POLITICS: President Bush Resists 3 Debates, Demands Only 2 and Changes to Others.

How come Bush is all of a sudden allowed to even think of the notion of backing out of even one debate, while if a non-Republican were to do that, they would be ridiculed for being a pussy and would be forced to in the end. This is rediculus, the media should be all over this criticizing Bush of this comment. I don't think any other President has ever backed out of even one debate (please correct me if I'm wrong).

How come Bush is all of a sudden allowed to even think of the notion of backing out of even one debate, while if a non-Republican were to do that, they would be ridiculed for being a pussy and would be forced to in the end. This is rediculus, the media should be all over this criticizing Bush of this comment. I don't think any other President has ever backed out of even one debate (please correct me if I'm wrong). Makes me sick.

Originally posted by Nerdling
They didn't get the memo.

Maybe we should've wrote it in Crayon or Deer blood.

Just Playing folks

You know, because that is so true it gives me mixed emotions...should I laugh or cry? Maybe a little of both.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The claims he's an awful public speaker, or an idiot are always going to come back to haunt his opponents. Not only will they underestimate him, he only has to really perform half as good as his opponent to appear to be equal. That's the type of hole the Democrats have dug for themselves.

The real fact is that Bush has nothing to gain from these debates right now, so why the hell should he risk it? That would just be dumb.

LOL. So because he has nothing to gain, we should just excuse him from debating? Because he's above all this? Or is it because he has no brains left and he cant carry a conversation without a teleprompter, much less face the world to tell bold lies and try to pass them off as truth? Maybe someone could help him out by saying answers into speaker and have George wear ear phones then relay an intelligent answer to him.
Ma fello Mericanz.....

Originally posted by TheCatalyst
How come Bush is all of a sudden allowed to even think of the notion of backing out of even one debate, while if a non-Republican were to do that, they would be ridiculed for being a pussy and would be forced to in the end. This is rediculus, the media should be all over this criticizing Bush of this comment. I don't think any other President has ever backed out of even one debate (please correct me if I'm wrong). Makes me sick

.

TheCatalyst,

You are wrong.

Clinton only debated Dole twice in the 1996 race.

He's cutting out one debate. It's not a big deal at all.

He doesn't need to be excused at all. This isn't even an issue. Kerry only called for debates every week because he has nothing else he can do. The Democrats have basically said everything there is to say about Bush over 4 years, and he's survived.

You can call Bush an idiot all you want, but he's going to win the election. Kerry had an easy job, and he failed horribly.

The idiot claims are completely baseless. He's already beaten better Democrats in debates before, something you guys like to ignore. If Bush is so dumb, why did he easily handle Gore? Why has he continously shown up the Democrats in this election...?

Face facts, you Bush haters had an easy job this year and couldn't get it done.

It seems that every time there is to be a presidential debate, both parties wrangle over how many, what format, where, how long, etc etc etc...

Remember all the hubub over including Ross Perot?
now that was a good debate...a 3 way slugfest....

Oh yeah, but i forgot to
Blame Bush for raising these questions about potential debates.

Geese people this happens every election and from both parties.

HEY!

Any straws left in here?
Or have they all been grasped? LOL

It's pretty common for incumbents to minimize the number of debates.
Or even skip them altogether.

Besides, why bother with the Democrats 2nd choice?


Sorry, try again..

[edit on 8-9-2004 by spacedoubt]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The idiot claims are completely baseless. He's already beaten better Democrats in debates before, something you guys like to ignore. If Bush is so dumb, why did he easily handle Gore? Why has he continously shown up the Democrats in this election...?

In that case he has nothing to fear, bring on the debates. Oh wait, forgot about the last 4 years. I'm sure anyone in our Debate Forum could bury Bush with his track record.

Originally posted by TheCatalyst
I don't think any other President has ever backed out of even one debate (please correct me if I'm wrong).

OK, you're wrong, read the first paragraph in this link.

debate history

Being an open minded person I would like to suggest the debate difficulty be dropped by switching candidates. Mr Bush vs Mr Edwards and Mr Kerry vs Mr Chaney.. oh wait.. opps.. same odds.

What does make this debate different from the former one, Bush is already in power, so the people already know his basic tactics(or at least they are documented somewhere), he has already generated bad publicity and has incurred crediblity issues. Kerry I suspect has a lot of hidden ammo just waiting for the right moment. The one moment that will require some independant thought by his opponent. If Bush would just show up, he would save quite a bit of face with people as it is a mark of courage. Piecemeal or not, the debates will be quite interesting!

