The debates

So it's official.

President Bush and Sen. John Kerry agreed Monday to meet in three debates over a two-week period starting Sept. 30 that will include separate forums on foreign and domestic issues.

The two sides agreed not to include independent candidate Ralph Nader, or any other candidate, in the presidential debates.

The two sides basically accepted the recommendations of the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which called for three 90-minute Bush-Kerry debates:

Sept. 30 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.

Oct. 8 at Washington University in St. Louis.

Oct. 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe [...]

The campaigns also agreed to one debate between Vice President Cheney and Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, on Oct. 5 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Now there's probably little doubt, regardless of political affiliations, that Kerry is more intelligent than Bush. But intelligence never won a debate. And there's also little doubt that Bush has the common touch, whereas Kerry has almost none of it. Bush can connect with "regular people" in a way that Kerry only wishes he could.

Bush has never lost a debate. Not even against Ann Richards (who kicks serious butt). His debate skills are unmatched, his instincts sharp. I look at him and think "idiot". But the multitudes look at him, and think "what a nice, likable fella".

Bush matched up shockingly well to the far more qualified Gore. And does likewise with the "patrician" Kerry.

And no, this isn't an artificial "lowering of expectations" bullshit. I'm genuinely worried about Kerry in the debates. Will he run circles around Bush on policy, IQ, and the things that really matter in a president? Yes. Will Bush smirk his way to another victory? Probably.

•  Why are they all in Relatively Republican States?

  by JackAshe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:20:04 AM PDT

  •  They're in swing states

    On purpose.

    by mugsimo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

    •  Hmmmmmmmm

      AZ - McCain and definitely not a Swing State
      MO - ASSCROFT and leaning Bush
      FL - JEB Big Head Bush

      I would have preferred

      PA OH WI AR or NV

      by JackAshe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:30:38 AM PDT

      •  On the other hand

        maybe its a good thing that these "safe Republican states" are being labeled as "swing" states.  Maybe it means that McCain isn't confident of pulling AZ out for Bush, MO voted for a dead guy rather than re-elect John Ashcroft to the Senate, and Jeb is going to have to actually out-and-out steal the election for his brother (and he's starting early: indicating that he thinks that unless he rigs it, W might actually lose FLA).

        by Hope Despite All on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:41:52 AM PDT

      •  Well...

        the sites were established long ago. AZ is strongly Bush according to the latest polls. MO is still just barely Bush and Florida is split down the middle. I'm not so sure the location matters so much given that the debates are not targeted to local issues. The exception being MO, which was supposed to be the "town hall" type debate, but no doubt the audience will be heavily screened.

        by mugsimo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:44:21 AM PDT

      •  They are swing states

        Ashcroft was defeated in MO by a dead man, remember?  There's no influence there.  FL has a strong chance of going our way in a fair election.  Whether or not that occurs is another story.  AZ is fairly strong Bush, but not super-strong-in July, one poll had Kerry up by one, and another had Bush up by only three (but the polls now show a double digit lead for Bush there).
        

        by Geotpf on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:50:45 AM PDT

      •  East, Middle, West

        They're distributed across the country E-W. Note that they are all in the South, however. We could have had NH, IA, WA but someone would have howled.

        Note also that the veeps are in OH, smack-dab geo-center swing-state-o-rama.

        by Corax on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:51:07 AM PDT

        •  Meh...

          ...NH and IA have too much influence already (early primary).

          by Geotpf on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:33:59 PM PDT

        •  A couple of things...

          I live in Missouri, and I've never considered it to be in "the South."  In fact, the parts of the state that actually resemble the southern mentality tend to stop about a third of the way up the state, and in some places much sooner.

          Also, I just want to say that when the state elected Mel Carnahan, who was deceased at the time, most of the people seemed to talk about voting for him as a means to honor him and pay sympathy to his wife, who held the position until the 2002 elections.  As it happens, I was not old enough to vote at the time.

          by phaedrusfoldsfive on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 04:02:07 PM PDT

  •  Who Cares?

    I mean, what difference does it make where they're located?

    by ColoDem on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:40:07 PM PDT

  •  They aren't.

    Florida, Ohio (site of the VP debate) and Missouri are probably the most hotly contested states in the entire election.  Bush desperately needs all three to win; Kerry needs just one.

    As for Arizona, it turns out that Colorado is the closest western battleground, but who would have predicted that six months ago? Denver or maybe Vegas might have been a better choice, but Arizona's still close enough to be fighting for. If the debate keeps it close in Maricopa County while driving our numbers higher on the Mexican border and in the North, we will carry the state.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:10:16 PM PDT

    •  Though Florida, Missouri, Ohio Would Be Delicious

      ... Kerry could conceivably win without carrying any of them. Bush could not.

      Kerry is leading in NH and is close in NV. Both of those would give him a win if he carried all the other Gore states.

      In the same scenario, replacing CO for NH and NV, Kerry would win.

      WV is another combo with NV or NH for a Kerry win.

      I realize these are not optimal scenarios, but Bush clearly needs all three to win, plus hold onto all of the other states -- CO, NH, NV, WV -- to win, provided he carries the other states he carried in 2000.

      Many scenarios for Kerry -- fewer for Bush.

      by RevJoe on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 01:49:50 AM PDT

  •  Friday Night Debate?

    October the 8th is a Friday night, or am I getting senile?

    How can they possibly schedule something for a Friday Night?

    This is the "Town Hall" format night isn't it? I wonder who decided on this date and time?

    by edwardbanderson on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 03:41:26 PM PDT

•  Ain't democracy great?

  "I look at him and think "idiot". But the multitudes look at him, and think "what a nice, likable fella"."
  

  by Clueless Joe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:21:23 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad someone said it first...

    because I'm still in shock. Furthermore, I thought Gore, even through the changes, won all three debates four years ago. I didn't think it was even close. I thought it was like a 49-10 football game!

    by hoodster on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:22:38 AM PDT

    •  Debates

      Yes, but the SCLM spun it as essentially a draw, and the average 'mericun evidently can't think for him/herself.

      by carmkb on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:32:16 AM PDT

      •  My problem with "lowering expectations"

        Although it may be a good strategic move to lower expectations for our side by pointing out how awesome Bush is in debates, I sometimes wonder...

        ...if the whores in the media actually did pick up our memo that Bush is a great debater and Kerry isn't, might they actually run with that spin no matter how the debates turn out? The Daily Howler speaks daily of the press turning to their talking points even when evidence contradicts those points.

