Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Lerkfish · Sep 3, 2004, 09:07 AM

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...otebook03.html

interesting portions:

President Bush's campaign won't say for sure whether he will agree to the three debates proposed by the independent Commission on Presidential Debates, or if a Republican strategist was right this week when he said the Bush campaign would agree to only two debates.

The commission, without a formal agreement by the Bush camp, set debates for Sept. 30 in Coral Gables, Fla.; Oct. 8 in St. Louis; and Oct. 13 in Tempe. A vice presidential debate between incumbent Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, was set for Oct. 5 in Cleveland.

GOP strategist Scott Reed was quoted by the Reuter news agency this week as saying the Bush camp's position is that "two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule."

"Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics," Reed was quoted as saying.

cluck, cluck, cluck.

Lerkfish · Sep 3, 2004, 09:10 AM

I should add that I don't necessarily expect bush to debate AT ALL.

The ONLY reason the shrub "performed well" in the last debates was because the bar was lowered so far they had to remove the flooring and several substrates of bedrock to make room for him to crawl under it.

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 09:16 AM

We will see when the debates happen Lerk. I don't think your Buddy John really wants to be asked about his military history. He might get a bit huffy and make a fool out of himself.

Because right now it is HIM playing the chicken when it comes to answering such questions.

UNTeMac · Sep 3, 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We will see when the debates happen Lerk. I don't think your Buddy John really wants to be asked about his military history. He might get a bit huffy and make a fool out of himself.

Because right now it is HIM playing the chicken when it comes to answering such questions.

I think both candidates should get together and simultaneously say, "Hello, I'm *muddled mix of both names* and I'm here to talk about 2004, not 1964. Thank you."

Kerry made in an issue first and the Bush admin has made it issue #1 of why not to vote for Kerry.

spacefreak · Sep 3, 2004, 09:57 AM

The President is trying to run a nation and a war. While Kerry is comfortable skipping out on his job responsibilities, Bush is not.

We know where Bush stands on the issues. When Kerry finds his positions, then we can talk about debates.

davesimondotcom · Sep 3, 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
cluck, cluck, cluck.

Less about being chicken, more about being ahead. Simple strategy, if you are behind, jump up and down and say you want more debates. If you are ahead, avoid extraneous debates.

You don't have to be a political guru to understand that. Just look at any race, from Montana's current race for US Rep to Presidential contests going back years. The one who is behind always wants more debates. The one who is ahead does not.

Lerkfish · Sep 3, 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Less about being chicken, more about being ahead. Simple strategy, if you are behind, jump up and down and say you want more debates. If you are ahead, avoid extraneous debates.

You don't have to be a political guru to understand that. Just look at any race, from Montana's current race for US Rep to Presidential contests going back years. The one who is behind always wants more debates. The one who is ahead does not.

you're thinking Bush is comfortably ahead at this point? wishful thinking.

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 10:01 AM

I wonder if Kerry is going to bring out the "lock box"

dcolton · Sep 3, 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Kerry made in an issue first and the Bush admin has made it issue #1 of why not to vote for Kerry.

No, Bush hasn't. As a matter of fact, didn't Bush recently praise Kerry for his service in Vietnam?

What if a reporter asks the question during a debate? Would that be Bush's fault? Better yet, what if the question is NOT asked of Kerry during the debates by the moderator?

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 10:09 AM

Oh it will be asked. I am sure Kerry will do his best to sideskirt and try to make it a "non-issue"

davesimondotcom · Sep 3, 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you're thinking Bush is comfortably ahead at this point? wishful thinking.

I don't think there is much debate that the past month has been terrible and self destructive for the Kerry Campaign. If you can't see that, you are the one who is wishful.

Am I saying Bush is winning by a wide margin? No. I'm saying he has the momentum.

dcolton · Sep 3, 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh it will be asked. I am sure Kerry will do his best to sideskirt and try to make it a "non-issue"

Yeah, he might be in a load of trouble if Swift Boat Vetrans version of events is true. The navy is now investigating Kerry's medals. Soon we will hear the dems crying hillary in '08

Lerkfish · Sep 3, 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't think there is much debate that the past month has been terrible and self destructive for the Kerry Campaign. If you can't see that, you are the one who is wishful.

Am I saying Bush is winning by a wide margin? No. I'm saying he has the momentum.

bush isn't even within the margin of error of the majority of polls.

BRussell · Sep 3, 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...otebook03.html

interesting portions:

cluck, cluck, cluck.

I believe this is a Republican expectation-setting tactic, and it's a trap Democrats fall for every time. Repubs act avoidant (hmm, 'avoidant' isn't in the spell check database?) about debates, Dems jump on it, and then when the debates do happen, expectations are so low for the Repub that they win simply by beating the low expectation.

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by BRussell:
I believe this is a Republican expectation-setting tactic, and it's a trap Democrats fall for every time. Repubs act avoidant (hmm, 'avoidant' isn't in the spell check database?) about debates, Dems jump on it, and then when the debates do happen, expectations are so low for the Repub that they win simply by beating the low expectation.

