George W. Bush will NOT be a push-over in the coming debates.

[Monte Carlo]

Bush is not afraid to look like a complete fool onstage. I mean, this is a man who stood in front of the nation and the world and done so again and again and again. That may be his strongest defense - everyone knows he's an idiot, we even expect it by now. It's no big deal, y'know what I mean? A Democratic candidate explaining his latest atrocities and brainless screw-ups would seem kind of redundant and unnoteworthy. He will sit there, calm and smiling, and let the other guy look like a crazy person, trying to prove something petty and trivial. He will then retort, "Saddam was an evil man and a menace to the world, and I'm glad he's gone."

If Bush is given a question that he can't answer, he'll give a big happy answer to a different question. He will never, ever say he erred or questioned his planning or his intentions, including all the KIA's in Iraq, all the business and financial scandals, all the lost jobs, all of the red ink. 'You aren't seeing the big picture!' He will not deviate from his rehearsed points willingly. All of that will be VERY difficult for the Democratic candidate to counter in even the official debates, never mind through the coming advertising war. You can bet anything that the crap will be flying at the nominee non-stop at every angle. The nominee will not only be the candidate against Bush, but he'll also be the No. 1 Democrat in the land. It's going to be VERY difficult to fight off, while simultaneously trying to score a few political body blows.

Clinton could do that because he was a really smart, clear, and charasmatic speaker. He could transcend all that mess. To beat the mess again, I believe dearly that we will need a comparable speaker. Bush is fighting a defensive war - he will win any percieved draws so he must be beaten utterly for us to win. It's not enough to be right. The nominee must SEEM right. The nominee must be able to speak and be heard on HIS terms.

Please reply, please.

[Catch22Dem]

1. Clark

You're right on every single point you make. That's why I think Clark is the person you describe.

[kodi]

21. how does bush respond to clark's "just what war did you serve in george?"

after bush pukes out how he stands up for american freedoms.

[Monte Carlo]

25. He's bravely led as Commander-in-Chief in the War on Terror!

He's skillfully brought the country through crisis and the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and is working to root out the terrorist that hate our freedom!

Lawyers have a rule about questions. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Never leave room for weasels to squirm away.

[kodi]

28. i hope he does, then he can be asked where bin laden and saddam are

lawyers also ask questions to get an answer that is the real set up for the coup de grace.

[blm]

35. That's why I like Kerry's prosecutor skills

along with his encyclopedic knowledge of the events leading to terrorism and 9-11 - BCCI, IranContra, funding of terrorist networks - applied to Bush in the debates.

[leesa]

39. Clark...werkin' for the warring industry. Great more wars. It's the only

response he can think of. Saying that we need to "finish the job" in Iraq when to kill even ONE more iraqi in an illegal, immoral war is dead wrong!! This is NOT the kind of mentality America needs...same old, same old!

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I say we require drug-testing after the debates.

I mean, really. This is the most important job in the land. If we require drug-testing for train conductors I think we should require them for presidential candidates.

[mike_c]

10. LOL....

Good point.

[PsychoDad]

31. Very Good Idea!

Drug and alcohol tests for prsidental canadates.
We have a right as voters to know... We are his employers.

[xultar]

3. Bush is not afraid to look like a complete fool onstage.

Love it and so true but funny as hell!

[cosmicaug]

7. Naked emperor defense

He can look like a fool because nobody will dare call him on it even though it is in evidence for all to see.

[procopia]

4. Do you think there will be debates?

I think after the Republican Convention, Bush will say there's no time for them. He doesn't want them, and he always gets what he wants.

[Monte Carlo]

6. I think there will be some debates, yes.

That's not to say he won't try to get the fix in through any possible angle, or minimize his time swinging on the trapeze alone without a net. There will be precious few opportunities to catch Bush unguarded, and the nominee had better be prepared to capitalize on every one of them.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Agree with that assessment.

The right candidate will make his/her own rules though. There are ways to nail somebody without appearing to grossly step over the line.

[study_war_no_more]

45. there are also ways to frame the debate

so the challenger will look a fool. I woul;dn't be too hopeful about the media.

[tritsofme]

13. Drudge said earlier this week:

The Commission on Presidential Debates will be announcing later today dates and cities for the 2004 Debates:

Sept. 30th - University of Miam - Miami Florida

Oct. 5th - Case Western University - Cleveland (Vice Presidential Debate)

Oct. 8th - Washington University - St. Louis

Oct. 13th - Arizona State University - Tempe, AZ

[sistersofmercy]

17. We must have been typing at the same time, only I'm the world's

slowest typist IMO. I totally suck really, it takes me forever to type anything of length. Yes I had typing and sat next to Ms Speedyfingers, it was distracting to say the least.

