Kerry Challenges Bush to Weekly Debates

Of course Bush turned it down. That would cut into his time on the farm in Crawford.

 

To be fair, I think every challenger does this. I imagine the Bush campaign will say something along the lines of, "The President is too busy trying to fight the War on Terror, run the country, and take his message to the American people."

And he probably is. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a large scoop of trouble for any President to handle. Running the country, for Bush, must be extremely time consuming. Just look at how little time he's had off. And why have debates when he's busy taking his message to the American people? You don't seriously think that would show those American people the differences between the two, do you, Sam?

And the War on Terror? See "the invasion and occupation of Iraq." That's clearly where our main effort is going. You know, that conflict that was an option this President chose to do.

He chose to do it. Remember that, folks, in November.

 

Kerry must want his ratings to go down. Weekly.

 

I think Kerry would cry no mas after Bush whipped him so badly a few times. Silly, silly tactic by Kerry.

 

It's not silly, and certainly not unusual at all for a challenger. It's the political game, as distasteful as it is to some people. And practiced by both parties, depending on the circumstances.

If Kerry were to open a significant lead in October, double digits and widening, which I don't expect, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush changed his mind and accepted. But I think it will be tight, down the wire to election day. I also think Kerry will win a significant electoral victory, with an extremely close popular vote margin. Then we might hear more serious talk of Electoral College reform, but that's all strictly my opinion, of course.

 

Popular vote= mob rule. We are a republic, not a democracy. That is a non-constitutional non-starter. We'd have nothing but Democrats getting elected.

 

Isn't it amazing how everyone seems to overlook the Pledge of Allegiance?

Repeat after me...

I pledge allegiance, to the Flag, of the United States of America...
And to the Republic, for which it stands,
One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

 

Getting back on topic...

Deckard is correct. Every challenger tries to call out the incumbent with debate formats like this. It's a strategy to make the incumbent look fearful of a fight. Typical politics.

 

Why does Bush need to debate? It appears the people have already spoken:


Polls Find Bush Overtaking Kerry in Key States // LA TIMES FRIDAY: In Missouri, Bush leads among registered voters, 46% to 44% ; in Wisconsin, he leads 48% to 44%; in Ohio, the president holds a 49% to 44%

 

yes let's just cancel the election altogether and skip to W's 2nd coronation... I mean inauguration.

Polls don't mean too much since they are based on people who have voted previously. I'm betting there's gonna be a lot of people voting this year who have never voted before or who had skipped it in 2000.

 

if we're not a democracy then why are we trying to export it to Iraq? Should we set up an Electoral college there too?

we've had 37 elections since the Republican Party was formed.
in that span they've won the popular vote 18 times and the presidency 20 times. That's over half.

 

It's a strategy to make the incumbent look fearful of a fight. Typical politics.

Jeff, is right that this is customary. It is also customary for the incumbent to decline. . However, it is the custom of not doing this that leads to many people not being interested in national politics.

The lack of suffcient real debate allows morons to dominate with ads like Willy Horton or the ones by the Swift Boat Veterans fop Bush.

 

Are you sure? Polls meant a lot around here when Kerry was ahead.

 

to others here maybe but not me. i don't trust them.

 

I will reiterate that the only poll that means anything is the one that will be taken on November 2.

 

Polls are only meaningful if your guy is winning.

 

actually, i think this is how we should run all elections. ban all campaign ads, from the campaigns themselves and from outside groups, and have single issue, weekly debates from labor day to the election.

 

i'm down with that.
no ads = no need for campaign contributions
no contributions = no corruption (ok, less corruption)