NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone know when they'll be? (Just out of curiosity)

Thanks!

Nope, and no one will ever know.

They've already started. Although they don't do it in the same room.

If i was in the Bush camp i wouldn't let him near a one on one debate. In fact i would make sure that even questions from 5 year olds were carefully scripted so as to reduce (eliminate would be impossible) the chances of Bush coming across like a moron.

ohhh they have to argue about it for at least a month
accuse each other of stonewalling
insist on freakish terms
then end up letting the league of women voters arrange the whole thing

Here you go. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html) There are supposed to be three, but Bush's camp is talking about dropping out of the second. Their excuse? A quote from the article says "A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans." Personally, I think it's because they're afraid Bush will say something dumb if he's going unscripted and they can't do the lowered expectations game as easily this time. He does fine when he's got his talking points in front of him--it's when he goes into off the cuff mode that he screws up.

Here you go. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html) There are supposed to be three, but Bush's camp is talking about dropping out of the second. Their excuse? A quote from the article says "A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans." Personally, I think it's because they're afraid Bush will say something dumb if he's going unscripted and they can't do the lowered expectations game as easily this time. He does fine when he's got his talking points in front of him--it's when he goes into off the cuff mode that he screws up.
I'm too lazy to sign up (but apparently not lazy enough to whine...) is there another list somewhere?

I'm too lazy to sign up (but apparently not lazy enough to whine...) is there another list somewhere?
Alright, I felt like and ass, Here's one (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/prez.debate/)

Proposed Dates

September 30
First Presidential Debate; University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida

October 5
Vice-Presidential Debate; Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland

October 8
Second Presidential Debate; Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

October 13
Third Presidential Debate; Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona

Here you go. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html) There are supposed to be three, but Bush's camp is talking about dropping out of the second. Their excuse? A quote from the article says "A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans." Personally, I think it's because they're afraid Bush will say something dumb if he's going unscripted and they can't do the lowered expectations game as easily this time. He does fine when he's got his talking points in front of him--it's when he goes into off the cuff mode that he screws up.

This is just talk. There is absolutely no way they will back out of a debate. Period.

It's just not possible in today's political world. Past Presidents could get away with this, but you aren't going to see it ever happen again. They're just blustering.

They would be stupid to back out of a debate.

Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is more personable than Kerry... and a debate would highlight that fact.

ohhh they have to argue about it for at least a month
accuse each other of stonewalling
insist on freakish terms
then end up letting the league of women voters arrange the whole thing

And, of course, make sure that no third-party candidates are allowed to walk in and embarass them.

If i was in the Bush camp i wouldn't let him near a one on one debate. In fact i would make sure that even questions from 5 year olds were carefully scripted so as to reduce (eliminate would be impossible) the chances of Bush coming across like a moron.

You have obviously never seen Bush in a debate. He handles himself fairly well.

This is just talk. There is absolutely no way they will back out of a debate. Period.

It's just not possible in today's political world. Past Presidents could get away with this, but you aren't going to see it ever happen again. They're just blustering.I hope you're right, but when it comes to these guys, nothing would surprise me.

I hope you're right, but when it comes to these guys, nothing would surprise me.

Maybe not to you - but them doing something completely stupid that would give them no advantage politically and that would be completely antithetical to what I had drilled into me over and over while I was getting my Master's Degree in political management (namely - you always have to debate) would surprise the hell out of me.

Mehlman, Racicot and Gillespie aren't idiots. They know what they're doing. They'll go through with the debate.

But $10 says a plant does get through. :)

Maybe not to you - but them doing something completely stupid that would give them no advantage politically and that would be completely antithetical to what I had drilled into me over and over while I was getting my Master's Degree in political management (namely - you always have to debate) would surprise the hell out of me.

Mehlman, Racicot and Gillespie aren't idiots. They know what they're doing. They'll go through with the debate.

But $10 says a plant does get through. :)
I'd say that's about as likely from both sides.

