DEBuckeye said:It's the same thing with Kerry's proposed monthly debates. There's no way Bush should spend his time worrying about arguing with Kerry every month- he's got much more important things to do. But, when he declines, Kerry and his cronies will attack him as being scared, or weak.
Nixon said:The great part about this is that Kerry rejected Edwards not even a month ago when Edwards called for a series of one-on-one debates.
Unfortunately, the as usual means pretty meaningless. Wouldn't it be great if the debate format would be like it always is and then, after candidate says his piece, the other candidate could also ask a question? That would be not only entertaining, but more meaningful into the insights of one's mental prowess.Nixon said:And there will be Presidential debates like usual...why should John Kerry get to dictate new rules for debate?
Nixon said:Whether the debates are informative or not has nothing to do with the fact that the format has been used for a long time and it is proposterous to attack George W Bush for not going along with his challenger's proposal to change that when his challenger refused to do the debates his challenger wanted him to do.
As for me, I don't need a debate to decide who to vote for.
buckeyebri said:By all means let's not have the debates in as an informative forum as possible. Better that we let the media and polls convince us as to what are the pressing issues and which candidate we should vote for.
Nixon said:With "informative as possible" being that which John Kerry would like to dictate. Excuse me for not falling all over myself in excitement.
Actually I don't think Kerry is a big enough weasel or jackass to make a good president. We have had a string of weasely jackass presidents since the Constitutional Convention, and our current unbroken streak goes back to LBJ.Kerry's a weasel and a jackass. He is not the type of person we need in the White House.
IIRC, in the 2000 debate season, there was an attempt to have a more real debate discussing issues but I think it was the Bush crowd that didn't want it. He wasn't president at the time. It is easy to fall back on the 40 years of practice line when you are in office but he wasn't at the time. So why was the Bush camp not willing to do this 4 years ago? I would like to hear some valid reason.Nixon said:This has nothing to do with the stupidity that you see in and the contempt that you have for the president. The President does not have to go changing 40 years of practice because his challenger wants him to. The fact that you actually demand that he should shows a high level of partisanship(not a bad thing, but it's usually decried as one) and nieviety.