        Some examples:
        The DNC convention. Media spin, provided by the RNC, was that this was the "reinvention convention" and that Dems weren't presenting their real views. In fact Democrats did present their positive views and the media ignored that. Now the press pretends that the convention was all about Vietnam, when it clearly wasn't.

        The RNC convention: Time and again the media talked about the Republican's domestic agenda, their compassionate conservatism, their positive message (which they said Kerry had not provided). In fact the Republicans were sending up one speaker after another to lie about the Democrats, lie about John Kerry, and lie about Bush's leadership, and saying nothing about their agenda or their record. It was the most negative convention in recent memory, but the media didn't really talk about that.

        So I think we bloggers should be careful on this whole debate expectations thing. I don't want to reinforce the media whores view that Bush is folksy and Kerry is stiff and therefore Bush will win just by showing up. Instead I want to get out "our spin" that Bush lives in a fantasy world while John Kerry is a wise decision maker.

        by existenz on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:57:31 PM PDT

    •  Just say no to the CW!

      Why do we assume that Bush "won" the debates in 2000 against Gore? Because CNN, Fox, et al, ad naseum, told us so? Because Jeff Greenfield said so? Bullshit. Its all media spin, garbage. I submit there was no clear winner.

      On the positive side, Gore's command of the facts was equal to Chimpy's smirky ease. On the negative side, Gore's sighs sucked as did Bush's lame uninformative answers and difficulty in pronouncing proper nouns. It was a draw. What  Bush clearly did win was the media spin war afterwards.

      I am also getting tired of the way it is accepted as empirical fact that Bush is exceptionally "likable". While Bush is liked by many, his personality is also disliked by many and I don't just mean political junkies on Kos. I am talking abour regular folks - many of them now despise Bush's personality as that of a smirky liar. They may have trusted him in 2000 but they don't trust him now. He has burned them.

      Now I know there is a pre-debate war going on where we will say Bush is a great debater, and Kerry is no good, while the other side will say Kerry is a great debater and Bush is terrible, in order to lower expectations for each representative candidate. Fine.

      But at the same time lets not accept the corporate Media's bullshit as fact. The debates in 2000 were a draw and Bush is NOT exceptionally "likable," not in 2004.

      by assyrian64 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:49:51 AM PDT

      •  Why?

        
        Because Kerry said so.  

        by Yamaneko on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:51:59 AM PDT

    •  I thought Gore did well, too

      but all it took was for him to lumber over to stand behind Bush, arms oddly at his sides, like some kind of weird Gort, and then for Bush to do a double take over his shoulder and say, "Hi there," and it was all over.  Bush won.

      That's the level we've descended to!

      Maybe this time they'll just skip the words and have a farting contest.
      

      by rhubarb on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:39:53 PM PDT

      •  I like your idea.....

        and feel the logic here. A farting contest, what better way the demonstrate who is the most qualified person to be president of the good ole USA. It's the best way! If you think about, doesn't farting represent the passion one has to expel what is bad, yet the patience to do it at the right time. We all know the world is evil, we need a leader who can expel bad things from the planet, at the right time, and do it the right way. Yea! No, hell yea! Our founding fathers, who established the framework for the development of this great country, would be proud.

        by hoodster on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:27:43 PM PDT

        •  Expelling bad things from the planet

          is fundamentally a Republican idea, whereas the Dems would argue that farting is a zero sum game, neither adding nor subtracting from the planet as a whole.

          I find myself preferring the Republican model for the nonce.  I can just see Bush leaving the White House (if not the planet) under a cloud.  Of gas.  With a jet-assisted takeoff.  Rrrrrip!
          

          by rhubarb on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:36:40 PM PDT

          •  Thanks.....

            to you, Kos, and John Chambers. And hell, John Lennon, because sometimes you feel a need for a different planet or "help" as you fell "your the only one....".

            by hoodster on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:03:39 PM PDT

          •  If that's true

            Then how come all the gasbags who revuse to expel their foul stench are Republicans?

            I demand an investigation to clear the air on this matter!

            by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:15:11 PM PDT

        •  Oops!!

          "at the right time, and do it the right way"

          Yeah, 'cause if you don't do it at the right time, the right way, you end up having to change your pants ...

          by GoFer on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 03:03:53 PM PDT

  •  It's bad enough ...

    ... for a large portion of our population to willingly embrace a new concept of the totalitarian form of government, but that our future is essentially being decided by Americans who shouldn't be trusted with even the simplest of judgements, such as to brush or not to brush.

    At the risk of being melodramatic, the combined will of the fascists, along with the sucker punch thrown by these boneheads in our electorate, will undoubtedly result in lives needlessly cut short, families destroyed, and the concept of freedom as we have once known it being altered, perhaps forever.

    by neverontheright on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:50:01 AM PDT

•  No Gotchas

  Here's a comment I just posted on this topic over at MyDD:

  I sure hope Kerry doesn't try to get a "gotcha" or "go after" Bush or try to "beat" him in the debates. That's not what debates are really for, and that's why Gore got served last time.

  Debates are a candidate's chance to sit in the public's living room and give them a chance to see what four years of having this person around would be like. Remember that in 1980 Carter and Reagan were tied going into the debates because much of the public were convinced Reagan was a raving lunatic; when he turned out to be a nice guy, they were sold.

  Likewise, when Bush showed up and sleepwalked through the 2000 debates, aw-shucking and avoiding every question to hit his talking points, people weren't really listening to what he said. Gore won the debates on points but lost on personality, and it is precisely this that's the danger for Kerry. There's a million sticks to beat GWB with in a debate, but if the public sees Kerry as a boring liberal flip-flopper it doesn't matter. This is the one spot during the contest where it doesn't pay to fight.

  by Corax on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:21:41 AM PDT

  •  Purpose of the debates

    I largely agree. The only hope I hold out for the debates is as follows: Kerry's current weakness -- remember that in RV polls Bush is generally under 50 in the key states -- stems largely from Republican-stoked fears of his amorphous indevisiveness. If Kerry can be on message and leaderlike -- while putting Bush on the spot occassionally on the issue of Bush's record and broken promises -- he may be able to assuage voter's concerns about those problems. Indeed, if he can create an impression of himself as a strong leader toe-to-toe with Bush, that should move the polls 4-5 points in his direction, i.e., he should be able to pull some of those who have gone back to Bush but aren't entirely happy with him while getting undecideds and leaners.

