Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:10 PM
Original message |
How is Bush going to be able to debate against our nominee? |
|
Seriously, I don't think the best prep team money can buy could help this guy against any of the nine dems. All of them actaully understand the words that they are speaking, don't say uh uh ummm, and don't have to look down at the paper and pause for several seconds to figure out how to pronounce big words. I think he'd almost be better off having Chenney do the debates for him.
|
union_maid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:13 PM
Response to Original message |
1. They know lots of words, too. Dozens of them |
|
They all seem to know how to string them together in a coherent sentence, too. Seems to me that Bush will try to get out of a real debate, but of course, if he refuses that's a big one for our side.
|
Skip Intro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:14 PM
Response to Original message |
2. His only hope is to find a way out of them |
|
and that is kind of scary...
|
billbuckhead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. The media will just say the Chimp won. he beat expectations again. |
|
No one who watched the debate could have thought Arnie won. No one who watched the debates between Gore and Chimp could say Chimpy won. But the media always says Bush beats expectations again.
|
CarlBallard
(512 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
But now that he's the president, are the media really going to say "Seeing as how he didn't pee his pants, Bush wins!" this time? I mean really can they frame the debate as the sitting president is awful, but not as much so as we thought?
|
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:21 PM
Response to Original message |
4. He will be much too busy doing important president stuff to have time |
|
for debates. Would love to debate, really, but this leader of the free world takes a lot of time...</sarcasm>
|
DebJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. ...leader of the free world takes a lot of time for vacation, that is! |
kalashnikov
(257 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:21 PM
Response to Original message |
5. itll be like all other debates |
|
he easily earn a passing grade by memorizing canned answers to common questions he knows the moderator will ask. He would only fail if there were a moderator with some balls who would ask tough, original, and penetrating questions instead of rehashed junk that the candidate has been responding to for months on the campaign trail. Of course that won't happen.
|
Paragon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"Terror. September 11th. Terror. Terror. Evil. Terror. Cuba. Terror. Terror. Faith-based initiative. Terror. Terror. Terror. September 11th. Terror. Terror. Do-Not-Call. Terror. Terror. Terror. Terror. Liberal. Terror. Terror. Madman. Dictator. Terror. Terror. Dot com bubble. Terror. Terror. Terror."
|
CarlBallard
(512 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Terror
Just stealing some of your funny :).
|
GiovanniC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. You forgot "sex slaves" n/t |
ignatius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-11-03 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
22. Aw man, you forgot axis of evil. |
hobbes159
(266 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:37 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Look at what he does now.... |
|
Dodge the question, give answer to completely unrelated subject and keep repeating the same lines over and over again. All we need is a moderator or a debate format that allows the Dem candidate to say: "Sorry, George, you didn't answer the question. Want to try again?"
|
E_Zapata
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:39 PM
Response to Original message |
12. He doesn't have to debate, and he won't. Arnie was the test subj for that |
|
I believe that.
They needed to see if the electorate would trounce any candidate unwilling to speak about his record, beliefs, policy ideas. Et voila, no problem. The sheeple are perfectly willing to accept a candidate saying they 'don't have time' and keep the votes rolling in for that candidate.
Because, in essence, the american electorate doesn't really want to hear the TRUTH about a candidate's idiocy. The media spin is perfect. They throw their votes behind the candidate most likely to not make them think about reality. Why, it's better than crappy TV for numbing the mind. Wah hoo.
|
kalashnikov
(257 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. I wouldnt be so cynical |
|
about arnies election. 70% of california hated Davis (for better or worse) and desperately wanted someone to replace him; unfortunately the two serious candidates bustamante and Mcclintock were too far out on the political spectrum to appeal to the centrist voters. Thus they voted for the only percieved centrist: Arnie. He was not seen as a radical Repub (Mcclintock) or a far left Dem (Bustam.) in the pocket of Indian tribes and the Latino vote. The voters put ino ffice someone, who because he was so silent on the issues, allowed them to apply whatever label they wanted to him. If there was another well known centrist in the campaign I believe they would have beaten Arnie. People wanted Davis' moderate positions without Davis.
|
arcane1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:44 PM
Response to Original message |
13. participating in the debates will only weaken our resolve.. |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-10-03 11:45 PM by arcane1
and interfere with the war on terra, giving hope and encouragement to our enemies
only someone with no regard whatsoever to the safety of the Murkan people would suggest that the president distract himself with petty partisan bickering
the Murkan people want more than that
:hopefully obvious sarcasm:
|
Kurt Remarque
(709 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:44 PM
Response to Original message |
14. very low expectations... |
|
as long as he can complete a sentence
|
bluestateguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:51 PM
Response to Original message |
16. His negotiating team will play hardball |
|
They won't want a townhall meeting format. They will insist on the debate being moderated by Brit Hume or Rita Cosby. They will also try for the "Meet the Press" format of the 2nd debate in the 2000, which tends to facilitate chit-chatting, but no real debating.
|
paulk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:51 PM
Response to Original message |
17. gore mopped the floor with him... |
|
and the media said bush won.
|
arcane1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
18. I saw a poll the other day, somewhere online... |
|
that said that the majority of people who watched the debates thought that Gore won, but the majority of people who watched the news reports about the debates thought that Bush won
thanks to bullshit biased 'librul' media coverage :grr:
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:54 PM
Response to Original message |
19. People have said Bush will duck the debates |
|
in every race he's ever run.
There's no way he'd debate Anne Richard. She'll chew him up like yesterday's chaw.
He's not going to debate Gary Mauro. He's got nothing to gain by it.
Al Gore is the best debator in America. Wait till he gets Shrub in the same room.
Every election it's the same thing.
Bush won't debate. Then the negotiations start and he ends up getting most of what he wants.
He debates. Does almost decent and gets declared the winner because he did better than everyone expected, meaning he didn't vomit on himself dueing the debate.
If he debated against Anne Richards and Al Gore why would anyone think he wouldn't debate this time. It seems to go against all evidence.
|
Demobrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:58 PM
Response to Original message |
20. There won't be a debate. |
|
If all else fails, there will be an extremely fortuitously timed national emergency (I don't want to say terrorist attack) precipitating the regrettable but necessary cancellation of the event.
|
rasputin1952
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-10-03 11:58 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Damned if he does; damned if he doesn't... |
|
no winning scenario for bush.
If he goes into a debate, he'll get crushed.
If he avoids a debate, he'll get more than crushed, he'd be obliterared.
The only thing Schwartzesatan did was set a precedent for short term elections. No one in this country, except for the bushies, would accept 'no debates' as an answer. These clods are arrogant, but even they know that would dissolve any support they have left.
Regardless of who our nominee is, I will be taping these debates for my grandchildren. Nothing like a great comedy on a stormy night!
:bounce: I can't wait!!!!
|
TrogL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-11-03 12:37 AM
Response to Original message |
23. Same way as last time |
|
As long as he doesn't wugga-wugga the camera or moon the audience, he will have been considered to have won the debate. Heck he probably could do that and get away with it.
|
Brian Sweat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-11-03 02:47 AM
Response to Original message |
24. They will simply revert to the soft biggotry of low expectations |
|
When Bush gets up and doesn't babble incoherently, the GOP and the media will declare him the winner and they will tacitly admit that they are declaring him the winner not because he out debated his rival but because he didn't do as badly as expected. They public will lap it up.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 05:17 AM
Response to Original message |