Yeah that's the ticket! They don't win because they are better, but because expectations are so low!!

Ahahhaha. Come on. The only side that has low expectations for Bush are the left.

davesimondotcom · Sep 3, 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
bush isn't even within the margin of error of the majority of polls.

Could you link me to those polls? Thanks.

Also, are you denying Kerry had a poor August? He's clearly scrambling. Getting new staff on board. Holding midnight press conferences to "address" the mean old Republican's attacks on him. That's without even getting into the Swift Boats.

Bush had a pre-Convention bounce, whether he'll get a post-Convention one is yet to be seen.

Spliffdaddy · Sep 3, 2004, 10:52 AM

I think most people will vote for whoever the foreigners don't like.

Spoogepieces · Sep 3, 2004, 10:53 AM

Another hate thread by Lerk.

djohnson · Sep 3, 2004, 10:54 AM

Didn't Kerry say that Bush would win the debates?

Wiskedjak · Sep 3, 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The President is trying to run a nation and a war.

What war?

djohnson · Sep 3, 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What war?

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What war?

The same war the Democrats are talking about here

"The facts are clear, the Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with a Combat V and three Purple Hearts. It is waste of taxpayer's dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime, to investigate a 35-year-old Navy clerical error," the statement reads.

Shaddim · Sep 3, 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Another hate thread by Lerk.

Well, it's not surprising, it's all he has.

Wiskedjak · Sep 3, 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same war the Democrats are talking about here

"The facts are clear, the Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with a Combat V and three Purple Hearts. It is waste of taxpayer's dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime, to investigate a 35-year-old Navy clerical error," the statement reads.

Bush is finally fighting in the Vietnam War?

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Bush is finally fighting in the Vietnam War?

Uh, re-read it again.

"It is waste of taxpayer's dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime, to investigate a 35-year-old Navy clerical error," the statement reads."

They are speaking in the present tense.

Wiskedjak · Sep 3, 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Uh, re-read it again.

"It is waste of taxpayer's dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime, to investigate a 35-year-old Navy clerical error," the statement reads."

They are speaking in the present tense.

OHHH! THAT war ... which war is that?

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
OHHH! THAT war ... which war is that?

Have you been in a fog of pot smoke the past 3 years?

smacintush · Sep 3, 2004, 11:32 AM

Barack Obama (Democratic convention keynote speaker) is doing the same thing to his opponent Alan Keyes. You gonna cry about that one too?

It's a very common political tactic, not even worth posting.

Wiskedjak · Sep 3, 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Have you been in a fog of pot smoke the past 3 years?

Well, I know there was a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, but to the best of my knowledge both are over. Has the US finally decided to stop going after the easy targets and take care of real threats such as N. Korea?

Zimphire · 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Well, I know there was a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, but to the best of my knowledge both are over. Has the US finally decided to stop going after the easy targets and take care of real threats such as N. Korea?

LAWL! First these targets were impossible! I remember hearing the left scream about how does Bush plan on doing the Afghanistan thing when Russia tried for 10 years and couldn't accomplish it.

Now suddenly it's a "easy target"

Spins are fun to watch.

BTW that specific Democrat was speaking about the ongoing war on terror. You know it's still going on right?

djohnson · Sep 3, 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
...Spins are fun to watch. ...

They sure are! So is Kerry going to take care of the growing nuclear threats in N. Korea and Iran?

BlackGriffen · Sep 3, 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by smacintush:
Barack Obama (Democratic convention keynote speaker) is doing the same thing to his opponent Alan Keyes. You gonna cry about that one too?

It's a very common political tactic, not even worth posting.

There's a huge difference in the races, though. Obama is ahead by like 65% to 30%. Bush and Kerry, OTOH, are in a dead heat at the moment.

BG

Wiskedjak · Sep 3, 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW that specific Democrat was speaking about the ongoing war on terror. You know it's still going on right?

The War on Terror is a war? Has a truce in the War on Drugs been declared, or does the President actually have TWO wars on his hands?

Spliffdaddy · Sep 3, 2004, 12:20 PM

We can count on Canada to do diddily-squat.

as usual.

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
There's a huge difference in the races, though. Obama is ahead by like 65% to 30%. Bush and Kerry, OTOH, are in a dead heat at the moment.

BG

Dead heat? No.

vmpaul · Sep 3, 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Less about being chicken, more about being ahead. Simple strategy, if you are behind, jump up and down and say you want more debates. If you are ahead, avoid extraneous debates.

You don't have to be a political guru to understand that. Just look at any race, from Montana's current race for US Rep to Presidential contests going back years. The one who is behind always wants more debates. The one who is ahead does not.

That's why I think the decision should be taken out of their hands. I'm tired of them playing politics with the debates. It happens every election cycle, from BOTH sides.

It should be a condition of any presidential candidate receiving public funds. They should be required to take part in a pre-determined number of debates. It should have been part of the campaign finance reform bill. After all, the debates are for OUR benefit not the candidates. It's the only time we can get an unfiltered discussion of the issues.

