photos of him outside on the ranch with Condi Rice, she looks completely uncomfortable.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I have a buddy who works Presidential detail for the Secret Service (he's not really political), and whenever we talk, he always mentions how nice and friendly the Bushes are. They're also incredibly punctual.

By comparison, Clinton was always late, always trying to hide and disappear from his detail, and Hillary would often scream and yell at the detail as if they were inept butlers.

That doesn't surprise me. Clinton appears to be a much more self-indulgent, self-absorbed person than Bush (and from what I gather he had a huge temper), and Hillary, well, her ego would embarrass Napoleon. Clinton was, however, very good at relating to ordinary people when he wanted to - a woman I know who hated him said that when she actually met him, she melted (no, her name is not Monica . . . ).

As for the "Bush working the ranch" persona, I know he's no cowboy. But from what I've been able to gather, he enjoys the outdoors and physical activity, and even when photographers aren't around, he struts around his property in his free time and finds activities to satisfy his exercise cravings. He likes to fish, too.

My point is that it's not a chore to get Bush outdoors for a photo shoot. On the other hand, when I see photos of him outside on the ranch with Condi Rice, she looks completely uncomfortable.

Yes, I think Bush is genuinely an outdoor kinda guy, and I didn't mean to suggest that he's bookish - far from it. I only mean to say that he's not unaware that certain things work for certain audiences.

One of the anecdotes that came out of that Midland story is that when he moved to town in the '70s, he was a jogger. It didn't take long for him to figure out that people in Midland, especially oil guys, didn't jog. Even now, you'll see a lot of pictures of him in boots and jeans but seldom if ever in running or bicycling gear. I remember when he had that biking accident, thinking "Texas ranchers don't mountain bike . . . ".

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by soul searching:
I keep hearing/reading about Kerry being missing from the Senate floor. Don't all candidates put their current jobs on the back seat during the election year? I'm sure Gore and Bush both did in 2000, just as Dole and Clinton must've done it in 1996, etc., etc.

Yep.

There was some talk on reform for this, but it was shotdown very quick.

It would have required the politician to limit campaign time while holding office. They could of course resign from their position if they wished to remove the limitation.

Considering in-office candidates already have a huge statistical advantage, it wouldn't have made their re-election bid any harder (it would of actually removed a successful attack from taking place).

Personally I'm all for the idea. Nobody could honestly say Bush, Kerry, or any other politician running is focusing on their job.

They were elected for a term. Not a term -9 months. 1 full term. The presidential term is 4 years. Not 3 years 9 months. 4 years.


I'm curious how many people here can get unlimited paid vacation while they search for a new job?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by soul searching:
I keep hearing/reading about Kerry being missing from the Senate floor. Don't all candidates put their current jobs on the back seat during the election year? I'm sure Gore and Bush both did in 2000, just as Dole and Clinton must've done it in 1996, etc., etc.

Most candidates for president have either been out of office at the time, or resign to run for president. For example, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis were all private citizens at the time they ran. Dole resigned from the Senate in order to run. Running for president is a full time job.

I believe that Kennedy and Clinton are the two post war presidents who were in office at the time they ran for president. I'm not sure about the other unsuccessful candidates. Obviously, it is different for someone who is running for reelection, or is de facto running for reelection (VP running for president) like GHW Bush and Al Gore. They are in office, but when you are president or vice president the job kind of goes with you wherever you are. The same isn't really the case for a legislator or a governor.

Of course, with Kerry it doesn't much matter that he is absent from the senate while he's running. It's kind of a "so what's new?" thing.

[Zimphire]

The very fact that Kerry wont quit his "day job" tells me he isn't too convinced he is going to win either.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why doesn't the Bush camp want to do this? If, as you say, Kerry would lose votes by doing this?

And are there only 3 debates!??

Well, unlike Kerry, Bush has a job.

Edit: Oops, spacefreak already made this point.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The very fact that Kerry wont quit his "day job" tells me he isn't too convinced he is going to win either.

Tells me that he's committed to his country.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Tells me that he's committed to his country.

I am sure it does.

[tie]

"There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself," responded Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt.

I don't blame Bush for not wanting more debates (and wouldn't, even if he were a better debater). I think it is best for the country to have more debates, but I'm not holding my breath. This is a rather rude way to respond, though. What a jerk.

