posted on April 22, 2004 08:36:46 PM new
the conventions are traditionionally in July. The Dem will be in Boston from the 26th to the 29th. The republicans have created a bit of a controversy be pushing their NYC based conventio back to the lastest date ever of Aug 29th to September 2 taking heat for the exploitation of the tragedies plus cutting the head to head campaign time down to only 8 weeks and thus limiting possible debates.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 22, 2004 08:52:00 PM new
So....all this flack is because the kerry supporters are upset that this President has brushed aside kerry's challenge to debate him BEFORE he's nominated by his own party? LOL
------
bunni - Yes....Bush has brushed off kerry's 'let's debate the issues right now request'....said he wasn't going to until he [kerry] was through debating with himself. I thought that quite appropriate in kerry's case. LOL
--
Do a google search using the words "I look forward to debating" and it should come up.
I'll google to find the third party candiate who said Bush would debate kerry and other third party canditates. But it was referring to at the normal dates that are customarily set up a month or so before the election. So IF your referring to this 'now' debate...that's not what I was referring to.
posted on April 22, 2004 08:57:55 PM new
BUSH, KERRY TO DEBATE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES
April 1, 2004
WASHINGTON --
President Bush and Sen. John Kerry will invite all candidates with a mathematical possibility of winning into the three presidential debates this fall, according to a joint statement released by the two rival campaigns.
The revelation means that the debates will include a candidate from the Libertarian Party, with the possibility of Green Party and Reform Party candidates and independent Ralph Nader being included as well.
"To be fair, we have to acknowledge that the two major parties are very similar on many issues, and that alternative viewpoints and solutions seldom get the amount of coverage they deserve during the campaign process," said Bush-Cheney spokesman Ken Mehlman in a written statement. "We just think that giving the American people a real opportunity to see all of the qualified candidates is the right thing to do."
Kerry campaign spokesperson Stephanie Cutter agreed, saying, "Polls have shown that voters want to see candidates like the Libertarians and Ralph Nader in the presidential debates.
Senator Kerry is committed to giving the people what they want in this campaign. It's part of what being 'The Real Deal' is all about."
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the bipartisan organization which has held a monopoly on the presidential debates since 1988, welcomed the change in attitude.
"We've long believed that our own standards for inclusion were far too limiting," said CPD Executive Director Janet Brown. "The way we've had it, it's been virtually assured that no outsider or insurgent candidate would have a chance of being included."
Outsider and insurgent candidates were thrilled by the news. "I can't wait," said movie producer Aaron Russo, who expects to win the Libertarian Party nomination. "The only hard part is going to be deciding which of the two (Bush or Kerry) to tear into first. There are a lot of Americans who are sick and tired of the status quo in American politics, and I look forward to showing them that they have a real choice in this election. The debates are the number one place to deliver that message."
Independent candidate Ralph Nader was cautiously optimistic. "We're not certain that we'll be able to get ballot status in enough places to have a mathematical chance of winning. No matter, though-- our campaign is a second front against the corporation disguised as a human being that's occupying the White House.
Washington, D.C. is corporate-occupied territory."
The CPD plans to hold three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate in October. In the past, the commission's inclusion criteria, which include registering at least 15% in a number of major polls, have been criticized as being too restrictive, and silencing alternative political candidates who had at least a theoretical chance of winning. Since the CPD took control of the debates in 1988, debates have been accompanied by increasingly large protests by third-party advocates and others.
Referenced websites:
http://johnkerry.com
http://georgewbush.com
http://russoforpresident.com
http://votenader.org
http://debates.org
Contact:
Janet Brown, CPD Executive Director
(202) 872 1020
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on April 22, 2004 09:30:49 PM newI've read where President Bush has said he's looking forward to debating kerry.
I feel that unless it's backed up with an URL for reference the statement doesn't hold much weight.
Bush has brushed off kerry's 'let's debate the issues right now request'....said he wasn't going to until he [kerry] was through debating with himself.
Friday, April 02, 2004
The Bush campaign did not take up the offer, with spokesman Scott Stanzel saying now was not the time for debates.
"We look forward to robust and spirited debates at an appropriate time, but Senator Kerry needs to finish the debate with himself," Stanzel said in criticizing the Democrat for waffling on positions.
posted on April 22, 2004 10:45:11 PM newLinda, I have bad news for you
I checked all the "referenced websites" given for that "article." I did a check on Proquest, a service that indexes major newspapers, magazines and journals.