Lerkfish · Sep 3, 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's why I think the decision should be taken out of their hands. I'm tired of them playing politics with the debates. It happens every election cycle, from BOTH sides.

It should be a condition of any presidential candidate receiving public funds. They should be required to take part in a pre-determined number of debates. It should have been part of the campaign finance reform bill. After all, the debates are for OUR benefit not the candidates. It's the only time we can get an unfiltered discussion of the issues.

well said. I agree completely.
If we could establish mandatory debates under consistent rules, we'd avoid a great deal of acrimony in every race.

BRussell · Sep 3, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Dead heat? No.

Most objective observers would say that Kerry has the advantage right now. I don't believe any challenger has ever been in a better position in the polls and ended up losing to the incumbent. Bush has the joe-mentum right now, with the swift boat thing and the GOP convention, but you folks are kidding yourselves if you think Bush is ahead.

This has all the current polls:

As I read this, Bush is ahead in 5, Kerry is ahead in 3, and they're tied in 3. Undecideds are around 5-10%, and the majority of undecideds don't vote for incumbents. It obviously could go either way, but Kerry has the advantage right now.

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Most objective observers would say that Kerry has the advantage right now.

You HAVE to be kidding me ! AAAAAAAHHAHAHA
Talk about head in the sand.

I guess that is why Kerry is trying to act more conservative and more like Bush huh?

Kerry has the advantage... heh.. boy I actually laughed out loud on that one.

Thanks BRussell.

LoganCharles · Sep 3, 2004, 01:19 PM

Bush will win as long as there is not another terrorist attack on American soil before the election. I would say that there is a 50/50 chance we'll see one.

If Paddy wasn't so worried he wouldn't be posting his whinny little topics.

vmpaul · Sep 3, 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
...has the joe-mentum right now,

Ha.

Nice reference. It seems like so long ago that we could laugh at this stuff.

BRussell · Sep 3, 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You HAVE to be kidding me ! AAAAAAAHHAHAHA
Talk about head in the sand.

I guess that is why Kerry is trying to act more conservative and more like Bush huh?

Kerry has the advantage... heh.. boy I actually laughed out loud on that one.

Thanks BRussell. [/B]

I admit that it's very close right now, and Bush is showing some recent gains, but can you specify how Bush has the advantage? I've given you my reason for thinking Kerry has the advantage - the challenger/undecideds issue, which I think every political observer recognizes as valid, at least based on history. Likewise, the incumbent's approval ratings generally put a limit on the votes they get, and Bush is still below 50% right now.

Whatever happens, it doesn't validate or invalidate my personal beliefs in the slightest, and it shouldn't yours either. I'd be willing to admit if my candidate was in bad shape. It wouldn't bother me at all. I'd just complain that the rest of the country are a bunch of nitwits.

E's Lil Theorem · 01:36 PM

Originally posted by djohnson:
Didn't Kerry say that Bush would win the debates?

On the Daily Show Kerry said that Bush is a very good debater that has won all of his previous debates.

EDIT: Kerry added that he was looking forward to the debates. There was no mention, at that time, of Bush winning the 2004 debates.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 3, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Could you link me to those polls? Thanks.

Is your AOL broken? Google it.

It took me 30 seconds to find this tidbit on CNN, dated September 2nd:

(CNN) -- Republicans and Democrats are paying increased attention to young voters this election season, as President Bush and Sen. Kerry continue to be virtually tied in many polls.

Lerkfish · Sep 3, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
On the Daily Show Kerry said that Bush is a very good debater that has won all of his previous debates.

EDIT: Kerry added that he was looking forward to the debates. There was no mention, at that time, of Bush winning the 2004 debates.

Kerry was sending a deceptive lob in the repub's court. He's intentionally setting the bar HIGH for bush's performance, instead of how the media and pundits set the bar so low you have to remove the floor and several layers of substrate for him to slither under it.

In other Kerry knows better than to buy into the "as long as shrub doesn't defecate himself, he WINS!" attitude that prevailed in the Bush-Gore debates.

additionally, how many debates has George been in? I believe only two, one set with Gore and once before being appointed governor.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 3, 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think most people will vote for whoever the foreigners don't like.

Well, you know Osama LOVES Bush - so you'll be voting for Kerry?

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Is your AOL broken? Google it.

It took me 30 seconds to find this tidbit on CNN, dated September 2nd:

Yes CNN would say "virtually tied" when Bush is on top. The very little time he wasn't, they reported it as "Kerry leading"

Funny how that works.

Zimphire · Sep 3, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, you know Osama LOVES Bush - so you'll be voting for Kerry?

Did he tell you that on your own special Al-qaeda phone?

djohnson · Sep 3, 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes CNN would say "virtually tied" when Bush is on top. The very little time he wasn't, they reported it as "Kerry leading"

Funny how that works.

Yeah it is funny how liberals side with liberals... CNN would say they were tied even if Bush was ahead by 20 points!

djohnson · Sep 3, 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, you know Osama LOVES Bush - so you'll be voting for Kerry?

My guess is that Osama and other terrorists want anyone but Bush in office... Hence the speculation that they might try something before the election.