NationStates Jolt Archive

This is probably a damn stupid question, but does anyone here know why Bush is so against the debates Kerry's insisting on?

This is probably a damn stupid question, but does anyone here know why Bush is so against the debates Kerry's insisting on?

Because someone with different beliefs than him might sneak in and ask him a hard question.

Because Bush knows if he debates Kerry, he's going to lose. Regardless of how charmless, monotone, and 'flip-flopping' Kerry is, he is much more intelligent that Bush is, and Bush knows it.

I'll wager he doesn't want to do many debates because he (or the GOP) thinks he's strong enough in his position already to win and doesn't want to risk losing that position.

It'd be interesting to watch though--Bush would screw up all the time and Kerry would keep flip-flopping.

I'll wager he doesn't want to do many debates because he (or the GOP) thinks he's strong enough in his position already to win and doesn't want to risk losing that position.

It'd be interesting to watch though--Bush would screw up all the time and Kerry would keep flip-flopping.
Personally, I think the Bush/Cheney campaign has learned the lesson: you don't push down on someone who is sinking. Conversely, I am not sure the Kerry/Edwards campaign has learned much from Al Gore's 2000 experiences.

Okay, slow it down a bit. Let's take a look at a few of the things KERRY'S ignoring.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to join forces to shut down 527 Organizations.
-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to speak out together against the MoveOn.org and Swift Boat attack ads.
-Kerry is ignoring Bush's publicly-made positive comments applauding Kerry's "honorable" service (I may disagree with Bush on the "honorable" part, but it's still good that Bush is showing support for veterans.)

I don't know if Bush is actually IGNORING Kerry's request to debate, and if I recall correctly, a small debate did take place in 2003. However, if Bush is indeed ignoring the Debate request, and I whole-heartedly doubt that he is, he is most likely holding back and letting Kerry's own words stab him (Kerry) in the back. Kerry's constantly changing story and his somewhat treasonous desire to overthrow our Commander-In-Chief are drowning his (Kerry's) campaign faster than the Swifties are.

All Bush has to do is just sit back, relax, and run his own campaign. The Kerry boat is sinking on it's own.

For all the blather about Gore's debating prowess, he came off as an arrogant, snooty elitist who kept interrupting Bush and invading his personal space.

I predict that Kerry will make a complete fool of himself; he didn't take criticism very well during his entire political career.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to speak out together against the MoveOn.org and Swift Boat attack ads.

The Swift Boat ads were pretty bad, but what's so immediately bad about MoveOn.org that they need to do anything about it?

his somewhat treasonous desire to overthrow our Commander-In-Chief
This I can't let go. Since when is it treasonous to run against an incumbent during a regular election? Taking hits of Zell's crack pipe?

Disagree with Kerry, think he's a bad person if you must-but running in a regular election is not treasonous. Remember a group of people who spent $10 million tax-payer dollars going after a president? Was that treasonous? C'mon. Stay on the rails.

This is probably a damn stupid question, but does anyone here know why Bush is so against the debates Kerry's insisting on?
Same reason he was against the 9/11 Commission. It might make him look bad.

This I can't let go. Since when is it treasonous to run against an incumbent during a regular election? Taking hits of Zell's crack pipe?

Disagree with Kerry, think he's a bad person if you must-but running in a regular election is not treasonous. Remember a group of people who spent $10 million tax-payer dollars going after a president? Was that treasonous? C'mon. Stay on the rails.
I agree, it is not treasonous. But the thought of John Kerry caring more about winning the election than strengthening national security and ensuring peace, freedom and prosperity for all makes me vomit.

I will quote Zell Miller:
Quote 1:
"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

"What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

"I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny."

Not today. Today, the Democrats are more power-hungry than peace-preserving.

Quote 2:
"For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military."

And his voting proves it.

This is probably a damn stupid question, but does anyone here know why Bush is so against the debates Kerry's insisting on?
he's ahead in the polls if he were behind then he would do it if kerry were ahead he wouldn't see the point either.

For all the blather about Gore's debating prowess, he came off as an arrogant, snooty elitist who kept interrupting Bush and invading his personal space.

