Will Bush* debate in '04 campaign?

The thread on Clark's appearance on a Sunday show---and his apparently masterful verbal dissection of a number of things and people (DeLay!) brought up the subject of his potential performance in a debate.

Considering that "President Low Expectations" can rely on the press to turn defeat into victory (or at least a draw) I could see him debating such potential Democratic candidates as Kerry or Lieberman with the usual press construction of who won or lost being accepted based not on the reality of the moment but on long-term framing of each man. However...I'm thinking that quick-witted, used to military infighting (read: subtle but deadly), and assertive Clark might represent a different enemy to the Bushites. Seriously can you really imagine Bush* taking on Clark with his usual array of soundbites and "sincere" folksy gestures?

Personally, I can't and I don't believe that they will debate if Clark looks to be the nominee.

demand rules so stifling that "debate" is merely stump speaking. Shrub cannot handle questions (pull the earplug/unplug the teleprompeter)! Can you picture Shrub without a lectern to lean on?

He'll "debate..." and take that to the bank.

They'll agree upon three debates, and they'll get to choose the moderators. They'll do a bang-up job of lowering Chimpy expectations in the days prior to the debate, and he'll be declared a "winner" by a glowering press. Of course, we'll be distracted by a war in Iraq/North Korea/Younameitistan at the time, so what do you expect?

}(

He can't even talk without being fed lines. My guess is he will say he is too busy with whatever crisis they manufacture and that we already know what he stands for and not do it. It would be very entertaining to watch him really debate any of these candidates even though he will be declared the winner no matter what.

think we could get will pitt as one of the moderators???

The only real risk for Shrub is to NOT debate. That would give the principled oppostion an opening to criticize him. Rove counts on the belief that the average American's attention span is so miniscule, and that apathy to serious discussion of the issues is so strong, Bush will win the debate merely by being there. Then, the liberal media will spin it as a rousing victory for Our Dear Leader.

All he has to do is show up. No hard questions, and no real answers. It's soundbite heaven, baby, and nobody cares (except DU).

Sad. It's just sad.

Remember last time????

He tried like hell to wriggle out of it and limited the number of debates and formats and refused to debate unless he had it all his way.

And he lost them hands down, but fortunately (for Smirk) had the networks "declare" him the winner.

I would expect something similar.

It will be akin to the heavily scripted press conference.There will be some dirty tricks I imagine like fucking with the democrats mike stand so it slips a lot and giving * a different,more "presidential" podium.

Did you see his last impromptu appearance during the blackout? I don't think they will risk that.
:nuke:

Don't you just *wonder* if an old military hand like Clark who met more than his share of privileged boys, ass kisser, and sly operators in the Pentagon and coming up through the officer corp could manage to make a largely staged debate get "impromptu" in some ways really fast????

I also wonder if he---and Dean for instance---might be a lot less flexible about letting the GOP dicate the terms of debate. Both are a bit more assertive than Gore (and God, certainly more than Lieberman).

The idea of it just entertains me. But, I suspect that Bush will refuse citing pressing "Preshidenshal" duties....

...Every four years we go through this nonsense. I think the Democratic nominee ought to simply say, once, "I'm fed up with Republicans who try to skip their job interviews with the American People," then just show up at the debate venues scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates. If Shrub is a no-show, so be it.

and not allow Bush to dance his way out of a real debate. I think it is imperative for the Democrats to nominate an agile speaker with a tough, no-bullshit style. A Dem who is so polite that he lets Bush get away with everything will do us no good.

shrub can hardly speak as it is, we need someone to get him a lil po'd and off his rehearsed answers. not really that hard to fluster him, after all.

And on his conditions and with his support of questioners? Like sitting down in an informal setting so he can get the feel of a BS session and where he thinks he can control his environment...

The national emergency could be a war or a terrorist attack. It might not even be called a "national emergency." It might be "national mourning" for Ronald Reagan. It will be whatever is convenient to Karl Rove at the time.

I only watched the #2 debate last time. I was so appalled at the way it was monitored. Bush was given all sorts of leaway; he was asked dumb questions which he answered so ineptly. The questions were not set up to be equal in quality or number. Bush got to ramble stupidly. For example, when he was asked about his censure of the Texas law to outlaw hate crimes, the shrub answered that Texas did not need that law because the state had the ultimate: the death penalty. He went on to say that the three men who drug the black citizen to death were all given the death penalty. I have no doubt that Bush knows all about the death penalty, but he did not seem to know two were given death penalty, not three. When Peter Jennings was shocked that ABC's
citizen group thought Gore had won, I quit watching him forever.
After all that I refused to watch the #3 debate. I cannot stand to see Georgie on tv.

If he wasn't scared of Al Gore or Ann Richards, why do you think he'd be afraid of anyone else?

He'll debate, he'll lose, and the media will say he did better than they expected.

and the broadcast media (probably someone from Fox "News") will see to it that he looks like a "winner". One liners, and aiming at the flag wavers and set-up questions planned by Rove and the interviewers will help him. We need to win this election on the ground, the airwaves are under control of the right wing.

can verbally slice and dice with the best of them.

Wait until Clark is a candidate and Lieberman tries to out national security him. I can't wait. Clark is gonna kill Joe and put the nail in his coffin. :evilgrin:

Before his coronation by Lord Scalia, Bush was so afraid of debating Gore that he refused for weeks to set a date. Gore kept pressing him, saying he would meet him under any circumstances, "any time, any place." Finally, the Bush team announced that they could meet on a Larry King type talk show, and bascially be interviewed separately, without really engaging in a real give and take. Immediately, without even giving Gore a chance to turn the offer down, Bush accused him of backing down and reneging on his promise to face him "any time, any place." From that moment, you knew you were dealing with a little weasal, a cowardly wimp trying to pretend he was a real man.

That being said, I don't think we should push him on debates. I think it works to his advantage if we push. Last time, he was able to set too many of the rules. As a result he got off easy and the debates probably helped him more than hurt.

Instead, I think the Democratic candidate should agree to debate early, but under favorable rules. Then we should try to put a hurting on Schleprock in the polls. If it gets to close, Schleprock will be desperate to debate, but he will want to do it on his terms. Having already agreed with the debate committee on the format of the debates, the Democratic candidate should hold firm on the rules. Instead of attacking Bush for refusing to debate, we attack him for trying to change the format.