• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Bush clutching at straws

"I don't want to" is a good enough reason. He does not have to do what his opponent wants him to. Obviously Kerry feels monthly debates would help him--why in the hell would Bush be expected to go along with it? Debates are just as much about looking nice for the cameras then about candidates idea. Consider that people who listened to the Nixon/Kennedy debates thought Nixon won but the viewers thought JFK won. Presidential debates are no different than debates on a message board--rhetoric from both sides. There are clear differences between Kerry and Bush's positions on most issues. If the American people are too stupid to make up their mind without the two sniping at each other constantly on TV(as if 3 1 1/2 debates aren't excruciating enough), that's their own fault.

This story, BTW, says that Gore wanted the traditional 3 debates and Bush wanted one hall debate and 2 debates on TV shows. Observers said "informal" settings would be more favorable to GWB. Did your candidate Al Gore say "Oh, ok, whatever you say George, I'll do something you think will favor you!" And did you get out your crying towel and complain about how Gore was being stubborn and didn't want to be exposed as stuffy and mechanical in a non-traditional format? I didn't think so. More partisan bluster.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/15/pres.debates/
 
Upvote 0
nix - It appears in that article that Gore's campaign manager said they would end up with one trad pres debate, a town hall format, and a TV show format. So your diatribre,

"And did you get out your crying towel and complain about how Gore was being stubborn and didn't want to be exposed as stuffy and mechanical in a non-traditional format?"

is meaningless!! Again it is you who is showing "More partisan bluster".

Back to my earlier statement,

"Wouldn't it be great if the debate format would be like it always is and then, after candidate says his piece, the other candidate could also ask a question?"

I would love to see that and I must ask who wouldn't?"

Obviously you wouldn't, because "I don't want to" is a good enough reason for you.
 
Upvote 0
The time and preperation for a debate must be terribly consuming.
I for one would be shocked to see our President (Dem or Rep) take the time to have several continious months of debates.
His time has to be better spent than preparing to debate a challenger for the office.
 
Upvote 0
You're right, I wouldn't like to see the candidates asking each other questions.
Kerry: "Why did you unilaterally, immorally, and against international law invade Iraq?"

Bush: "Why are you attacking my National Guard record when you defended Bill Clinton in 1992 and said service or lackthereof should not be an issue?"

Yeah, that would be fascinating stuff:roll2:

"is meaningless!!"

Bush wanted 2 TV-like debates. He didn't get them. Gore didn't want to do that. Gore must be a coward like Bush is now :roll2:
 
Upvote 0
" Bush wanted 2 TV-like debates. He didn't get them. Gore didn't want to do that. Gore must be a coward like Bush is now"

If the compromise had one TV like debate then what is the bitch! I think that is called compromise.

Ashlandbuck - I agree about the time required for debates. I for one would not want to see months of debates. Three seems like a reasonable number. Despite what Nixon says, I think it would be great if the format were altered to allow the candidates to ask follow questions of each other. Basically, whomever the mod is asks the question and Bush/Kerry has x number of minutes to not answer the question (isn't that usually how it goes) then Kerry/Bush can ask a follow up based on the individuals original answer (or non answer). If said follow up doesn't pertain then mod steps in. It is easy to supply a canned answer. More difficult if the question is unknown.

For the record Nixon, try moderation with things. Maybe it is my fault that I didn't delineate exactly what I meant by candidates asking each other questions (see above paragraph). I guess I was assuming common sense was being used instead of taking it to the extreme.
 
Upvote 0
buckiprof said:
" Bush wanted 2 TV-like debates. He didn't get them. Gore didn't want to do that. Gore must be a coward like Bush is now"

If the compromise had one TV like debate then what is the bitch! I think that is called compromise.

For the record Nixon, try moderation with things. Maybe it is my fault that I didn't delineate exactly what I meant by candidates asking each other questions (see above paragraph). I guess I was assuming common sense was being used instead of taking it to the extreme.

But you are criticizing Bush for not wanting to debate Kerry on Kerry's terms. Gore did not debate Bush on Bush's terms--nor should he have been required too.

And any questions the candidates ask of each other are still going to be loaded. You want me to believe that Kerry's not going to ask, "Mr. President, why do you favor sending jobs overseas?" and other such loaded questions?
 
Upvote 0
"But you are criticizing Bush for not wanting to debate Kerry on Kerry's terms. Gore did not debate Bush on Bush's terms--nor should he have been required too."

Not once have I criticized Bush for any such thing. Hell, if Kerry did say he wanted to debate once a month up to the election, I believe in my last post I stated that's too much. I have no problem with only 3 debates. So I have not criticized Bush for not wanting to debate on Kerry's terms.

"And any questions the candidates ask of each other are still going to be loaded. You want me to believe that Kerry's not going to ask, "Mr. President, why do you favor sending jobs overseas?" and other such loaded questions?"

That is why I said that the mod could step in and put a stop to it. It might not stop some loaded questions but they manner that each would handle the situation would tell alot about the candidate.
 
Upvote 0
Bush

If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office after meeting with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands
.


rotflmao.gif



Poland 'taken for a ride' over Iraq's WMD: President



WARSAW (AFP) - In a first sign of official criticism in Poland of the US-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), President Aleksander Kwasniewski said that his country had been "taken for a ride" about the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in the strife-torn country.



"That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride," Kwasniewski said Thursday.


He argued however that it made no sense to pull US-led coalition troops out of Iraq.


His comments marked the first time Poland has publicly criticized Washington's argument for invading Iraq and for winning support from Poland and other European allies such as Britain and Spain.


Poland heads up a 9,000-strong multinational force patrolling a swathe of Iraq south of Baghdad.


Warsaw itself has the fourth-largest contingent in the coalition, with around 2,500 soldiers.


Kwasniewski was speaking days after the prime minister-elect of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, said Madrid would withdraw its 1,300 soldiers from the Polish-led contingent by June 30, unless the United Nations (news - web sites) took over administration of Iraq.


The Polish head of state questioned the wisdom of pulling foreign troops from the strife-torn country saying such a move could have a counter effect.


"What would be the point of pulling the troops if it meant a return to war, ethnic cleansing and conflict in neighboring countries," he told a group of visiting French journalists.


"If we protest against the United States' dominant role in world politics and we withdraw our troops knowing they will be replaced by US soldiers, what would be the point of such a move?" he questioned.


He said he was disappointed by the new Spanish government's threat to withdraw its 1,300 soldiers.


"We cannot alter our mission to stabilize Iraq to one to destabilize the country," he said.


"Passiveness will lead us nowhere," he added.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top