I predict that Kerry will make a complete fool of himself; he didn't take criticism very well during his entire political career.
kerry? what about bush? debates would be unscripted and he wouldnt have his answers prepared for him, or i would atl east hope somebody would make sure of that. and whats worse than stating something cotnrary to what you say when your reading froma script. "i dont think we can win the war agaisnt terrorism" anyone?

and whats worse than stating something cotnrary to what you say when your reading froma script. "i dont think we can win the war agaisnt terrorism" anyone?
omfg we got the idiot of the day i don't care about the rest of that statement that last part was stupid it's impossible to beat terrorism its a tactic it's like "shooting a mirage" as someone else put it :headbang:

omfg we got the idiot of the day i don't care about the rest of that statement that last part was stupid it's impossible to beat terrorism its a tactic it's like "shooting a mirage" as someone else put it :headbang:
if you are calling me an idiot, you obviously dont understand the post

bush's whole position, and what he railed about at the RNC was that he CAN beat terrorism, and a day before that speech in an interview on his tour bus if i recall, (so no script), he stated "i dont think we can beat terrorism"

I agree, it is not treasonous. But the thought of John Kerry caring more about winning the election than strengthening national security and ensuring peace, freedom and prosperity for all makes me vomit.stop listening to Zel Miller and you won't have those thoughts that make you vomit. John Kerry cares about winning the election so he'll have an opportunity to strengthen national security. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you want an idea of what a win for Kerry'll mean, use the opportunity to do some reading.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/chemical.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/terrorism.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/intel.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/homeland_plan.html

Some people are debaters and some people are not; Kerry's a debater, and Bush is not. Chris Matthews actually pointed this out today on Horserace on MSNBC. It was very interesting to see clips of Kerry vs. other candidates and then they showed clips of Bush vs. other candidates... Kerry is clearly a better debate than Bush.

Perhaps, that's why?

stop listening to Zel Miller and you won't have those thoughts that make you vomit. John Kerry cares about winning the election so he'll have an opportunity to strengthen national security. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you want an idea of what a win for Kerry'll mean, use the opportunity to do some reading.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/chemical.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/terrorism.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/intel.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/homeland_plan.html

...And you're using articles from John Kerry's site as evidence of why he's a worthy canididate. That's like a poster saying "TOP TEN REASONS WHY I AM THE BEST!

1) I RULE
2) I RULE
3) YOU DON'T RULE"
...et cetera.

Okay, how about this?
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
I DARE you to explain the listed flip-flops. And "Change of Heart" won't cut it.
Presidents should not sway like drunks when it comes to issues of national security and world issues.

And if you're an ignorant liberal or a child, I suggest this:
http://www.georgewbush.com/Olympics/Default.aspx

...And you're using articles from John Kerry's site as evidence of why he's a worthy canididate. That's like a poster saying "TOP TEN REASONS WHY I AM THE BEST!

1) I RULE
2) I RULE
3) YOU DON'T RULE"
...et cetera.

Okay, how about this?
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were getting on his case about using a biased website? You're doing the same thing, using a totally biased source made for the sole purpose of pushing up your canidate's image. Of course John Kerry has his flaws, but George W. Bush does as well.

And of course John Kerry is going to look bad on THE WEBSITE OF THE COMPETITOR WHO WANTS TO BEAT HIM.

...And you're using articles from John Kerry's site as evidence of why he's a worthy canididate. That's like a poster saying "TOP TEN REASONS WHY I AM THE BEST!I didn't post links to John Kerry saying that he's the best. I posted links to some of John Kerry's national security plans so you would know what his plans are. If you had actually clicked on the links and read the policy directions, you would have known that. You still have the opportunity to do some reading to find out what a win for Kerry will mean

Some people are debaters and some people are not; Kerry's a debater, and Bush is not. Chris Matthews actually pointed this out today on Horserace on MSNBC. It was very interesting to see clips of Kerry vs. other candidates and then they showed clips of Bush vs. other candidates... Kerry is clearly a better debate than Bush.

Perhaps, that's why?
Again, memories of 2000 run through my mind. After all, Al Gore was the superior debater, etc...who knows, maybe Kerry will remember not to sigh so that the whole world can hear him.