    The debates are always more of a risk for the candidate perceived to be ahead. Kerry is actually a pretty decent debater. Finally, Gore, I am convinced, would be President if he had known his microphone was on during the first debate. Kerry will, I hope, take that into consideration.
    

    by PolanyiLib on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:27:57 AM PDT

    •  Kerry's opportunity

      If Kerry can be on message and leaderlike

      I think that's the key point. Kerry has a lot more to gain from these debates than Bush. Everyone knows Bush is an aw-shucks everyman bumbling his way through the English language. People either buy the schtick or they don't. These debates won't change that. He'll stick doggedly to his talking points, sprinkle it with some winks to the crowd. Whatever. I think his debating "style" works better for a challenger than it does for an incumbent.

      In the few times I've seen Kerry in debates, he's not especially good at the quick, gotcha, zinger kind of thing. But he comes across as far more comfortable than he does in a prepared speech. And he projects a kind of "good tough" (William Weld's words) that'll serve him well.

      My guess is that Kerry does worse than some people think in the "debate" part of this, but better in the perception game. Which, as said above, is the more important.

      Although, if I were writing for a major publication, I'd say that I don't know how Kerry could ever match up to the peerless salesman from Texas, George W. Bush.

      by BriVT on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:44:55 AM PDT

      •  One more thing . . .

        One subtle offensive move Kerry should make, however, is to talk repeatedly of "courage" and "strength" when explaining what should be done differently. Just keep up a steady drumbeat of "a leader with the courage to look at the facts" and "a President with the strength to face the tough questions." It's true, it plays to his toughness, and it'll slowly make W go insane. If there's one thing W can't handle, it's any challenge to his faux-tough guy routine. If Kerry just kept up a steady pounding of indirect challenges to W's manhood, Bush might just go bat-shit crazy to compensate.

        by BriVT on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:51:35 AM PDT

        •  parent post is VERY IMPORTANT

          I think you've hit the deciding issue right on the head.  This will challenge Bush in the lynch pin of all the Rethuglican propaganda of Bush as the "strong father".

          Somebody PLEASE inform the Kerry champaign about this idea!

          by Dr Morpheus on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:01:28 PM PDT

        •  A leader

          Who isn't afraid to admit that he has to change his approach.

          by freelunch on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:28:30 PM PDT

  •  couldn't agree more

    there are a few templates to study here. one is Carter vs. Ford. Kerry needs to throw up his hands if Bush makes a statement gaffe like Ford's "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration." He needs to look bemused at Bush's ignorance if he mentions something demonstrably false. He needs to look like the adult.

    another is Reagan vs. Carter. kerry needs to connect with the public like reagan did, on a visceral level. he needs to be relaxed, project confidence, and not be all over the map.

    this is more about imagery and mannerism than it is about content (unless Bush blunders badly, which he might). Kerry would be better off making sure he has good makeup, a good night's sleep, and comes off as friendly, relaxed, and confident than he would be worrying about any oneparticular question.

    by thirdparty on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:38:37 AM PDT

    •  Confident masculinity

      "this is more about imagery and mannerism than it is about content (unless Bush blunders badly, which he might). Kerry would be better off making sure he has good makeup, a good night's sleep, and comes off as friendly, relaxed, and confident than he would be worrying about any oneparticular question."

      Yep, that's the ticket. Kerry needs to be relaxed without seeming aloof, confident without seeming to bully poor George. He needs to exchange a pint of blood with Clinton. I'm no fan of Clinton, but this is where Kerry needs to take a page from his book.

      by pHunbalanced on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:59:45 AM PDT

      •  But seriously . . .

        Or maybe not so seriously: wouldn't it just be nice to see Kerry get the Chimperor in a one-armed headlock and noogie him until he admits that he got us into war based on lies?

        by Spideysense on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:54:41 AM PDT

    •  I could agree more

      Of course, Kerry should not make manner blunders. But appart from making a decent apparence and avoiding likeability failures, I don't think that Kerry should strain himself by concentrating that much on manners. He is already quite good in controling his language, and he can resist temptations to experiment with sighing and similar stupid things.

      Concerning intelectual side of debating, this year is a good opportunity to make the point about seriousness of the election and of the debates. What Kerry should do, is to control the impact of Bush' emotional language ("we are at war", "frightening times"). That why Bush is ahead now, because he easily imposes emotional rules and can play them better. Kerry should know how much emotional impact he needs for himself, and apart from that he should convince the voters to use their brains rather than emotional neural circuits. It's doable - the rules do not exist by themselves, they are always imposed by someone.

      by ray z on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:32:41 PM PDT

•  Bush did not succeed in his effort....

  to have hand puppets allowed during the debates.

  by wry twinger on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:22:06 AM PDT

  •  Bush is Wireless

    Rove has a digital wireless probe up W's ass, the vitual strings are always attached.

    by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:33:05 AM PDT

    •  We should have people scanning

      radio frequencies for any "radio assist" via small earpiece provided to 85 during the debates.

      James Randi did exactly this to nutcase evangelist Peter Popoff to prove his shtick was a hoax.

      It'd be a fabulous thing to catch such an operation in action - "Dubya's Brain Caught On Tape!" Imagine the fallout.

      Then again, regardless of the fact that the evangelist's credibility was utterly destroyed (as if they have much to start with), he still remains on the air with countless followers. Bleh.

      by Swampfoot on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

      •  Awesome

        Lock into Bush's frequency during the debates, then start feeding him bullshit and see how much he really says.  We might be able to program a major gaffe into Bush's earpiece that would sway the election.  You know, something like "real ranchers do their sheep with no condoms!"  After Bush melts down, Kerry should have something quick and witty to say that will make humor of the situation while at the same time showing that Bush is utterly incapable of being president.  I don't know, like, "Maybe I should be debating whoever is on the other end of that earpiece" or something.

        by Subterranean on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 08:49:20 PM PDT

  •  Sam Malone

    Debate = chess game
    Bush = Sam Malone, airhead
    Kerry = Robin Colcorde, the better chess player
    Rove = Norm on the computer in Rebecca's office

    by Steve G on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:40:45 AM PDT

•  Its Different This Time

  Its different this time.  Bush has a record to defend--and its not a "reformer with results" this time either.  The "results" are obvious for all to see.  If Kerry can hit him hard without seeming like a bully, Kerry can win.

  Rob
  The Iron Mouth: Only the Hardest Truths

  by Rob Waldeck on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

  •  ^Correct answer..

    Bush has to explain his record ~ Iraq, Abu Ghraib, the lagging economy, rising healthcare costs, etc., without the aid of a teleprompter.  

