Posted on 09/07/2004 6:09:33 PM PDT by hawaiian
Another idea, Bush has a press conference to say that with the way Kerry is going in the polls, Nader might pass him, so Nader should be included just this campaign cycle to make sure that it is fair.
Two debates too many, IMO. Why should W waste the time with the lying, fake, hate-America, poseur, phony, hate-US Military, fraud, hate-Bush, lowlife liberal-demokkkRAT filth, John F(*cking) Kerry?
A sitting president shouldn't waste the time with a POS challenger, of any political stripe.
It's okay, IMO, for challengers to debate each other, to cull the field, but a sitting president debases himself in a cat-/dog-fight with any challenger.
"You three are running for President, and one of you will be President. We are your children. What will you do to meet our needs, to take care of us?"-Ponytail guy
The town hall/undecided voters format absolutely sucks. W is wise to skip that debate.
I am suprised Bush is even getting TWO debates...since Kerry could spotlight himself BY DEBATING HIMSELF..wow that could go on foreever...months on end..Kerry changing his lies, to counter his lies, on and on and on.....
Well, Kerry is owned by Billy Clintoni and his mob anyway, so it will be fun to see the Clintoni puppet light himself on fire again and again....what are the YELLOW DOG DEMS going to do with themselves...hopefully a massive super nova!!!
PS - two challengers - ala Nixon-Kennedy in '60 - OK; but not a sitting president vs challenger.
shoot...somebody might make certain Kerry shows up with an accordion....:)
Brilliant!
I would hope that they would also demand an unbiased moderator.
Jim Lehrer???? He's a RAT toady.
Bob Schieffer??? Another RAT toady.
Gwen Ifill - who has never, ever had a person on her taxpayer subsidized Washington Week in Review who had ever, ever voted for a Republican.
And Charlie Gibson??? Give me a break.
Demand Brit Hume. Period.
And then disband the Commission on Presidential Debates. Pronto.
This was mentioned this weekend on Fox. Clinton only did two debates in '96. So what's good for the goose....
A real war hero, Bob Dole, only got two why should the John Fonda Kerry get more than Bob Dole?
I agree with both comments. That sort of joking is against the law in airports, government buildings, etc. It should be against the law for candidates as well. Kerry is so juvenile! But calling attention to the remark will only make the threat to W worse!
Two debates are plenty enough. How many does Kerry plan to lose?
Maybe Kerry and Nader should debate each other -- yawn.
Bush is wise to limit the number of debates. Reagan and Clinton only had two. A bogus group of independent voters is a sure-fire set up. That format is the one that sunk GHWB in 92.
Kerry will debate before he decides not to debate.
The libs organizing this fiasco will have the cast of 'The Vagina Monologues' asking their 'unbiased' questions. Bush will be wise to detour this ambush.
Bush and his people should resist a "town hall" debate
like the plague. In addition to the possibility that "undecided" participants might be pro-Kerry, there
is at least one other serious problem with this format:
It tends to bring out Democratic-type, self-interested questions. In my experience viewing these things, questions about the overall national interest, let alone the candidate's ideological orientation, are rarely asked. The focus tends to be on: "what can you do for ME?" These debates are a natural for Dems, dangerous for Republicans.
No first demand Ann Coulter and Mike Savage and then compromise for Brit Hume.
Grab the popcorn.
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.