I'd say that's about as likely from both sides.

Agreed.

Is everyone ready to see Kerry explain how he supported the war. then deny it.
USE THIS LINK!: *
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

left-click the bar that says "Connecting..."
then click "play in default player"
then enjoy. (may be real lagy if your computer is slow)
!!!PLZ COMPLAIN AFTER YOU SEE THE MOVIE!!!

Maybe not to you - but them doing something completely stupid that would give them no advantage politically and that would be completely antithetical to what I had drilled into me over and over while I was getting my Master's Degree in political management (namely - you always have to debate) would surprise the hell out of me.

Mehlman, Racicot and Gillespie aren't idiots. They know what they're doing. They'll go through with the debate.

But $10 says a plant does get through. :)
I agree that they're not idiots, but they also know what their candidate's strengths and weaknesses are, and answering questions that he hasn't been prepped for isn't one of his strengths. After all, that's why all of his "town meetings" on the campaign trail are scripted ahead of time, and why he gets that "My Pet Goat" look whenever there's a disruption at one of his events.

WATCH THIS PLZZZZZZZZ!

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

(Kerry is going to fall apart in the debate)

Is everyone ready to see Kerry explain how he supported the war. then deny it.
USE THIS LINK!: *
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

left-click the bar that says "Connecting..."
then click "play in default player"
then enjoy. (may be real lagy if your computer is slow)
!!!PLZ COMPLAIN AFTER YOU SEE THE MOVIE!!!


Wow. That's quite an eye opener. Kerry's words, "We know Saddam Hussein has used WMD's against his own people, and that there is evidence of his trying to get more, and even test them".
Oh, and my computer is slow, at least for loading movies. :(

I agree that they're not idiots, but they also know what their candidate's strengths and weaknesses are, and answering questions that he hasn't been prepped for isn't one of his strengths. After all, that's why all of his "town meetings" on the campaign trail are scripted ahead of time, and why he gets that "My Pet Goat" look whenever there's a disruption at one of his events.
Quite a few people have claimed that Bush is good at debate. Personally I never saw the Bush/Gore debates. Were they a slam dunk for Bush and was there any kind of defining moment?

Quite a few people have claimed that Bush is good at debate. Personally I never saw the Bush/Gore debates. Were they a slam dunk for Bush and was there any kind of defining moment?Gore got his ass handed to him in the first debate. For every question, either they made equally compelling arguments or Bush came out on top. Eventually, Al Gore started breathing loudly next to his microphone and rustling his papers while Bush was giving an answer to try to distract him. It made Bush stop talking for a few seconds, but everyone else heard it so there was no illusion of Bush messing up

Gore got his ass handed to him in the first debate. For every question, either they made equally compelling arguments or Bush came out on top. Eventually, Al Gore started breathing loudly next to his microphone and rustling his papers while Bush was giving an answer to try to distract him. It made Bush stop talking for a few seconds, but everyone else heard it so there was no illusion of Bush messing up
Well, all I can say is that with all this negative campaigning going on, that Kerry needs to be at his absolute best. Otherwise, IMHO it will be another 4 years of Bush, more wars, more death and more destruction.

Wow. That's quite an eye opener. Kerry's words, "We know Saddam Hussein has used WMD's against his own people, and that there is evidence of his trying to get more, and even test them".
Oh, and my computer is slow, at least for loading movies. :(

Yes, before the war, evweryone had "evidence." Unfortuantely after said "evidence" was proven to be a crock, Bush still stands by it. Heaven forbid Kerry should change his views based on better information! Who the hell does he think he is?

You have obviously never seen Bush in a debate. He handles himself fairly well.

*snicker* ... yeah ... against Al "lock box" Gore ... my 4 year old could've out-debated Gore, though. Gore made the fatal mistake of completely separating himself from Clinton, who is one of the greatest debators and orators I've ever seen in my life (so far).