    In 2000, the economy was in great shape, so his record in TX looked pretty good.  Also, there was no major foreign conflict to worry about.

    by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:35:46 AM PDT

    •  Abslutely

      Bush posed as a moderate uniter who could get things done,  who would have a list of accomplishments that would stun us all if we just gave him a chance to work his folksy fuzzy math misunderestimatin' magic.  Well, he got his chance and guess what?  What you did or didn't do as president counts for more than that blank slate that was debating in 2000.

      by Cathy on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:01:59 AM PDT

  •  This is what I was thinking too.

    He has a disgusting track record to defend.  And he can't even pretend he's an outsider this time.

    by whometense on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:07:29 AM PDT

•  Bush may just

  make a few gaffes that make people think, though he is likeable, he's really not up to the job of being president.

  I'm just hoping this election with the stakes so high people might just be getting tired of Bush's down-home shtick. They may be looking for and choose the adult over the overgrown kid.

  by pox vopuli on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:23:24 AM PDT

  •  Remember Gerald Ford

    Made one mistatement in the debate against Carter in which he basically asserted that the Russians would never take over Eastern Europe on his watch.

    That accidental blunder is widely cited as the turning point for Carter.

    Ah, those were the days! Imagine if Bush said something equally stupid, like Saddam was tied to 9/11...

    by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:26:50 AM PDT

    •  Just imagine

      Imagine if Bush said something equally stupid, like Saddam was tied to 9/11...

      The problem is so many stupid americans still believe it.
      

      by mickey on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

      •   Imagine if Bush said something equally stupid,

        like Saddam was tied to 9/11.

        He just might, hoping that Kerry will say nothing, thereby confirming it, or blow a gasket, thereby looking like a nut.

        by Argyle on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:33:24 AM PDT

        •  I doubt

          Bush will link 9/11 to Saddam, but he will definitely link him to terrorism. I believe they have the links of Saddam giving $25000 to palestinian suicide bombers families, and to most people thats enough of a link.

          The arguement should be on Bush's rush to war,the poor if any planning and the resulting catstrophic success of us bearing the majority of the burdens in coalition deaths and cost.

          God I hope kerry uses that phrase, catatrophic successs

          by mickey on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:54:51 AM PDT

          •  They can't have it both ways!

            I believe they have the links of Saddam giving $25000 to palestinian suicide bombers families, and to most people thats enough of a link.

            Then I hope those people are reminded that US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar also gave money to the families of suicide bombers.

            by glow dog on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:27:08 AM PDT

            •  Kerry loves bashing Saudia Arabia...

              ...and the Saudi's ties to Bush.
              

              by Geotpf on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:38:02 PM PDT

              •  the infamous Saudi telethons

                Kerry seriously ought to bring that up. Since the Chimp is so proud of how he doesn't "do nuance", if he brings up Saddam's links to terror, Kerry would be wise to muddy the water with a complexity (i.e. Saudi telethons) that the Chimp would absolutely choke on and look like a complete jackass in the process.

                Introducing these types of complex situations in which Bush has shown a double-standard on will result in him smirking, getting impatient and generally looking like an asshole because he really can't think on his feet.

                by bostonmass on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:11:20 PM PDT

                •  Shouldn't Shrub be disappearing soon

                  to an "undisclosed location", or take a vacation,  so the script writers and coaches can start prepping him on debate responses, facts, and figures?

                  I think one key is to throw him off script. The Town Hall debate rules state no follow up questions, but will two part or three part questions be allowed? Both Clinton and Kerry can field multiple part questions. Not a Bush strength.  

                  by maggiemae on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 08:08:35 PM PDT

    •  The press is so used to Bush's malaprops

      That they don't even report them anymore.  They just make up what they thought he was trying to say, rather than what he actually said.  Its left to Leno, Letterman and the Daily Show to point out what Bush actually says . . . which is both wonderful and horrifying in its own way.

      by Hope Despite All on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:32:54 AM PDT

    •  well, not so much a turning point...

      ...as a critical speed bump on the way to what may otherwise have been a victory. Ford started out way behind Carter after the conventions were over. Ford's big problem was mostly residual anger over the Nixon pardon and a certain cartoonishness that came from his clumsiness and odd "Whip Inflation Now" campaign (I still have a button!). During the campaign Ford was able to come off as homey, but smart enough, which was a far more attractive combination for many than the egg-headedness of Carter. The big gaffe in the debate reinforced many of the older perceptions, causing a dip for Ford in the polls, but GOP momentum continued on to election day and Carter was only able to squeak out a 2% victory. something like 25,000 votes each in Pennsylvania or Ohio would have done it for the Goopers.

      by Doug in SF on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

      •  I really liked Ford actually,

        but, I was living with my Republican grandparents at the time. He was such a decent man (or so it appeared), and that was very reassuring after Watergate.

        by PLS on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 03:48:52 PM PDT

    •  Ford's error was more than a misstatement

      Ford asically said Eastern Eurpopeans didn't feel like they were occupied by the Soviet Union. Big ooops there. Almost as bad as Rumsfeld saying the other day that Saddam was still running around loose and killing Americans.

      by nyetsoup4you on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:11:22 AM PDT

•  I Used to See Bush the Idiot

  Now I see Bush the Antichrist. And I'm mot even religious.

  by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:23:45 AM PDT

  •  Totally agree

    In fact, its very scary how much like the anti-Christ he is.  Using religion to befuddle the masses and leading us into total anihilation ...

    by Hope Despite All on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:28:43 AM PDT

    •  Metaphor should be ...

      ... Greek.

      Duhbya is the successor to the last brief flowering of ancient Athenian democracy under Pericles.
      

      by lovable liberal on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:48:52 AM PDT

      •  As well as

        the embodiment of the spoiled frat-house party animal.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:52:02 PM PDT

    •  Explosion of religious metaphor on the Left

      I quite worrying. On this blog alone, Bush has been compared to the Antichrist, a pastor compared him to Satan, a falsified bogus map is circulating all over the net proporting to show that the last three hurricanes tracked to hit all the 2000 Bush precincts in Florida and miss the Gore ones (the tracks were altered to fit the data), a "liberal" bishop is approvingly quoted as saying that Kerry is "more faithful to biblical religion", and people get all bent out of shape when anyone questions any of it. At the same time, increasing voices in the media tell the Democratic Party to "distance itself from secularism" and compete with the Right for the "Godly vote". Amy Sullivan and Alan Wolfe are but two examples.

      And this in a dominant culture where the prevailing prejudice is that faith in God is a prerequisite to morality.

