Posted on 09/30/2004 2:06:50 PM PDT by agarrett
There's a scene in the cult favorite The Big Lebowski in which Walter, the addled veteran, incensed over possibly losing a bowling match, seizes on a technicality to disqualify his opponent, screaming: "This is not 'Nam! There are rules! ... Am I the only one who gives a shit about the rules?"
There's a bit of Walter in George W. Bush this week. Deathly afraid of being challenged on his unraveling Iraq policy, Bush demanded--and won--a series of bizarre rules governing tonight's debate. There will be no rebuttals allowed, for instance. No follow-up questions, no movement about the stage, no audience interaction, no props, no split-screen TV shots, no moderator discretion. The perspiration-prone Kerry was even denied a chilled room. Worst of all, the rules forbid Kerry from asking Bush any direct questions, a prohibition that constrains Kerry's options and makes a mockery of our civic process precisely when open debate matters most.
But Kerry does have an amazingly simple way out of the predicament imposed by this last rule: He can ignore it. Americans have a right to ask tough questions of their president. So does the Democratic nominee. You might say that asking tough questions is the moderator's job. But the mainstream journalists who run these debates almost always serve up softballs. And time and again in this campaign, the media has abdicated its duty to press Bush on the Iraq war. Don't expect Jim Lehrer to do any differently tonight.
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
On the other hand (and something this article skips entirely), it would also open the door for him to respond with questions of his own. I hope it does happen, and the rules break down on this point - it could make this the most interesting debate we've had in ages.
So, supposing this does happen, what questions would you like to see the two ask each other. For me:
From Kerry: Mr. President, given the tremendous spending we've seen under you administration, and the fact that you adamantly refuse to raise taxes, and that the War on Terror is taking considerable funding as well, what domestic programs do you see yourself closing down over the next 4 years?
From Bush: Despite voting in favor of the use of force in Iraq, you've criticized our actions there, saying you would have tried to continue diplomatic efforts. We are now seeing threats that Iran is attempting to start a nuclear weapons program. How long do you think we should spend on diplomacy?
Drew Garrett
sKerry lost
Huh! The only time the press has let up on Iraq is when they were talking about the NG or demanding that Bush stop the SwiftVets.
Normal formal debate rules (which Kerry supposed learned in his brilliant college career) don't allow the debaters to address each other either, so that "rule" is not big deal.
If Kerry does break the rule the smart thing for Bush to do is point out that Kerry is incapable of following the rules (not really a good trait for a world leader, rules are the building block of civilization after all) and then, out of politeness, answer the question anyway.
Senator Kerry, where were you on the night of 24 December 1968? Where? Answer the question!
I'm sure W has been practicing for the impromptu debate also.
what domestic programs do you see yourself closing down over the next 4 years? <<<
I hope President Bush closes down MOST of them! I'm sick and tired of paying for every lazy, illegal, drug addict, etc. out of my pocket.
There are more important things than schools paying for breakfast and lunch during the summer and saturdays for kids - that is nothing but welfare - not education.
There are more important things than the county paying for illegal aliens health care.
There are more important things than providing clean needles to drug addicts, condoms to children, etc.
May sound callous - too bad. Peter is getting very tired of being robbed by Paul.
Typical Lib, just ignore the rules.
The assumption that Bush imposed the debate rules on Poor John, the victim, is just more lefty BS.
But the article does enforce the rat penchant for rule breaking if you feel it's necessary to overcome your 'disadvantage'.
The author apparently hasn't taken into account that if Kerry feels free to break the mutually agreed upon rules, Bush can ignore them also.
Game, set, match Bush.
"no moving around"
brought about by Al Gore sneaking up on Bush like a mugger last time I'm sure
Oh, I strongly disagree.
If Bush were to do that, on national television, he'd look petty and weak. I cannot come up with a way to phrase that with any hope of President Bush coming out of the debates a winner. Remember, it's not who wins on debating style or points, but who makes the best impression on the listener's. That's why this tactic would work.
Drew Garrett
The rules would be unnecessary if Dems had honor.
WHHIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEEEEE!
I guess it doesn't occur to this idiot that having Kerry disregard the rules to which his campaign has already agreed would only further cement Kerry's image as a flip-flopper.
I sure hope so. His public speaking talents are far better than they were 4 years ago. I think he can blow this one away.
I also think his best response if Kerry does follow this tack is to respond with questions of his own. That's pretty much why I started the thread...
Drew Garrett
Bush could smile and ask Kerry, "Are you going to flip-flop on the debate rules too?"
Ditto.
That gate can swing both ways. I assume Pres Bush will have a couple of questions for kerry should the opportunity present itself.
No spin here, huh-uh.
More rhetoric setting up the blame for a loss on GWB and his evil VRWC rich minions!
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.