I've seen Bush in other debates with other people, including Anne Richards (whom he tried *desperately* not to debate). He was trounced, chewed up, spit out, and chewed up again every time.

I know ... I've watched W very carefully for a long time.

They would be stupid to back out of a debate.

Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is more personable than Kerry... and a debate would highlight that fact.


A debate woul;d highlight the miserable failure as president that Bush is.

Picture it...

Kerry:" Mr President, how do you respond to the american people who have lost sons and duaghters in a war that was started on such poor intelligence, and has done nothing good for the Iraqi people? How do you respond to the people who wonder why Al-Qeada still operates in Afghanistan?
How do you respond to the people who ask you where Osama Bin Laden is?
What do you have to say to the four million Americans who lost thier jobs to outsourcing, becuase the economy couldnt support them?

Mr President...what GOOD have you actually acomplished in office?


What the hell is Bush gonna say?

Quite a few people have claimed that Bush is good at debate. Personally I never saw the Bush/Gore debates. Were they a slam dunk for Bush and was there any kind of defining moment?

Actually no one disputes that Gore won the third debate.. But there has been many questions about who won the first two debates. Perhaps this may clear it up for you.. On point, Gore won all three debates. See, not just the popular vote :)

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/12/debate.judges.ap/index.html

A debate woul;d highlight the miserable failure as president that Bush is.

Picture it...

Kerry:" Mr President, how do you respond to the american people who have lost sons and duaghters in a war that was started on such poor intelligence, and has done nothing good for the Iraqi people? How do you respond to the people who wonder why Al-Qeada still operates in Afghanistan?
How do you respond to the people who ask you where Osama Bin Laden is?
What do you have to say to the four million Americans who lost thier jobs to outsourcing, becuase the economy couldnt support them?

Mr President...what GOOD have you actually acomplished in office?

"Senator Kerry, I have written letters to the families of every single man and woman who has given their life in defense of our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what I tell them in every letter is that their son or daughter is a hero - that they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country in the heroic act of setting people free.

When we were attacked on September 11th, the world changed. We embarked on a mission to rid the world of terrorism - so no nation must feel what we felt on September 11th, what the Spanish felt in Madrid, and what the Russians felt for their children in the school in Vladikavkaz. It is not an easy fight, and it is not often measurable. But we will not give up - we will not back down, and we will see the battle through.

I have strived to turn this economy around. Americans now enjoy lower taxes for the first time in this generation. There are more homeowners in America today than ever before. And in the next four years we are going to work to change the face of our workforce, to ensure that workers who find themselves without jobs can adapt and find work in the job market of the 21st century.

Senator, I have spent four years in Federal Office. You, sir, have been a member of the United States Senate since 1984. 20 years in government service. What have YOU accomplished while in office?"

That's what I'd say.

"Senator Kerry, I have rubber stamped form letters to the families of every single American man and woman who has given their life in defense of our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what I tell them in every letter is that their son or daughter is a hero - that they gave the last full measure of devotion to my cause in the heroic act of setting up a puppet ally.

When we were attacked on September 11th, we told the world they had to change. We embarked on a mission to rid the world of anyone who did not agree with us - so no nation must feel what we felt on September 11th, what the Spanish felt in Madrid, and what the Russians felt for their children in the school in Vladikavkaz (an incident that occured after I told everyone that the world was safer). It is not an easy fight, and it is not often measurable. But we will exploit every tragedy - we will not back down, and we will see the battle through even if it means the systematic alienation of every single one of our economic allies, unilaterally, and without a care in the world to global opinion.

I have strived to turn this economy around. Wealthy Americans now enjoy lower taxes for the first time in this generation. There are more trailor park and tract housing homeowners in America today than ever before. And in the next four years we are going to work to change the face of our workforce, to ensure that good white Christian workers who find themselves without jobs can get job training through my faith-based initiatives if they convert and find slave wage work in the job market of the 21st century.