Because Bush knows if he debates Kerry, he's going to lose. Regardless of how charmless, monotone, and 'flip-flopping' Kerry is, he is much more intelligent that Bush is, and Bush knows it.


dude, the pancake Al gore had for breakfast is smarter than Bush, regardless of monotony, lack of charm or flip flopping. hehe, pancake, flip flopping...funny.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to join forces to shut down 527 Organizations.
So, are you opposed to the First Amendment? It's a little late for BUsh to come out against the 527's, since he signed the law that created them.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to speak out together against the MoveOn.org and Swift Boat attack ads.BUllshit. Kerry has repudiated Moveon's ad that attacked Bush's service or lack thereof.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's publicly-made positive comments applauding Kerry's "honorable" service (I may disagree with Bush on the "honorable" part, but it's still good that Bush is showing support for veterans.)
Again, bullshit. This one you're going to have to prove.

I don't know if Bush is actually IGNORING Kerry's request to debate, and if I recall correctly, a small debate did take place in 2003. However, if Bush is indeed ignoring the Debate request, and I whole-heartedly doubt that he is, he is most likely holding back and letting Kerry's own words stab him (Kerry) in the back. Kerry's constantly changing story and his somewhat treasonous desire to overthrow our Commander-In-Chief are drowning his (Kerry's) campaign faster than the Swifties are.

All Bush has to do is just sit back, relax, and run his own campaign. The Kerry boat is sinking on it's own.
Kerry's campaign agreed to the debate format put together by the Presidential Debate Commission months ago--when he was leading. Bush is theoretically in charge of his own campaign, so any refusal to agree to the format is his. Why? You'll have to ask him, but it's not a sign of strength to dodge your challenger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were getting on his case about using a biased website? You're doing the same thing, using a totally biased source made for the sole purpose of pushing up your canidate's image. Of course John Kerry has his flaws, but George W. Bush does as well.

And of course John Kerry is going to look bad on THE WEBSITE OF THE COMPETITOR WHO WANTS TO BEAT HIM.

Well, can't get anything past you, CAN WE?

Jesus, sometimes I think stupid people are just trying to be funny. But then they open their mouths.

Okay, slow it down a bit. Let's take a look at a few of the things KERRY'S ignoring.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to join forces to shut down 527 Organizations.

Maybe because shutting them down completely would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment and Kerry isn't a fascist?

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's request to speak out together against the MoveOn.org and Swift Boat attack ads.

Well, only the Swift Boat ads have published clear lies, from what I can tell. Again, the spin you put on things means nothing in the realm of the 1st amendment, it is only if you out and out lie that there is a problem.

-Kerry is ignoring Bush's publicly-made positive comments applauding Kerry's "honorable" service (I may disagree with Bush on the "honorable" part, but it's still good that Bush is showing support for veterans.)

No, I think he has ackowledged that Bush said that - but also pointed out that all of his subordinates are still making comments about him being a traitor and having been a bad soldier and all of that. So Bush is basically trying to save face, but has no problem with *everyone* else attacking.

I don't know if Bush is actually IGNORING Kerry's request to debate, and if I recall correctly, a small debate did take place in 2003. However, if Bush is indeed ignoring the Debate request, and I whole-heartedly doubt that he is, he is most likely holding back and letting Kerry's own words stab him (Kerry) in the back. Kerry's constantly changing story and his somewhat treasonous desire to overthrow our Commander-In-Chief are drowning his (Kerry's) campaign faster than the Swifties are.

Actually, it wasn't even ignoring. The debate in question is supposed to be structured as a town-hall kind of thing for undecided voters. Bush's reason for not agreeing to it is that "Partisan voters that have already decided might sneak in." In other words, Bush is afraid of getting a question from a Democrat. WTF?

All Bush has to do is just sit back, relax, and run his own campaign. The Kerry boat is sinking on it's own.

Well, Bush sunk his boat over the past four years. No real time to panic now, is it?

omfg we got the idiot of the day i don't care about the rest of that statement that last part was stupid it's impossible to beat terrorism its a tactic it's like "shooting a mirage" as someone else put it :headbang:

Why are we spending 80+ billion dollars to shoot at mirages?