      Just take a breath and think about the reaction to all the sancimonious appeals to divine authority on the Right, how alarmed I'm sure you were with the talk that Bush was "chosen", and see how dangerous this path is.

      Don't feed this tendency, no matter how jocularly.  Bush may be a lot of things, but he is the human servent of the people who elected him, and Kerry will be as well.

      Please keep whoever your God is out of the election. Otherwise, you are just like the Right. And both are Wrong.

      by galiel on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:37:32 PM PDT

•  More important than how Kerry does

  is how his campaign and the DNC does in the spin after the debates.  I think their efforts during the RNC we just this side of pitiful and don't have high expectations that they can get it together for the debates.

  by ETinKC on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:24:27 AM PDT

  •  The Spin Wins the Game

    If Kerry can even stay in the Spin Ballpark with Bush, he wins.

    by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:28:49 AM PDT

    •  If Bush doesn't kill and eat moderator, Bush wins

      As long as Bush doesn't kill the debate moderator and eat him live on national TV, Bush will be spun by the press as the winner.

      Look at all the completely ludicrous statement made by Bush and his cronies lately. Bush said we can and cannot win the war in Iraq within 48 hours of each other. Not a peep from the press. Rumsfeld thinks Saddam is still running loose and trying to kill Americans. Not a peep. Cheney says "Vote for Bush or die." Not a word from the media.

      On second though, the press might call Bush the winner of the debate after killing and eating the moderator, and splattering the audience with the blood and entrails. Mass-murdering cannibals are very decicive.

      by nyetsoup4you on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:01:07 AM PDT

      •  Bush Could Kill and Eat Gwen Ifill

        And his fans would love him for it, though her best friend Condi might have a pissy fit.

        by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:07:35 AM PDT

        •  Freepers would cheer Bush the Cannibal.

          We all know that the freeper and booger boards would explode in enthusiastic revelry as Bush hacked and slashed and ate his victims. They would damn Democrats and the trial lawyers and their debate rules for forcing Bush to go through such a long debate broadcast without a snack.

          by nyetsoup4you on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:19:04 AM PDT

          •  Bush Could Eat a Partial-Birth Abortion

            On camera, and they'd spin it favorably. Ugh, sorry for the image.

            by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:50:04 AM PDT

            •  I get same image thinking of whole Bush Presidency

              Dubya's whole presidency is easily represented by that mental image.
              

              by nyetsoup4you on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:40:49 PM PDT

        •  Heck, if he ate Gwen Awful

          I'd do the chivalrous thing and acknowledge that the President does some good now and then. Stopped clock being right twice a day and all that.

          Still would vote for Kerry, though.

          Hopefully he'd get food poisoning and die, although it's more likely Bush would have a Rappacini's Daughter thing going and thrive on it.

          by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:57:12 PM PDT

  •  The spinning already started

    Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney predicted that Kerry would win the debate, because he's such a good debater.

    Expect a lot of that over the next few weeks.

    Also, I'm starting to notice a lot of media outlets playing up the idea that these debates are Kerry's "last chance" to convince voters.

    The GOP is going to do everything to inflate Kerry's debating record and to make the debates seem overly critical to his chances.

    by Argyle on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:36:30 AM PDT

    •  It's over

      Judy Woodruff is calling the debates for Washout.  "A convincing victory," she said, before snarfing another spoonful of RNC talking points. . . . .

      by Spideysense on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:00:55 PM PDT

  •  Expect to see plenty of Necon pundits

    There better be a strong push to at least balance if not overtake the pundits on the other side after each debate.  Even if Bush makes an ass of himself Bush's surrogates and apologists  are going to be fawning all over him to the point that he'll win regardless.  That's what happened to Gore in 2000. We have to learn from mistakes.  Don't let the other side redefine the debates performances and Kerry will do great. I wish the media would just shutout all these pundits "explaining" to the viewers what they just saw. This is war, after all.

    by JimO on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:39:26 AM PDT

  •  The weak responses during the RNC...

    ...were part of the rope-a-dope.  The rope-a-dope is over.

    by Geotpf on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:40:23 AM PDT

    •  WTF does "rope-a-dope" mean?

      That seems to be the latest catch phrase, but people seem to be using it with different meanings.  Anybody care to explain it?

      by Dr Morpheus on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:09:52 PM PDT

      •  Kablooie in St. Louis!

        Sit there and dodge just enough while the other guy thinks he's beating the crap out of you.  Then when he's all tired out, step up and clobber him.

        by jmonster on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:41:38 PM PDT

  •  You gotta remember that after the RNC

    there was no forum that would even entertain a Kerry surrogate.  It was the Republican whore media to the extreme.

    I'm with you, though, hopefully, the debates will provide a little more equality than following that damned convention.

    by VickiStein on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

•  No outsized anger

  Kerry will have to walk a fine line between passion and outsized anger.  Passion will impress undecided voters.  Anger will turn them off.  I hope he is getting lots and lots of practice.

  by scorponic on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:24:32 AM PDT

•  asdf

  But intelligence never won a debate.

  I think a more accurrate statement is that
  showing your intelligence never won a debate.

  I am praying Kerry is using his intelligence
  to negate Bush's folksy "i'm an idiot" appeal.
  

  by JoelK in AZ on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:24:51 AM PDT

  •  Depends on which Kerry shows up

    JK has been sounding like Kerry, the Senator, with all the formal language that entails.  If he can just bring back Kerry, the DA that got convictions out of jury after jury, it might be like watching Perry Mason vs. Cauliflower McPugg.  (Yes, I'm dating myself.)

    by Otter on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:09:45 AM PDT

•  Most people don't watch the debates.

  They just hear the media say that Bush did a fantastic job. And Al Gore really wasn't that great in the debates. Not because Bush is a genius, but because Gore was a mediocre candidate and by 2000 he had lost all of the presence and fire he'd had in 1992. I couldn't believe it was the same person. If it had been the same person, I may even have voted for him in 2000.

  It's interesting that your description of voter opinions ("what a nice likeable fella") sounds like dialogue from Shari Lewis & Lambchop. She'd probably have more credibility than most reporters today.

  by JamesB3 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:25:07 AM PDT

  •  Yes Yes Yes

    It's all about the media's consensus following the debate. If they decide Bush wins, he wins in the public mind, too.

    The key, as someone posted upthread, is for K/E to get the surrogates out there on every network.

    by logorrhea on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:34:47 AM PDT

  •  Most people don't watch debates?