[Catshrink]

23. But he could still chicken out of the debates

Maybe uncle Dick will manufacture some national security emergency that will require the brat to be busy -- or hidden away.

while they're at it, maybe they'll just cancel the elections. They're a nuisance anyway....

[sistersofmercy]

14. There's already a presidential debate slotted for here in St Louis at

Washington University.

[E_Zapata]

5. It take a REAL statesman to cut through the crap......

And I am thinking that is Clark (bite my tongue).

But I gotta see Clark ORALLY deliver all these things that are coming out in press releases. Are these HIS words? Or his handlers' words?

We will see...........

[Gin]

9. We should refer to shrub as..."Ex President Bush"...because thats what his

status on Jan. 05 will be!

[neuvocat]

8. In some aspects you're right.

Bush will indeed look like an idiot but anyone who takes him to task would be considered unpatriotic whereas before they were considered boring and mean by our "liberal" media.

[knight_of_the_star]

44. Not Clark!

Would Bush DARE call a man who served in the US Army for 34 years who won a Purple Heart and a Silver Star unpatriotic? If he does something like that, expect some serious shit to hit the fan!

[sistersofmercy]

12. Yes I agree but that's why we need more articles and

Dem candidates exposing the evil little simpleton* for what he is. He needs to be called on his "plain" speak, rooster-posturing, and good ol' boy attitude as the fraud it is. If middle America begins to understand he ain't nothing more than Connecticut country club bum pretending to embrace the their way of life, he'll lose big time. The country folks I know know he's nothing but a bullshitter. I wrote a thread you might find humorous called Bush* Ya Ol'Pot-bellied Thang, if you're interested you can probably find it in the archives.

[K-W]

15. Gore did a terrible job

and made W. look very good. He was far too gentlemanly and agreeable and never called Bush out on the fact that what he said made absolutely no sense or that he was just using generalized answers. I think Bush is in for a much tuffer debate now. All of the democratic candidates have already started attacking him and he wont get Gore style debates where he can pull his usual stunts off. That is why they will do a total minimum of debates and try to downplay them as much as possible. Any of the current candidates with the right practice could embarass Bush in a fair debate.

[Silverhair]

18. Did we watch the same debates?

Gore gentlemenly? He acted like a kid. At one point he left his stool and went over and got in Ws face, shouting. In the first debate Gore did all that eye rolling and audible sighing. He lost in part because he didn't act presidental, calm and in control. Gore blew the debates big time.

No, this is not a defense of W. But if we blind ourselves to our own blunders, or worse - praise those blunders as greatness - then we doom ourselves to defeat after defeat. Only if we open our eyes to our blunders can we correct them.

[xultar]

16. Just thinkin then KKKarl will spin it to look like the Dem

candidate is beatin up on the poor intelligence challenged lil man

[gone2thechase]

19. GW is toast and he knows it

When the debates come up next year he knows he is out. That's why he is
now trying to plant as many rethuglican seeds in the fertile soil of
our government as possible before he is "elected" out.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi gone2thechase!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[elfin]

20. No earpiece - must be one of the conditions

for any debate.

[Silverhair]

33. Why not?

One can argue that a presidents decisions, our included, reflect the quality and advice of his staff. Our guy would get to wear an earpiece too. I'll match our team against their team.

[RichardRay]

42. Agreed, earpieces allowed

Also staff coaching, computer databases, physic support, prayer and ritual hand gestures.

I want to see what the candidates bring to bear on a question/problem and how each presents answers. NOBODY is smart enough to be president of this country in a vacuum; if one the candidates has a better team behind him/her I want to know that.

[Angelus]

47. also don't forget....

God. Remember, God spoke to Dubya about the war in Iraq. God could help out in the debates. LOL :shrug:

[JailBush]

22. Bush's Big Adventure

I remember Bush's first big speech - or one of the first; I think it was a State of the Union address. People were wondering how it would come off, and he nailed it. It was watching an illiterate gang member smoothly address a college graduating class. It was really bizarre.

But the one thing that gave Bush away was his...what's the word I'm looking for - apparent lack of comprehension? I remember one passage that he said flawlessly, not mispronouncing any words or missing his stride, but he didn't put the right emphasis or intonation on the words. It sounded like he was reading from flash cards and didn't even understand what he was saying.

Instead of debates, they should just have pop quizzes. Ask the candidates the names of foreign leaders, which nations near Afghanistan are landlocked, the correct spelling of n-u-c-l-e-a-r, how many tails an ostrich has, etc.