(It even makes the Dems seem fiscally concious!)

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
I DARE you to explain the listed flip-flops. And "Change of Heart" won't cut it.
Presidents should not sway like drunks when it comes to issues of national security and world issues.

Sure, as soon as you explain Bush's flip-flops and how he swayed like a drunk when it came to issues of national security and world issues. And a simple "Terrorism terrorism terrorism! 9/11!!!!!!" won't cut it.

Again, memories of 2000 run through my mind. After all, Al Gore was the superior debater, etc...who knows, maybe Kerry will remember not to sigh so that the whole world can hear him.
2000 points
1) there was no incumbent
2) al gore was being a pompous ass
3) al gore technically won

2004 points
1) bush is an incumbent: we've seen his stances and what he has said
2) kerry beat out former mass gov in debates
3) bush has been proven weak in unscripted scenarios. ("i dont think we can win the war on terrorism" ... 1 day later "we can and will win the war on terrorism")
4) kerry can only go uphill with publicised debates

2000 points
1) there was no incumbent
2) al gore was being a pompous ass
3) al gore technically won

2004 points
1) bush is an incumbent: we've seen his stances and what he has said
2) kerry beat out former mass gov in debates
3) bush has been proven weak in unscripted scenarios. ("i dont think we can win the war on terrorism" ... 1 day later "we can and will win the war on terrorism")
4) kerry can only go uphill with publicised debates
Excuses, excuses, excuses.

All I know, the same things said today about debates between Bush and Kerry were said in 2000, only change the name Kerry to Gore. And, we all know who won the Electoral College (which is where it counts.)

But hey, if the dream of seeing Kerry develop a personality before the debates makes you sleep better, who am I to deny you that dream?

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

All I know, the same things said today about debates between Bush and Kerry were said in 2000, only change the name Kerry to Gore. And, we all know who won the Electoral College (which is where it counts.)

But hey, if the dream of seeing Kerry develop a personality before the debates makes you sleep better, who am I to deny you that dream?
This of course assumes that Bush will agree to the debate schedule that Kerry has already agreed to months ago while he was leading in the polls.

This of course assumes that Bush will agree to the debate schedule that Kerry has already agreed to months ago while he was leading in the polls.
True. After all, Bush might just decide he doesn't need to help Kerry implode any further, since Kerry has done such a bang-up job (pun fully intended) of it, with a little help from Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreza.

Oh, Panhandlia, I think you've been reading those Time polls a little too closely. This is a dead heat right now, and it'll probably be close--within 5 points--through till the election.

Well, can't get anything past you, CAN WE?

Jesus, sometimes I think stupid people are just trying to be funny. But then they open their mouths.

I beg your pardon?

I came on here to debate with people, not be insulted by jerks with nothing better to do. If you can't be civil, I want to hear nothing from you.

bush's whole position, and what he railed about at the RNC was that he CAN beat terrorism, and a day before that speech in an interview on his tour bus if i recall, (so no script), he stated "i dont think we can beat terrorism"

No. Bush's position was that we can fight terrorism, and reduce terrorism, maybe even eliminate specific terrorist groups. It's been obvious from the beginning that terrorism can never be completely eliminated.

Bush shoots from the hip reasonably well when he's given some preparatory thought to the topic, as evidenced by the debates against Gore last election. He has the most trouble with questions he's not prepared for -- tribal sovereignty, anyone?

Oh, Panhandlia, I think you've been reading those Time polls a little too closely. This is a dead heat right now, and it'll probably be close--within 5 points--through till the election.
Given that only one major poll reflects what you say, and many reflect what I say, I think I have a right.

But you're right. The only poll that matters is on Nov 2nd.

Given that only one major poll reflects what you say, and many reflect what I say, I think I have a right.

But you're right. The only poll that matters is on Nov 2nd.Only one reflects what I say?

http://pollingreport.com/images/SEPgen3.GIF

Looks like only Gallup is giving Bush a significant lead, and we've discussed elsewhere how they're oversampling Republicans in that poll.