The perils of great expectations -Boston Globe (for Bush in debate)

[Rose Siding]

GEORGE W. BUSH has built his political career on three assets: a famous name, a formidable fund-raising network, and the habitual tendency of his opponents to underestimate him.

Nowhere has this last asset benefited him more than in his debates against his major opponents: Ann Richards in the 1994 Texas governor's race and Al Gore in the presidential campaign of 2000. Because he has never excelled at formal public speaking (in contrast to spontaneous banter, at which he has few equals), Bush faced each opponent with the advantage of low expectations -- and proceeded to exceed them.

But as the president prepares for the final debates of his political career, he finds himself in a new situation. As the incumbent president, he will take the stage starting Sept. 30 against John Kerry bearing the unfamiliar burden of high expectations.

I was a questioner in the Richards-Bush debate, and I assumed the saucy Richards would demolish him. So, apparently, did Richards. Bush aides later told the story that in a backstage encounter prior to the debate, she had said to him, "Are you ready for this, boy?"........MORE!........

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/09/26/the_perils_of_great_expectations/?rss_id=Boston.com%20/%20News%20/%20Politics

[senseandsensibility]

1. What I learned from this article....

For some reason, both Ann Richards and Gore were unwilling or unable to take * on directly, even though both were obviously able to do so, and had tons of material to work with. Whether this was because they had been advised poorly or for some other reason is not made clear in the article. Let's hope that Kerry does not avoid the direct attack. If * doesn't like to be on the defensive, let's put him there again and again and again....:)

[blue neen]

2. Agreed.

It's clear that he starts to lose his cool when put on the defensive.

[ClintonTyree]

3. Debate format...................

is the likely cause. NEVER are the opposition allowed to ask Bush questions directly. The Bush "debates" are always prearranged questions with rehearsed answers and there is no back and forth banter in which Bush's "buttons" can be pushed. He answers his question in his rehearsed style and that ends it. What a debate!!!

[City Lights]

10. Remember in 2000 when he tattled on Gore for trying to

engage in a direct exchange? Wah, wah, wah. What a pathetic little weasel. If only we had a moderator who would hold the chimp's tail to the fire.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Exactly, Kerry needs to push his buttons

wouldn't it be fun, if W gets po'd and stomps off the stage and Kerry just sits there cool and calm.

It would be such a great visual to show who should be CIC.

[Zen Democrat]

5. I saw the debate with Gary Mauro in 1998. It was a no contest.

And Burka is right -- Mauro went after him and Bush collapsed. But nobody saw it -- the debate was aired on public television on Friday night during high school football season in Texas.

This year untold millions will be watching. If Kerry attacks -- Bush has nothing to do but repeat the tired old mantras of his stump speech, none of which are inspiring, or true.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I wish that Edwards could debate Bush...

Not that I wish that he were on the top of the ticket, but Edwards is better at attacking than Kerry is.

[warrens]

8. Actually

Kerry is a ferocious debater. The primaries are not a good indicator, because 8 people on a stage is not a debate. He took Weld apart in their debates and came back from almost certain defeat to win easily.

And he LIKED Weld.

[SpiralHawk]

9. A ferocious debater, indeed

I had the opportunity to watch all of the Kerry-Weld debates from the convenience of my barcalounger, with remote in hand. But niether I nor my wife ever clicked. We watched them all, and all the way through. It was great political theater. Both Kerry and Weld were sharp, intelligent, and in top form -- like a heavyweight boxing match (Yale Vs. Harvard).

In the end, Kerry clearly won the day (and then later the election).

[Eric J in MN]

7. When a Republican repeats himself, the media praises him for

staying "on message."

When a Democrat repeats himself, the media is like, "What's wrong with him? Why does he keep repeating himself?"