Crysstaafur says,

Kerry I suspect has a lot of hidden ammo just waiting for the right moment.

LMAO well how long is he going to wait? Geese the election is like right around the corner....is he waiting to see the whites of Bush's eyes or what? Why wait if this ammo is so effective...why not use it NOW instead of later if it was really that good?

Crysstaafur continues,

If Bush would just show up, he would save quite a bit of face with people....

Yeah but he would also save Kerry a lot of $$$.
Why show up for free when you can drag things and make your opponent have to PAY to get his message out? And you think Bush is an idiot...depriving an opponent of valuable resources has long been a political/diplomatic/war strategy. Why let him take shots at you for free when you can cost him to do the same?
Oh we forgot, politics is mean business. We thought politicians do things out of the goodness of their hearts....

He's afraid he will have to answer for his own actions.

If he dosen't have it written down for him, he won't be able to say it.

I think it is a shame that a person isn't allowed to hear him speak at one of his rallys without signing a contract/promise to vote for Bush!!!

Is that legal?

No that's right, that's Homeland Security.

At least we have the same idea. Only the names are interchanged. If both have hidden ammo then the debates shall be quite a challenge for both parties. I understand that you think Bush is attempting a war of attrition politically since he is already on the gov't dime and receiving funds. However Kerry is also, this would imply that victory (on the playing field we have both mentioned) will be a matter of fiscal responsiblity in addition to other attributes. I still suspect that Kerry will bring up items during the debates that will not be teleprompted on either closed circuit, causing Mr Bush to think indepenantly on his own. I am also sure that there will probably be measures made to prevent it, but it will not be totally effective. The reverse is at best probable.

What's "free" and "democratic" about turning down debates because you're afraid everyone will be against you.
This makes Bush an even bigger loser, and sadly nothing that we can do here on ATS to prevent him from being re-elected.

B t w, even if we would succeed in getting enough Bush voters, Bush' brother will just make sure florida's votes get recounted and recounted untill Bush has more votes again.

Did you ever consider the possibility of those hurricanes being some sort of punishment for florida because of the voting madness?
Just brainstorming here.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by Jakko]

Grrr, like I was saying before "public reaction" will dictate if Bush can get away with this. And he is.

CNN (you know the "liberal" one) has been reading viewers letters on this. Not mine, or yours or anything close to what any of us said in this thread.

How about this gem?

I agree with the President. Three is just too much. Two or maybe just one debate is more than enough.

What the hell "regular folk" write that? Less issues please! And why does CNN read it?

[edit on 8-9-2004 by RANT]

There's a phrase for Bush agreeing to three debates then backing out...

FLIP FLOP

On numerous occasions Kerry's staff, even the new Clinton staffers, have admitted that Bush is a tough person to debate, and that he has not lost a debate. Actually, I'm suprised that Kerry would step up to a podium. Regardless of who I side with politically, Bush and Cheney are politically savvy. To me the difference between the two candidates is this: Bush has convictions and, whether the polls like what he stands for or not, he does not change them. Kerry will say whatever he thinks will get him more votes. I guess the question to me is, what will Kerry's stance be if he gets elected. Does anyone know?

Although in other elections the debates may have been cut or limited to only two lets remember some facts.

The current president was "BARELY" elected. This indicates that at the beggining of his presidency roughly half of the American people did not want him president. Now as he approaches his re-election again, half do not support him. He is not an overwhelmingly liked president regardless of the spin they try to put on it. He will not win by a landslide, he will again barely gain support for his next term.

In this case they should be required to debate issues in an open forum on a regular basis. Instead they create an environment of us vs them. Well I think the American people are tired of being divided and need to fight back. We pay their salaries, they work for us. Why do so many seem to forget that. They serve in their government jobs at our discretion. We decide who leads, we need to take this country back. We must demand they are accountable to us and that they speak to us about issues up front and to our satisfaction.

Maybe at some point the average american will realize this.

suspiciousalouicious,

Good points you make.
If Kerry were elected, his Stance would be.
Shifting from one foot to the other.

What do you think the next desperate act of the Kerry bunch will be..?

They've already played the "lets have more debates than I know you would ever agree to" card.

And even though it's a common tactic, it seems to have fooled half the population, but not the half that matters.

Personally, I think a Yacht race would be cool..