Guess what? Only the russoforpresident.com site has this "article." That and, on Google, a few sites that seems to have picked it up from from the Russo site. Bush's Site, Kerry's site, Nader's site, the debates.org site--none of them bring up any planned third party debates.
You would think that Bush's site would make mention of it, but no. The only thing they have on Kerry's challenge to debate is still the smarmy "he needs to debate himself, first."
No magazine or newspaper makes any mention of it--and you would think that such a thing would get mentioned, wouldn't you? But, no.
You seem to have been taken in by a false "news release" posted by a fringe person who would like to be President. A man who uses statements made by stars about their manager (he was a theatrical manager) way back when he managed them about how he managed them, trying to pawn those statements off as endorsements for candidacy.
So, no, Bush did NOT say he would debate Kerry only if third party candidates were included.
Edited to put a "d" where it would do the most good.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Apr 22, 2004 10:49 PM ]
posted on April 22, 2004 11:00:48 PM new
IF anyone is interested. Presidential debates have always been in or about Oct before the Nov Election. They have NEVER been this early.
I believe this is when you'll see these guys debate.
posted on April 22, 2004 11:10:50 PM new
bunni - As explained I was under the impression you were saying Bush was refusing to debate kerry, period, when I knew I'd read him saying he welcomed the debate.
I did not take it you meant BEFORE the normally scheduled debating times.....usually the month before the elections and after the dems have officially and chosen their candidate when they normally take place. After all the dems still have two other candidates running.
While kerry's been shirking his Senate duties for the past 14-15 months while campaigning and all....the President is a little busy to be making special arrangements to debate an un-official candidate. He will at the traditional times. Right now there three debate places and times have been set for the Presidential debates and one for the VP debate.
posted on April 22, 2004 11:37:20 PM new
No bunni - no back pedaling at all. Your first statement in this thread was:
"I really love the way they completely ignore Kerry's request to debate the issues with Bush. They know that Bush wouldn't stand a chance--in fact he'd be jhust plain embarrassing[/i].
And I knew that wasn't true because I had read Bush saying he was looking forward to debating kerry. What was NOT CLEAR by your post was the fact that you were expecting him to debate kerry BEFORE the normal time it's done. Like now.....rather than before the election.
While kerry supporters may not have a problem with kerry shirking his Senate responsibilites for the past 14-15 months, while he's been campaigning.....the President HAS been doing what he was elected to do....HIS JOB.
If you don't believe what the article I posted said...then call the number and verify your doubts. I didn't write the article nor give those links...they were in the article.
And to clarify I did not say that Bush would only debate kerry if third party candidates were included....where you got that I sure don't know....but I didn't say it.
posted on April 23, 2004 12:41:29 AM newAnd to clarify I did not say that Bush would only debate kerry if third party candidates were included....where you got that I sure don't know....but I didn't say it.
Yes, you're right on that -- sorry. What you actually said was:
"Cheryl - The reason I know this President has said he's willing to debate Kerry is because in that same article I read it said he's welcomed all third parties to join the debate.....rather than discounting all BUT the two parties in the National debates as is the norm."
However, that still isn't true. It seems you are quoting from a Fox News article from February in which Bush is quoted as saying "he is looking forward to debating the Iraq war with whoever is the Democratic nominee."
No reference to Kerry in particular--or third parties. Or even the issues in general--just Iraq.
I still can find no reference in which Bush is quoted as saying he's willing or looking forward to debate Kerry or that he welcomes third party candidates in any such debate.
If Bush was in fact willing to debate Kerry at the "proper time" (ie. in or about October as someone else said), all he had to do was say so when Kerry issued his challenge to monthly debates on the issues. He didn't. In fact, he didn't say anything--his campaignpeople simply issued the above mentioned smarmy statement.
As you know, presidential debates aren't a requirement. Not mandated by the election process. They are voluntarily entered into by the candidates. Unless he dratically changes his ways between now & election time, I doubt we will be seeing any such debate. Well, maybe if public outcry becomes loud enough...maybe.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 23, 2004 12:51:05 AM new
bunni - give me a break.....you're suggesting this President is NOT going to debate whomever before the elections???? [most likely kerry.....but we never know...he may self-destruct before Oct. with the way he's having to defend past statements/votes.]
