The documentation in Suskin's book guarantees that there will be no debate

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

Can you imagine the implications during a presidential debate? All it would take is for one questioner to quote something from the documentation in the book. Bush would then either have to confirm or deny, or avoid. All three of these would be losers.

And if the pattern of debate format remains, then the candidates will be able to ask questions of one another (I doubt Bush's handlers will allow this). No, I don't think we'll be seeing any debates this year.

Couple this with the fact that Moore's "Farenheit 9-11" will be released in Fall 2004, and it will definitely be time to hide Chimpy. Oh yeah, add to this the 9-11 report that will have to be delayed past its deadline of May 2004 for a few months. Yeah, it's best to keep the ass-clown-in-chief off the stage.

All of this spells, it seems to me, a real boiling point. And it seems to be coming at a really bad time in the election cycle. I'm always skeptical of saying Bush is gone, because the press never follows up, but it could reach a critical mass.

Quick question: will Bush's handlers just ran out the clock in order to avoid the debates? Or will there be a better excuse?

[wtmusic]

1. Interesting issue

I don't think there will be a debate either. Any of the major Dem candidates would tear him limb from limb.

Arnold set the stage by winning without debating. Sorry state of affairs.

[lovedems]

2. How can they not debate? A presidential debate is a historical factor

for every presidential campaign. If the chimp refuses to debate, think of the implications that could have against him and what the dem nominee could say! I think it would hurt him terribly if said no to a debate. That is not to say that they will try to change the rules of the debate, but like it or not, I think he is going to have to debate. I am sure that is a nightmare for his handelers.

[Homer12]

3. I'm sure , the day before the debate...

...they'll be another Major terrorist attack on US soil.

[lovedems]

6. Yeah, it would take a catastrophic event (which they are capable of)

but I don't think he can easily get out of a debate, it is a cornerstone of presidential campaigns. All the dem nominee would have to say if they refuse is something on the lines of "Mr. Bush must not have the courage of his convictions if he can't debate and defend his policies." That would hit them hard.

[hobbes159]

13. Not even that extreme

Raise the terra level to orange or red, leak something about how the president is a target, and cancel the debate "for securityy reasons".

[spindoctor]

4. There will be minimal debate

Schwarzenegger couldn't avoid the debate all together either. It will be late in the game though, when most minds are alreay made up.

[wtmusic]

10. Answer: Arnold Schwarzenegger

the rules have changed

[Killarney]

5. There will be a debate, BUT

Bush will pre-approve questions and have the questions ahead of time and the moderator will be right-leaning.

There is no way he will go into a debate not knowing and approving the questions beforehand.

[lovedems]

7. A smart dem can work around that. It doesn't take much to make *

look like an idiot.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

9. Couldn't the Dem candidate make an issue out of that and

insist on more than one debate -- with no pre-approved questions and different moderators and say he would take townhall style questions from real people, so why won't Bush? and so on?

I would really like to see the candidate make accountability an issue and also make the free speech zones an issue.

[Bridget Burke]

11. And the media will declare Bush the winner....

If he avoids peeing on the podium during the debate.

[eileen from OH]

8. Whoever the candidate is

Should be prepared with a info-mercial akin to what Jon Stewart did on the Daily Show where he used clips of Bush as Gov, and Bush as Prez debating each other. Have our candidate talk and use a clip as Bush's reponse.

eileen from OH

[bobbieinok]

12. Were the first televised debates 1960?

Originally debates were organized by the League of Women Voters. Then people decided the format and questions were boring.

I think Clinton is really the one who varied the debate format in a significant way.

REMEMBER THE 'DEBATES' OF 2000

...some (4?) were agreed to

...then republicans said maybe not

...democrats caved to very varied format - sitting, Larry King (?), preapproved questions, etc

ESSENTIALLY THE REPUBLICANS REWROTE THE FORMAT, ETC AND THE DEMS FELT FORCED TO AGREE - REPS SAID 'MY WAY OR THE HIWAY'