Kerry acquiesces in debate forum - folds cards to please bush.

[Oddman]

Bush gives up nothing Kerry gives up everything. Will this be a real debate or just an interview? Why did Kerry give in so easily?

[Dickie Flatt]

1. Less than 24 hours left

All we can do now is wait. Once the debate is over we can decide if Kerry gave in too easily.

[Carla in Ca]

27. Why can't we use the 32-page debate rules

as a talking point. Would make * look foolish.

[Oddman]

28. LOL! Love it!

[LoZoccolo]

33. Why can't we use the 32-page debate rules

AS ASS-WIPING PAPER?

[sendero]

48. Nothing as odious...

... as those rules is getting anywhere near my ass :)

[Nite Owl]

2. Cause he knows his stuff and he's not afraid. n/t

[Mojambo]

3. Because Bush had the Nuts (to continue the poker terminology)

The challenger always needs the debates more than the incumbent.

The sitting administration ALWAYS writes the rules. It's just a fact of life.

[ogradda]

4. this was the only way bush would agree to debate at all

i'd have shoved it right down *'s throat(the coward) but what do i know? we'll get an idea tomorrow how good the decision was. kerry has a lot of political savvy, he must know what he's doing.

[David Dunham]

5. Kerry got stand up debates. Bush wanted sit down.

[Oddman]

7. I guess that's an advantage - Cheney got sit down with Edwards

so I guess it evens out on that point.

[Julien Sorel]

6. Because he's weak, foolish and cowardly.

Above all, he lacks your wisdom and insight. But when I see posts like this here, I am heartened to know that people of stout heart and sharp intellect like you are around to let the rest of us in on the real scoop.

[Oddman]

8. Gee whiz Billy do you think the debate forum works to Kerry's advantage?

Or are you just making cheap points like bush?


George Bush our MASTERdeBATER

[cheshire]

12. I want a warning if you are going to put pics of that face on here. I have

to:puke: now.

[Julien Sorel]

16. Kerry got three debates.

He got podiums. The rest of this stuff is people like you crying over nothing, since the only real thing the "debates" were going to accomplish were to give America the chance to see Kerry and Bush on the same stage, speaking at about the same time.


And speaking of cheap, how about your thread title? A little hysterical echoing of right wing talking points never hurts to start a flame fest does it? So I gave you a taste of what you are obviously hungry for.

[Oddman]

18. Please . . I just want to know why Kerry gave in so easily . . .

A Pathetic Excuse for a pResident

[JI7]

22. he didn't give in. he got all 3 debates

bill clinton got out of an entire debate in 1996

[IHaveADream]

25. OK you're right - Kerry wins debate strategy . . .

Do you think that is the way the public will view it?

[JI7]

29. not with "democrats" repeating right wing talking points

[IHaveADream]

30. I like Carla in Ca's idea

Use the agreed to rules as talking points!

[JI7]

36. agree, use the rules to attack Bush since he insisted on it

show how stupid he is and how silly he is for wanting these stupid rules in order to come the debate.

but to act as if kerry is weak and just gave in is a whole different thing than doing that.

[CatWoman]

47. Thank you, Billy

thank you

[IHaveADream]

9. Kerry did give up a lot - and bush gave up nothing.

I wish they were able to talk to one another - but bush won that one too. I'm afraid that people will see the fact that Kerry gave up so much as another indication of weakness. If he can give up so much so easily in the debates what will he give up for the terrorists?

[Oddman]

10. Let's hope the public is not that shallow.

[IHaveADream]

11. LOL!

[Rowdyboy]

13. Hmmm, thatt sounds pretty defeatist and one-sided to me, but whatever

Negativity never won shit.

[IHaveADream]

15. Rowdyboy - What is positive about the debate rules?

I wish it wasn't so one sided . . .

[Rowdyboy]

34. Whats positive about the debate rules? Nothing. But, its what we have

to work with. We can either bemoan our doom, or hope for the best and try to keep our spirits up. Democrats are energized this year, and they should be. We MUST MUST MUST MUST end this mock government and we need to do it in about 34 days. Now is not the time to complain, or feel defeated....There's plenty of time for that in December, if we lose.

Rules don't worry me. If Kerry is the man I think he is, the debate rules won't matter. If he's not, we're doomed already. Que sera, sera...

[cheshire]

14. Bush wanted temp up, didn't get it.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oddman]

19. Do you think he won the debate hand?

But your condesending tone reminds me of the bush administration - "you're either with us or against us".

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

21. he isn't a troll, he just has a problem with people repeating right wing

talking points

[IHaveADream]

23. What right wing talking point?

The rules of the debate favoring bush? Do you disagree with that assessment?

[JI7]

24. Kerry needs the debates, Bush doesn't ever since Clinton got out of

a debate , Bush could easily use that to support himself getting out of a debate. but both gave up a few things. kerry wanted the podiums and he wanted all 3 debates including a town hall one with undecided voters.

[Oddman]

26. Point well taken - I acquiesce!

[demwing]

37. Yes I disagree. Kerry is the easy winner

First, general election debates ALWAYS benefit the challenger, just by putting him/her on the same stage as the incumbant.