I'm not like helen who keeps files on what every poster says....nor do I keep hard disc copies of every article I read every day. So if you wish to believe Bush has never said what I've read him saying because I'm not willing to spend hours trying to find the exact article I read [out of millions of Bush statements mentioned on the internet] then so be it. You guys are getting desperate.
posted on April 23, 2004 02:54:40 AM new
Linda she answered her own question he is not required to say anything, that is why he has a staff to handle the mundane day to day trivialities.
Debating Kerry is not necessary right now, people her seem to think waiting until Oct to do debates is the President "afraid" actually it is good politics....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 23, 2004 08:55:50 AM new
You know, all this on you guys debating on Bush debating, got me into GOOGLE which I usually will leave up to Helen
but was thinking, as far back as I can remember.. I would be subjected to hearing all about the Presidential elections, from my mother and grandparents,who were very Republican (NO I did not become a Republican because of them, they all have passed on, going on 25 years now) But I still would, of course be very interested in elections. And got thinking, did they do debates 7 months or so before the elections. And I remember after the Presidential debates, the Vice Presidents would debate. Well as far as I can see or read, or hear, Kerry has not picked a VP yet. And the Dem convention hasn't happened yet......
So I go to Goooooooooogle and check for Bush debates Kerry, in all ways. What I came up closet was Kerry wants to debate Bush NOW, not about the war, I read the first three that pop up. So I had to go further, and find Presidential debates and found the history of them. And as everyone can see, click as far back as when they started, they all were in OCTOBER.
If they debate now, how many debates are they going to have? The usual is 3? then the VP's debate. They do it now, A LOT of things can happen between now and Nov. (For BOTH parties or Both candidates) I think the best time, and all should agree, that it should be a short time before people hit the polls, so its still 'fresh in their minds' not one that was 7 months ago.
This Kerry almost demanding now that he debates reminds me a lot of the 2000 election. When the counting, and counting, and finally we all hear that VP Gore wanted to 'meet with Gov Bush alone'. Bush refused, and I think he was very smart to refuse. JMHO. He told him he would meet with him AFTER all the BS was over (no he didn't say BS ) but you know what I mean
Ok.... rambling here. carry on... debating
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 23, 2004 12:28:00 PM new
bunni - Here's a link where Bush states he'll debate kerry.
TO BE CLEAR - not the originial one I read.
"I finally got an opponent. (Laughter.) It was my honor to call Senator Kerry and to welcome him to the race and to congratulate him on running a good campaign. I look forward to the debate, a debate on the issues. And it's going to be an interesting debate because he's built up quite a record." (Laughter.)
"Senator Kerry -- he's been in Washington long enough to take both sides of every issue." (Laughter and applause.)
"Senator Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, voted for NAFTA, voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, and for the use of force in Iraq."
"Now he opposes the Patriot Act, NAFTA, the No Child Left Behind Act -- (laughter) -- and the liberation of Iraq. He clearly has strong beliefs." (Laughter.) "They just don't last very long." (Laughter and applause.)
posted on April 23, 2004 12:58:33 PM new
Thank you, Linda. You were, indeed, right that Bush said he "looked forward to the debate." I stand corrected.
I, too, look forward to any such debates. My prediction, if they do take place, is thatBush will only do well as long as he can follow a closely scripted dialog. Anything that forces him to speak extemoraneously will be a disaster for him. I predict that he will desperately, stubbornly cleave to his usual rhetoric & stock phrases that he trots out continuously instead of actually answering the questions.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 23, 2004 01:01:43 PM newHe clearly has strong beliefs." (Laughter.) "They just don't last very long." (Laughter and applause.)
LOL ain't that the truth....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 23, 2004 03:59:52 PM new
bunni - I really didn't post it to 'correct' you - please understand that. I know how things work around here but there are just times when I don't have the time or I'm not willing to spend hours looking for the 'proof' when it's asked for when I've made a simple statement. I hope you can understand that.
While we are on opposite sides of most of the issues I do have an enormous amount of respect for you and have long enjoyed your posts.
I thought that quite appropriate in kerry's case. LOL
which I usually will leave up to Helen 