Posted on 09/19/2004 1:05:29 PM PDT by Tribemike
"There you go again!"
That is just silly. The best way for Bush to prove Kerry isn't up to the job is TO DEBATE him and ask Kerry directly about his anti-defense record of the past twenty years. After that debate we can then put this election to bed (unfortunately the DUer's will be fighting for the next four years). For Bush to say he won't debate is arrogant. That is Kerry's expertise, not Bush's.
You lost me. You listed lots of good reasons why Kerry isn't deserving of votes, but there is no logical tie-in from your list to your notion that there should be no debates.
Can you debate someone who takes no stand on everything?
John Kerry shouldn't even be qualified to run for any elected office at all.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 3, states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who ... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against (the United States) ... or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
John Kerry as as a then commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
John Kerry also had violated the legal prohibitions on individual citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in wartime (Article III, Section 3).
Bush should set all the ground rules for the debate. He should know all the questions in advance.
Kerry should be forced to wear a big diaper and show all the wounds he received from Viet Nam that got him three purple hearts.
Therein lies the rub... Bush's team (James Baker, et al) is negotiating debate format - right now the format does not have a section where the candidates ask each other questions, just the moderators or "town hall audience members". The moderators proposed by the supposedly bi-partisan debate committee are from CBS, NBC and PBS. Under this format, Kerry will only see softballs.
Bingo, enufff said.
I like Bush's idea: let Kerry debate himself.
Turn on CSPAN right this minute; Kerry is making a speech to the National Guard.
Come back and tell me Bush shouldn't get on a stage with him.
Kerry is going to come off looking like a pompous a$$; Bush, no matter what he says or does, is going to appear like somebody that the American people can TRUST.
I say give Kerry a microphone 24/7.
Also, President Bush has no need to worry about the debate or in wasting his time there. Most of us have a higher regard for his abilities, apparently.
Well, I definitely don't like that format, both candidates should face the tough questions.
What bugs me is that if Bush backs out, every news outlet including FoxNews will accuse GW of running scared and not being able to support his own core issues. It REALLY sucks that that very truth isn't being said about Kerry, but that is the reality of the situation.
Jim Baker should begin from a position of NO debates.I couldn't agree more.
Then he should make clear that for any debates to happen, sKerry must sign from 180 to release ALL his military records and sKerry and sTerry must release all tax records for the last five years.
Then we can begin to think about having some debates.
On the other hand, considering that all the moderators are a bunch of commie leftists, maybe President Bush will be better off just skipping the whole thing. Must not look like a chicken, however.
I want to hear the debates.
In order to debate, a debater must take a stand on an issue.
Therefore, kerry will have to take a stand on the issues in order to participate in the debate.
That sould be interesting.
The best way to screw Kerry is to give him a microphone and a 24-hour feed to CNN, MSNBC, and the alphabet networks. It's like Vegas: the longer he stays at the table, the higher his probability of losing is. In this case, the longer he talks, the more he screws himself.
From the standpoint of optics, W has no choice. He must have at least two debates. The media would go bonkers and Kerry would have an issue, i.e., Bush is afraid to debate him. Every Presidential election since 1976 has had televised debates between the candidates. There was a hiatus between the 1960 Nixon/Kenedy debates and the Ford/Carter debates in 1976, but they have become a fixture ever since. If Bush tried to duck the debates, he would lose politically.
Bush should debate Nader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.