Second, all Kerry ever had to do was get Bush in the sacrificial arena. Bush bit, and bit hard. Kerry gets three chances to stand next to the President and look better.

Forget about Gore and Richards. Richards is just not skilled enough, and Gore was overhandled and too smart for the average dork.

Kerry, on the other hand, is at his best in a one on one debate. If you've been paying attention, you'll see that Kerry has Bush's number, Kerry has been planning for the debates for some time, evidenced by the way he's been playing up Bush's debate skills.

Remember also that people remember longest what they hear last. Kerry will save the most humiliating moment for Bush until the final debate.

Further, it doesn't evenmatter what the press says, if Kerry does his job effectively, which means - take no shit, speak evenly and succinctly, and stay on message throughout the three debates.

Watch for him to nail Bush in a contradiction, get Bush snipy and pissy, and to smack him down like he was W's daddy. Then watch the DNC TV conmmercials replay debate moments over and over.

All this because Kerry "caved" to Bush.

[NightOwwl]

43. I was on his shit list a few nights ago...

because I dared to suggest the Kerry campaign needed to go into attack mode fast! He gets upset at the mere whisper of a Kerry criticism, and considers those of us who disagree right-wing enablers.

Whatever. Anyway, two days after my original post Kerry started attacking Bush on his actions leading up to and after the war in Iraq. So I guess you could say I feel vindicated.

[RapidCreek]

32. What right-wing talking point would that be?

Please explain.

Kerry agreed to play cards with a cheater using that cheaters marked deck of cards.

RC

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dolstein]

31. Bush gives up nothing? B-U-L-L-S-H-*-T

Bush agreed to the schedule of debates proposed by the commission. That's the main thing Kerry wanted -- he wanted at least three presidential debates. The Bush campaign likely would have preferred only one or at most two presidential debates, and probably would have been happy to go without a vice presidential debate.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that (1) these rules are very similar to what both sides were looking for in 2000 and (2) Kerry, trailng in the polls, has absolutely no leverage.

But please, go ahead and perpetuate this myth if you want.

[RapidCreek]

35. Leverage is something you make...not something the good Lord

grants you.

You keep saying debates. What these three things are, Kerry got, are not debates.

Who's ignoring anything? In case you forgot...your boy LOST in 2000. I have to admit one following the same course of action one did when one lost, is very fucking clever Dolstine. Yep that's certainly a winning strategy alright

RC

[Julien Sorel]

38. And how, O wise one,

do you propose to make leverage?

[dolstein]

39. You either have leverage or you don't -- and Kerry didn't have it

And your rather facile attempt at expressing a truism to the contrary simply can't withstand analysis. Save that kind of crap for fortune cookies.

Everyone around here *assumes* that all of these rules originated from the Bush camp. But the fact is, both sides have an interest in avoiding surprises. They each want to be able to make their points with a minimum of interference from the other said.

And you're living in a fantasy world if you think there was even a snowball's chance in hell of a real debate. When was there ever a REAL debate? Not in 2000. Not in 1996. Not in 1992. Not in 1988. Not in 1984. Not in 1980. Not in 1976.

I don't know who you think my *boy* is. Sorry, but I don't have any children. If you're referring to Gore -- unless you aren't a Democrat, he was YOUR candidate too. And by the way, he might not have lost the election if the current debate rules were in effect four years ago. Food for thought.

[Julien Sorel]

40. I'm still waiting

for a "fucking clever" answer.

[CityDem]

41. Jordan and Cahill caved

There is no way Bush was going to skip the debates. Once again, Cahill and company screwed up and did not pursue an agressive agenda. Now we are left with dueling press conferences.

[Oddman]

44. dueling press conferences

that about sums it up!

[kentuck]

45. The Repubs were willing to walk away.....

no debates at all. Kerry thought he needed the debates.

[ItsMyParty]

46. and here's what I want in the 'third' debate (please, God)

After playing by his rules, get him on stage for the third debate adn then torch the rules. Tear the boy a new asshole, talk directly to him, ask him questions, etc. - what's he going to do?-sue? Let's seem him walk off whinning about "da rules, da rules". Or more to the point, let's watch him implode. Drag him through 2 debates and then kick the living shit out of him in the third.

[Bran Bal]

50. You are assuming

the liar will actually honor his word and have a 3rd debate.

[Bran Bal]

49. The primary defense for the slanted rules

seems to be that "we got 3 debates". Did we?

We just made an agreement with a known liar of gigantic proportion. He lied to the world to start a WAR - and people seem to think we can trust him at his word to have 3 debates?

Apparently it has never occurred to anyone that despite this little agreement bush might, oh I don't know, LIE.

How do we know we still won't get only 2 debates? What if he takes advantage of the rules slanted in his favor for this debate and the next one, but skips out the 3rd leaving us fu**ed? (or hell even the 2nd depending on which one Rove decides he should miss)

Looks like no one took this in to account. All it will take is a "Oh gee I'm sorry I have to miss this, we just went to orange alert and I put the safety of the country first" scheme and he's out.

It's kind of interesting all of a sudden everything is assumed to be good "yay we've got 3 debates!" when the only thing holding the known liar to it is a non-binding agreement which he would have no problems with not honoring.