    Says who?

    by Jumbo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

    •  Says the ratings

      Most people don't watch conventions either. Look at the results from the conventions this year. The media said that the Dem convention was a failure and boring and fake -- any bounce was quick and small. The media said the GOP convention was fantastic, the Republicans were oh-so-unified, moderate, that they hated those terrorists, Bush had never been better, blah blah blah. Bush surged ahead in the polls and is still in the lead.

      by JamesB3 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:46:06 AM PDT

      •  People do watch the debates

        Nielsen said about 46 million people watched the first debate last year. The number who watched the second and third was less, but still strong(I think it was around 38 million for each). Yes, the spin afterwards is important but I think that people will watch. If that many watched in 00, I would think it would be that many or more who are watching this time around.

        by BC3 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:15:51 AM PDT

      •  Scariest part of 2000 debates....

        ...I believe there is a study that found those who watched the debates clearly thought Gore won, while those who DIDN'T see the debates believed the media whore spin that the Chimp won. It was like two different worlds. The Real Reality and The Whore Reality. And the whores never let up on Gore...We have to guard against this again....

        by Volvo Liberal on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:15:57 AM PDT

        •  This makes sense to me

          Having watched the debates and having been convinced that Gore trounced Bush (who seemed to NEVER answer a question) I was appalled at the "consensus" that Bush "won" anything.

          Did he "win" the debates like he "won" the Office of President?

          by HargroveD on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:50:21 AM PDT

          •  I watched in 2000

            I sure hope that when Kos says "Bush matched up shockingly well to Gore," he's talking about other people's opinions and not his own. I watched that crap, and good God... Georgie seemed like a nice enough guy, but STUPID. Inarticulate, evasive, DUMB. He was clearly doing a bad Reagan imitation. He was not a good debater, he was a good question-avoider.

            When someone responds to a question about how many Americans lack health insurance by saying "I don't like to talk about in-surance... that's a Warshington word. I like to talk about health care"... and then doesn't say f***-all on the subject... what are your criteria for calling him a good debater?

            I didn't see him against Ann Richards, but reading the transcripts, I can easily believe he was good at local politics. It was his territory; he'd been groomed for it. On the national stage, he has no idea what he's talking about, and it shows. I ascribe 90% of the popular image that Kos seems to have bought to the wet kisses bestowed by corrupt media.

            by Eli on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:40:04 PM PDT

•  I'd really like to see

  Kerry call out Bush on the flip flopper meme his campaign has directed against him. He needs to address it and put it to rest in front of the whole country.
   He can surely point out at least a few example of Bush flip flopping, most pointedly Bush one day saying the WOT cant be won, and the very next day saying it could.

  by mickey on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

  •  Flip-flopping

    What astounds me about the "flip-flopper" charge is how cynically it treats the American public.  On, say, 9/20/2001, Bush's approval rating was somewhere around 90%.  The few of us who still disapproved of the Bush the Younger felt alone and isolated; the majority of Americans rallied around the man they thought would lead them wisely in the War on Terror.

    Over time, the majority of Americans realized that their trust was misplaced.  The masterminds of the 9/11 attacks remain at large.  The United States picked a war with Iraq-despite the chaos that toppling the Iraqi government created; despite the lack of any real connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government; and despite real threats to American security from other places (think Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran).  The Bush administration used its political capital to push through tax cuts that would ostendibly jump-start the economy.  While they did reduce the effective top income tax rate, they were markedly ineffective in helping working-class and middle-class Americans.

    By the time that Congress voted to authorize force in Iraq, some but not all Democratic politicians were turning against Bush.  Kerry, alas, still believed the lie that war against Iraq would be a last resort.  But remember that, at the time, a large majority of Americans felt the same way.  They believed the lie that American troops would not be sent into a no-win situation.  They believed the lie that the Iraqi WMD programs were real.  They believed the lie that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace.

    John Kerry knows better now.  And a majority of Americans--for the most part--knows better, too.  Calling Kerry a flip-flopper is tantamount to telling American voters that they're stupid to change their minds.

    by tim on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:39:36 AM PDT

    •  except that

      the flip flopper meme has stuck , and unfortunately for many people Kerry has not articulated his war position and votes and statements in simple sound bites .  He will have a chance to do so at the debates, but for now the meme is that many people dont know where he stands or what he will do in Iraq. Hopefully speeches like the one he gave yesterday will start to clear the fog from some peoples perceptions, but I still think he needs to hit it hard
      And as far as your asserions that the majority of Americans now know better, you must be reading and watching different polls and media then I do.

      by mickey on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:48:41 AM PDT

    •  very well said

      I had always been thinking that! 90% to less than half that in approval rating. So those 45% are flip-floppers? ha!

      by BC3 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:18:26 AM PDT

  •  flip flops

    The whole "flip flop" thing, I believe, has been the most devastating meme to Kerry's campaign. Every single undecided person I talk to, or anyone I know that hates Bush but is voting for him anyway cite Kerry's undecisiveness as reason #1.

    Bush has destroyed the credibility of his office so much, that voters are extremely worried about where they are putting their trust. Most undecideds/barely-Bush voters just can't trust Kerry because of how bad the Presidency has been tarnished the past 4 years. They know Bush is full of lies, so what would make Kerry any different? Possibly they just think Kerry is too good to be true, and don't trust that.

    Bottom line is that Bush has caused the American people to lose whatever trust they had left in the Presidency. Labelling Kerry as a flip flopper plays off of this.

    I just wish once and for all Kerry could dispel the flip flop meme completely (great performances on Letterman and TDS, but he still has failed to do this enough to satisfy the public), and if the American people give him a chance and put him in office, we can go back to the day when Presidents were trusted and respected.

    If your partner cheated on you, it'd be a while before you could trust someone new. I think this matters a lot when we see why people are undecided or despise Bush but are voting for him anyway. Americans feel cheated and don't want to have their heart broken again by someone new.

    by gonzo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:14:37 PM PDT

•  Two comments

  I so totally don't understand how anyone could look at Bush and see "likable guy with a common touch" when all I see is "smirking entitled self-satisfied smug rich guy who has lost complete touch with reality."

  Two, I liked Kerry's comments last night on Letterman about a) they wanted Edwards to stand and Cheney's people wanted him to sit and b) he wanted Bush to sit on Cheney's lap . . .

  by Hope Despite All on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:27:00 AM PDT

  •  Back in 2000,

    There was an amusing cartoon playing on the idea "Electoral College."  This was a college -- natch -- where backpack-wearing, book-toting elephants and mules went to school, and participated in all manner of crazy hijinks.

    The most revealing frame for me was the dorm room, where the elephant was belching loudly after chugging Coors; the mule -- skinny, bespecled, with a peeved expression on his face -- was trying in vain to study for a poly sci exam.