[ebuddy]

This proposal of more debates is completely disingenuous. Trust me, the last thing Kerry wants to do is debate MORE. Actually, that Bush aide could not have given Kerry more valuable advise. Kerry needs to formulate a platform otherwise, it won't be much of a debate...

Moderator; So, what of homosexual marriage?

"Uh, we pretty much agree."

What about the war in Iraq? Should we send more troops or pull out?

Bush; We should begin to calculate our cautious, methodical removal entrusting this new government to their highly trained Iraqi civil forces courtesy of the U.S.

Kerry; WE NEED MORE TROOPS. Wait, I'd like to see some more polling data before making an absolute decision on that though"

Moderator; Would this not increase the burden to the American tax payer, a concept for which you've been highly critical of the President?

"Yes, we pretty much agree on the war in Iraq."

Kerry, you are on record as opposing, *moderator clears throat* and supporting funding for the Iraq campaign, but blamed Bush for what you considered an "ill-prepared" force there. What would you suggest now?

" the UN is going to help us with MORE TROOPS!"

*Theresa gasps...

Moderator; What if they don't?

" Well they will, I'm more likeable."

Moderator; Are you sure?

"Well, yes...and no."

Moderator; What are your plans regarding taxation?

"Bush's plan is just plain irresponsible."

Moderator; Care to elaborate? Is there a particular reason you feel this way and what do you propose?

" We need to heavily tax small businesses who employ the majority of Americans."

Moderator; How do we do that without small businesses cutting jobs?

"Small business owners are rich. We need to tax the rich to account for Bush's irresponsibility! WE NEED TO QUIT SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS!!!"

Moderator; does this include the guy named Achmed who was soliciting me for your "get out the vote" campaign?

"We just want our constituents to know that our campaign enjoys International support, including those in India."

Moderator; wipes sweat from his reddening face..." The whole jobs overseas bit-would this include Heinz Corp? *Theresa, not wanting to detract from her husbands immense success in the debates, leaves the room.

Meanwhile, back at the DNC Headquarters-Hall of Flummaxed... Kerry is killing us! We've dropped another 12 points in Gallup, what do we do?!

I DON'T KNOW! Uh, Keep thinking of ways to attach Bush to...well to Lunar eklipses, Power outages, and hurricanes-we've had some big ones you know...and there's always racism. Come to think of it, I don't see any African-Americans in here. Go drive that "straight-shooter" bus down to Compton and get some now!!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Kerry; WE NEED MORE TROOPS. Wait, I'd like to see some more polling data before

LAWWWWWWWL I am saving that one.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This proposal of more debates is completely disingenuous. Trust me, the last thing Kerry wants to do is debate MORE. Actually, that Bush aide could not have given Kerry more valuable advise. Kerry needs to formulate a platform otherwise, it won't be much of a debate...

Well said. It is the same game played every election. Usually by the candidate with the least to loose. Usually a sign of fear.

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Considering that Gore won the popular vote (not whining - just a fact), Bush couldn't have done that well, but Gore wasn't much better. What Bush is good at isn't debating policy, it's his demeanor: people really like the good ol' boy act. He's also good at framing things in a digestible form, which is not one of Gore's or Kerry's strong points.

I heard a story recently about Bush's first congressional campaign in Midland, in which he got whupped. It seems that he tried to demonstrate his intelligence and his familiarity with the issues, and the other candidate successfully painted him as an elite carpetbagger from Andover/Yale. The lesson was that people don't want an egghead - they want someone like them. He appears to have learned the lesson very well.

Yup. There's another thread in with a guy from the UK asks "why do we put up with Bush?" Ziggy's characterization is why -- people just like the guy. I call it the "which guy would your rather have at your Bar-B-Q?" test: Bush comes out as cocky, funny, arrogant sure, but not condescending. By contrast Gore was sincere, intelligent but a bit holier-than-thou; in short, condescending.

This is my impression of how a significant number of people form their opinion of a candidate. After that initial impression there's plenty of mud around to reinforce a negative impression of the other guy.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Timo:
I call it the "which guy would your rather have at your Bar-B-Q?" test: Bush comes out as cocky, funny, arrogant sure, but not condescending.

You're completely wrong on this one Timo buddy.

Who would I rather have at my BBQ? The guy who brings along Theresa HEINZ Kerry.

Free condiments for everybody!

What's more important at a BBQ than ketchup?