Then they could crown Bush THE WEAKEST LINK and send him home with a $500 reward for participating.

[onebigbadwulf]

24. The biggest difference now

is that Bush can no longer play the moderate card to win independents. Clark and Dean, however, most definitely can.

Bush tied the debates by pretending to be moderate and answered everything the same as Gore.

It was like watching a chess match where the black player completely copies the white player.


It will not happen again in 2004. He will get slaughtered- even if it is against a jar of mayonaise.

[Monte Carlo]

36. He can't play the moderate card? Of course he will!

He's been a calm, controlled, determined man who has never lost sight of his goal of ridding the world of those who plot to kill Americans and take away our freedom! He's given regular Americans several rounds of tax relief to help them during these difficult economic times! He's protected Americans from the corporate scandals!

The Republicans will do everything they can to paint Bush and his actions over the past 4 years as completely moderate and logical. At the same time, they will suggest in ways both subtle and gross that the Democrat is either stupid, crazy, an egomaniac, or all of the above. Didn't you hear how Al Gore said he invented the internet?

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

26. What are the odds?

That Fearless Leader won't be putting in an appearance at any nationally-televised debates?

[mmonk]

27. Clark really has the goods on this administration

situations GW couldn't honestly defend. Even his cult followers would start to doubt him if Clark was able to debate him.

[Speed8098]

30. Sorry, but you're wrong here

All the Democratic nominee needs to do is refer back to all of the bullsh*t promises * made during his 00 campaign.

He has done the exact opposite of what he's promised.

**No child left behind....yeah right, where's the funds georgie?
**I'm a uniter not a divider....uh huh, you DID unite the rest of the world....AGAINST US

**I don't believe in nation building....Iraq????

That's only 3 of the hundreds of lies that our nominee can refer to.

Not to mention his relationship to the bin ladens, or how about his buddy Kenny boy Lay.

BTW, where's the WMD's you KNEW Saddam had? Hmmm, where's Saddam himself? Osama?....Osama who????

No, the blunders of this administration will be clear, and there is no defense for *.

He's out.
:kick:

[radfringe]

32. dollar to donuts

either there WON'T be a debate - or limited to just one debate where the questions will be written and approved by Rove and the answers carefully scripted

[MessiahRp]

34. I guess

the question isn't how much of a fool he'll make of himself but what will he do when he actually has to answer hard questions and not just ignore them all out of arrogance like he does at press conferences. He's going to have scripted responses in debates and that's going to make it very tough to weed out real emotion or answers that could seriously damage him. As long as Rove is the puppetmaster, Bush won't do anything that would budge national sentiment either way.

Republicans still look at this election as Us versus Them without even looking at how Bush has done on issues that personally affect them.

Rp

[RuB]

37. The theme of the Democratic party must be

Are you safer now than you were 4 years ago. Hammer it home. Stand there in the face of that moron Bushie and say to his face, "BECAUSE OF YOU MY CHILDREN ARE IN MORE DANGER OF BEING KILLED BY TERRORISTS THAN AT ANY TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY. He'll respond by saying there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11 so he must be doing something right and all we have to do is point out the constant drip drip drip of one soldier a day dying in Iraq dead because of Bushie.

[mmonk]

38. .

[leyton]

40. I think Edwards is the man.

Having seen various candidates speak, Edwards is one of the few that can present something so clearly that even if I'm only half paying attention, I know exactly what point he's making. I think that with the right preparation he would trounce Bush on the issues.

Not only that, he would look good against Bush. Bush has got this whole regular-guy image, what with his presentation and his speech patterns. I think Edwards could easily match that.

[dansolo]

41. The most important thing will be the moderator

When the time comes for the presidential debates, the most important thing that the Democratic candidate cannot concede on is the selection of the moderator. We need a truly impartial moderator who will ask follow-up questions and who will challenge both candidates.

[study_war_no_more]

46. not Rush Limbaugh on FOX??

How about that idiot comedian Dennis somebody I think? Just joking your point is extrememly well taken he who frames the arguement will always win.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. agreed

Why the hell are Democrats rolling over on the network (FOX) and moderators of our debates? Are we going to let Hannity moderate?

[KFC]

43. Good point. Another reason not to nominate Dean.

Dean would become completely unraveled in the scenario you suggest. Red-faced anger is not what we need.

[Scott Lee]

48. Nor Kerry

That stupid hang-dog expression is not what we need either.

[robsul82]

50. I say Anderson Cooper...

...did a great job last time. Let him do it again. He was fair, and on the Hillary question, I sensed a little hesitation, a little "This sucks, but I have to" in his voice.

Later.

RJS