    That there is the secret to Bush's baffling popularity.  Nobody likes the keener at the front of class with his hand perpetually in the air.  Everybody, though, likes (or at least wants to be as cool as) the slacker at the back hitting the keener with spitballs.

    There is a deep strain of anti-intellectualism in contemporary American culture, and that's why the smirking chimp a-hole beats out the policy wonk every time.

    by Dale on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:39:13 AM PDT

    •  Whereas

      I have always liked the geeky guy better than the belching frat boy and so never get all the nattering about what a "regular guy" Bush is ...

      by Hope Despite All on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:44:24 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, me too,

        but you know what they say:  there's no accounting for taste.

        Kerry reads books, is interested in history, is well-travelled, played guitar in a rock band, has a genuine curiosity about the world around him?  Sign me up.

        by Dale on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:48:19 AM PDT

    •  Drunken Fratboys

      I read that during the Republican Convention, drunken fratboys were quite comfortable making AIDs jokes in New York City.

      I was driving along a freeway this morning when suddenly there appeared right on my ass a HUGE SUV speeding dangerously and weaving between lanes: unconcerned with driving laws, disregarding the safety of his passengers, heedless of the intrusiveness of his driving much less the lack of respect for the lives of the rest of us who must share the road to get to our destinations.

      As he roared past me, I saw Bush/Cheney stickers on his window.

      by HargroveD on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

      •  That's Bush/Cheney in a nutshell:

        a giant Humvee careening past terrified Corolla drivers like a speedboat through canoes, its drivers wildly overcompensating for their insecurities, the whole ethos that of "GET OUTTA MY WAY."

        Why do those guys always have "W" stickers?  Something about the font:  fat, tumescent, and thick -- like their heads.

        by Dale on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:23:21 PM PDT

      •  Finally saw my first B/C sticker

        It was in the supermarket parking lot, on...YES, a hummer, and...YES, illegally parked in the gimp spot.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:02:27 PM PDT

  •  Bush knows how to play the game.

    He senses what people want to hear and who they want him to be, and plays the part accordingly; in other words, he's a smarmy, manipulative little weasel. Of course his act has been wearing thin for quite a while, and if not for the most formidable mass brainwashing/hypnosis apparatus in history, would have long ago been exposed for the non-entity he is.

    by kwyzkl on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:29:33 AM PDT

  •  Ah yes, but we don't have those lovely

    RNC issued rose-colored glasses. I hear it makes all the difference :)

    by awnm on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:43:08 PM PDT

  •  Why in the world

    did that comment merit a "1" rating?

    by bunny on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 01:47:41 PM PDT

•  Tactics

  I have thought, ever since I learned that these debates all used prescreened answers, that Kerry would do well to use the following tactic: Have someone create the probable Bush response. It can't be that difficult, as he speaks almost exclusively from script. Keep in mind that Bush will always sneak in an insult to Kerry wherever possible. Then devise a response that, if given first, throws Bush's response off and makes it seem weak and a response, if given second, that undermines whatever Bush's previous remark had been.

  I am hopeful with all the supposed talent and intellect in the Kerry camp they can pull something like this off.

  I do think the foreign policy debate coming first is not a bad thing. It does mean that all the marbles will be in play right from the start. A good show for Kerry there will be important, as the town hall and domestic debates have some built in advantages for him.

  I like that they will be standing (is that correct?)

  I am suspicious of "soft supporters" in town hall debate and feel almost certain there will be Rovification of that group. What the hell is a soft supporter anyway, especially in this election? In real life, it's someone who can't stand Bush but doesn't think Kerry will be an improvement. Somehow I don't think that's who it's going to be in the debate audience.

  by Hrubec on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:27:38 AM PDT

•  Two of three for Bush

  Bush will win the ones where the questions are prearranged. He'll cream Kerry sadly. Our real hope is the open forum. Bush is terrible off-the-cuff, no matter how well prepared he is and mno matter how much he turns on the charm(?) or whatever it is. I hope we can do something to make sure people tune in to that debate.

  by pHunbalanced on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:29:07 AM PDT

  •  Unfamiliar territory

    Kerry will probably "lose" the first debate, as Bush pulls out a new "fuzzy math" catchphrase. However, I see no way that Bush will be able to stand up to the pressure of undecided voters. If you compare his performances at closed-door rallies with those in front of non-vetted crowds, it is pathetic.

    by eherrnst on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:34:38 AM PDT

  •  The Open Forum

    The "open forum" debate will likely be the most tightly scripted, with every questioner thoroughly vetted and their microphone ready to be switched off at a nanosecond's notice should the speaker vary from the script. "We have a problem with that microphone, Jim. Let's move on to the next person."

    by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:38:31 AM PDT

  •  Kerry must not ...

    ... play by the rules.  He should call them guidelines, by the way, never 'rules'.  He must address Duhbya directly and let Duhbya whine to the moderator for help.

    "Mr. President, you hold the most powerful office in the world.  Surely you can hold up under a polite question."  

    Kerry must follow up:  "This debate is too important to the American people to be a series of mini-speeches and rehearsed sound bites."

    And then he needs to deliver his own rehearsed sound bites.

    "Mr. President, you're the leader of the oldest democracy in the world.  Can't you explain your policy?"

    "Mr. President, after four disastrous years, what have you learned that would make the next four years better?"

    "Mr. President, please, I wanted to have faith in you, but you failed America, and your time is up."

    by lovable liberal on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:01:57 PM PDT

•  Kerry should walk in in flip-flops

  Heh.  Maybe not really, but it would be a clever move to show he has a sense of humor and hears what the opposition is saying-- and can still mock it!  Make his chief vulnerability his strength.  I hope he learns to answer questions in short, simple, direct phrases and I hope he mentions Bin Laden at least three times.  But mostly I want him to emphasize how government is accountable to the people, that his administration would have followed the trail to the responsible parties for Abu Ghraib, that his administration would not gloss over and deny ugly truths, but work on fixing them (and he's got a lot of fixing to do), and that his administration will be open and accountable, as contrasted with the Bush admin's famous secrecy.  What's good ol' boy about being afraid to face the public-- or the truth for that matter?

  by persimmony on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:30:24 AM PDT

  •  He should come in wearing them...

    and carry in another pair and hand them to Bush.

    by Worship Your Toaster on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:36:12 AM PDT

    •  No direct contact

      :( Too bad because I love that.  I suppose this is to prevent it from becoming a slugfest.  Kerry's got the height advantage, but I'm pretty sure Bush would fight dirty.

      by persimmony on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:39:05 AM PDT

      •  It wouldn't happen

        Bush runs from fights.

        by Spideysense on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:09:39 PM PDT

•  Bush is not unintelligent.