Senator, I have spent four years in Federal Office. You, sir, have been a member of the United States Senate since 1984. 20 years in Federal service. You have more experience than I do and I will now concede the Presidency and go die in obscurity, doing nothing with my elder statehood."

Corrections in bold.

That is all.

Corrections in bold.

That is all.

See, that would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

I responded with what Bush would say - not with that was wrong with the previous poster's claims.

It's shame that people can't discuss the issues without having to bring baseless accusations like "he rubber stamped the letters".

C'mon people - let's have a debate, not a "who can one-up the last stupid comment" battle.

Here you go. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html) There are supposed to be three, but Bush's camp is talking about dropping out of the second. Their excuse? A quote from the article says "A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans." Personally, I think it's because they're afraid Bush will say something dumb if he's going unscripted and they can't do the lowered expectations game as easily this time. He does fine when he's got his talking points in front of him--it's when he goes into off the cuff mode that he screws up.

Well, that makes sense. Obviously, Bush wouldn't want to have to debate in front of anyone who hasn't signed a loyalty pledge to him.

Gore got his ass handed to him in the first debate. For every question, either they made equally compelling arguments or Bush came out on top. Eventually, Al Gore started breathing loudly next to his microphone and rustling his papers while Bush was giving an answer to try to distract him. It made Bush stop talking for a few seconds, but everyone else heard it so there was no illusion of Bush messing up

Now lets be perfectly honest here. They both acted like little kids fighting in a candy store at the debates. That's one of the reasons that I didn't want to vote for either of them last election.

Well, that makes sense. Obviously, Bush wouldn't want to have to debate in front of anyone who hasn't signed a loyalty pledge to him.
Of course he wouldn't. They might ask him, you know, something hard.

Of course he wouldn't. They might ask him, you know, something hard.

Yeah, like "Explain the 1st and 14th Amendments."

Yeah, like "Explain the 1st and 14th Amendments."
Or, maybe, "I'm curious: exactly how does one KO oneself while eating pretzels in front of the TV?"

You have obviously never seen Bush in a debate. He handles himself fairly well.
Even Kerry has as much as admited he is not going to win the deabates, that Bush has won every debate he has been in.

Yeah, like "Explain the 1st and 14th Amendments."

Or bait him by asked him to pronounce Nuclear ;)

Even Kerry has as much as admited he is not going to win the deabates, that Bush has won every debate he has been in.

Eww I will call that one.

Source Please.....

Eww I will call that one.

Source Please.....
The Daily show interview.

The Daily show interview.

Well that might have been playing around. Don't know. Didn't see it.

If he says it couple more places, then I will belive it.

I don't think he will be that easy to beat. The man is a talker. Times he sounds like a used car salesman. ;)

Kerry was reversing Bush's strategy on him. Bush is noted for lowering expectations of his debating ability to the point where if he shows up and doesn't drool on himself, he's called the winner. Kerry was noting that Bush isn't as inept as his campaign tries to make him out to be.

Kerry was reversing Bush's strategy on him. Bush is noted for lowering expectations of his debating ability to the point where if he shows up and doesn't drool on himself, he's called the winner. Kerry was noting that Bush isn't as inept as his campaign tries to make him out to be.
And Paul Begala and James Carville have sucedded in spreadin the talking points to this one, eh?

And Paul Begala and James Carville have sucedded in spreadin the talking points to this one, eh?
Actually, no. George W. Bush himself said in the 2000 campaign that he was "the master of low expectations." Try again.

Actually, no. George W. Bush himself said in the 2000 campaign that he was "the master of low expectations." Try again.
And Paul Begala and James Carville have really sucedeed in spreadin the talking points to this one, eh?

And Paul Begala and James Carville have really sucedeed in spreadin the talking points to this one, eh?
Ah--I see this is all you have. I should have known better than to try to engage you in an intelligent conversation.

Eww I will call that one.

Source Please.....
Don't feed the trolls?