  As Al Gore notes, there are different kinds of intelligence, and it's wrong for someone with one kind to judge a person with another. However, speaking for myself, I feel confident that Al would agree with me: We, the American people, are the stupid ones.

  That said, Bush's campaign is all about motivating the wingnut base. I would expect that he'll do what he has before, in every public confrontation, which repeat his talking points, deftly. He's hardly had a big challenge lately, fielding questions from audiences that couldn't be more friendly if they were his kin (note to self: check out this possibility), and his last go around (with Tim Russert) had the buffoons over at The Corner in shock. If his arrogance and isolation hold up, I like our odds in every aspect. But, I suspect, he'll put on some humility for awhile during preparations--he wants to win more than anything. He's a very, very good campaigner and candidate. It's when he gets the job he starts sucking.

  If the election is about getting the undecideds by talking substance, this is a great opportunity for Kerry, on the other hand.

  by Brian CB on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

•  the two debate moments i'm waiting for

  1. a moderator asks bush "now that you've had a few months to think about it, what is the biggest mistake you've made in the last four years?" as bush again proceeds to stumble through 30 seconds of bumbling silence.

  2. Edwards cross-examines Cheney on the Iraq-AQ "connection".

  by thirdparty on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:31:10 AM PDT

  •  Yeah...

    Cheney vs. Edwards oughta be great... In fact, that single debate may have more impact than all three presidential debates.

    If edwards goes after Cheney like a trial lawyer should.

    LOL

    I can hardly wait.

    by NewWay4NewDay on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:35:15 AM PDT

    •  Remember...

      ...Kerry was also a trial lawyer, although he was a prosecutor.
      

      by Geotpf on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:41:54 AM PDT

    •  Cheney v. Edwards

      I agree, THIS is the debate that will be one-sided. The public doesn't like Cheney, even Bush fans recognize that Dick is the bad cop, and a necessary evil to keep W on course, and the football-mentality voter will be looking for a fight.

      While Kerry has to be careful not to look mean and overtly smart, Edwards can flog Cheney into hamburger with impunity. In fact, Edwards can convert people looking to vote for the winner where Kerry has no chance.

      by easong on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:45:56 AM PDT

      •  Don't underestimate Cheney

        I thought Cheney wiped the floor with Lieberman in 2000.  Now that was probably Lieberman's fault but when I re-read the transcript I was impressed at Cheney's debating skills (and Lieberman's awkward attempts to define himself).

        Cheney probably has a better command of policy minutiae than does Edwards, but Edwards is the polar opposite in temperament.  Will Sunny John beat Montgomery Burns?  It's not obvious to me who wins that one.

        by Steve G on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:25:35 AM PDT

      •  A few good men -- and then there's Dick Cheney

        JE: "Did you lie to the American people about the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden?"

        DC: "You want an answer?"

        JE: "I think the American people are entitled."

        DC: "Grrr."

        JE: "I want the truth!"

        DC: "You can't handle the truth!"

        JE: "Did you lie repeatedly in saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?"

        DC: "I did what was necessary to ensure that our party would stay in the White House and my cronies would be able to line their pockets."

        JE: "Did you lie repeatedly in saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?"

        DC: "You're goddam right I did!"

         

        by Spideysense on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:17:36 PM PDT

    •  shhh.....

      don't say the T L words. they're baaaaad.

      by sharky on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:47:41 AM PDT

  •  Bush's answer

    He'll be prepared for the biggest mistake question this time and it'll be something like "We should have attacked Iraq sooner, been tougher" been more bat-shit crazy.

    by nightsweat on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 11:22:22 AM PDT

•  Preperation

  Don't forget Bush has been practicing with a team since July.  And word is the guy role-playing Kerry has been coming after Bush hard and Bush has an answer for everything.

  I just hope Kerry's been preparing just as assiduously.

  by dansac on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:32:51 AM PDT

  •  John Kerry is taking the debates seriously

    Remember this exchange in his Daily Show appearance:
    

    JON STEWART: Do you think you'll-- when-- when you get into the debates with him is this going to be-- will you be able to do that?...

    JOHN KERRY: Well, that's the test of debates. I mean, look, the President has won every debate he's ever had. People need to understand that. He beat Ann Richards. He beat Al Gore. So he's a good debater. And debates are sort of formulaic.
    

    That could've been setting up the "high expectations" bar...but I think it's also an indicator that Kerry is preparing to mop the floor with Bush. We've already seen him honing his arguments and his sound bites over the last month.

    And can we please ask the press to stop saying "Bush and Kerry have agreed to the debates" and instead tell the truth -- that "Bush has stopped trying to weasel out of the debates"?

    by galnoir on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:43:07 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      "Bush agrees to debates" is like saying "Bush forms commission to investigate 9/11" or "Bush forms Dept of Homeland Security."  

      by Spideysense on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:19:36 PM PDT

  •  Not to worry

    Kerry has been practicing against a feces-flinging chimp in preparation for debating Bush.  He'll do fine.

    by Subterranean on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:17:59 PM PDT

•  CPD non-partisan?

  ...that's a riot.

  by bvac on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:32:57 AM PDT

•  But here's what's different about these debates

  ...bush has grown out of his comfort zone.  I believe he was a confident governor in that he felt that he was on top of the issues (not saying he was...but that he felt that way) and it's easy to be confident when you're running for president....you haven't had to do anything yet...but now he's had 4 years of being out of his league & realizing what he doesn't know...and, of course, all of his decisions have been poor ones...I think that will come to play.

  by Southern Hope on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:33:02 AM PDT

  •  Fear

    I know everyone says George Bush is cocky and arrogant, and he is on a certain level - when he's in the comfort zone. But I think much of his verbal stumbling and inability to answer direct questions stems from fear. I think deep in his heart he knows he isn't qualified to be president, and he's afraid of being caught.

    As you argue, Bush now has a record...and a very bad one at that. This may make him insecure and cause him to stumble. I hope so anyway. But most likely he will just keep saying the same old crap about "good vs. evil" and "freedom" and other bullshit and then the analysts will all agree about what a great job he did.

    by logorrhea on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:42:39 AM PDT

•  Kerry really has to stop it with his tongue....

  Every time I see Kerry on TV he is repeatedly licking his lips or bighting on his tongue.  It is re