What's to be gained by trashing the debates?

[CarolynEC]

Everybody's carping that it's a charade, a commercial, a stage play, etc etc.

But what are we going to call this thing if JK turns in a brilliant performance, sends a compelling message to voters, and really connects with America?

It ain't Lincoln-Douglas, I agree. And the so-called pundits may declare Bush the "winner" no matter what the reality is. But millions of voters are going to be watching, and that makes it a an opportunity no matter what we think of the format.

I wish we'd treat it as such.

[Lars39]

1. What the Bushcos want.......for no one to watch.

That is their ultimate wish.

[cheezus]

2. I think Howard Dean had it right

Bush is kind of irrelivant, this appearance is about Kerry convincing the country that he'll be a good president.

[CarolynEC]

3. Totally agree...

... and not just because I'm a fan of Howard!

JK has to bear in mind throughout the event that he is NOT talking to Bush... he's talking to the people watching.

I'm pretty confident he'll do exactly that, and not get dragged into playing games with Bush.

This is priceless face time before a huge national audience for our guy -- we should be psyched, not moaning about the format.

[RapidCreek]

4. Nothing would be gained if they were actually debates

but they are NOT....and to call them that which they clearly are NOT is in and of itself disengenous...not to mention a disservice to the American people.

For crying out loud...we've aloud Rethuglicans to redefine the word LIBERAL! Now you are advocating allowing them to change the definition of what a debate is? What Kerry and Bush shall be engaging is are televised media conference...nothing more....and that is what they should be called. If they are to be referred to as debates then yes they are a charade. That is what a charade is....one thing masquerading as something else.

What will we call these things if Kerry manages to turn in a stellar performance the airing of which depended on him agreeing to having his hands and legs are tied together? I guess we'll call it what it is....a stellar performance in a phony debate the rules of which were designed to prevent his performing in a stellar fashion. How's that?

[Mika]

6. Thank you

The term "debate" does not apply to the charade.



_________________________________

The GOP's Axis of evil

Universal health care

Universal education

Democracy

_________________________________

[CarolynEC]

7. Pu-leeeze. Both sides agree to the format.

The "look what the repugs did to us" angle just doesn't hold up. Neither does the word-police rant -- it's just not productive at all. Save that sort of thing for Safire's nitpicky little column on Sunday. I think your outrage is misplaced, I really do. Let's play the cards we've got in our hand, and make something of it.

[Mika]

9. Huh. You're with us or agin us?

No outrage on my part.

Not saying that Kerry shouldn't show up or do well.

Just saying that the term "debate" does not apply to these events.


Is that OK with you?



_________________________________

The GOP's Axis of evil

Universal health care

Universal education

Democracy

_________________________________

[CarolynEC]

10. No, it's not OK with me...

... particularly when you place it in a "with us or against us" context.

I'd argue that your constant denigrating of the debate is working "against" us.

It's not productive. In fact it helps to diminish -- in advance -- anything we might hope to gain from Thursday's event.

[Mika]

11. I can't denegrate a "debate" that isn't a debate

And I haven't. I just don't think it is a debate.

I hope Kerry presents himself well at the dual Q&A event.


We might not agree, but that's OK with me, it is the American way.



_________________________________

The GOP's Axis of evil

Universal health care

Universal education

Democracy

_________________________________

[CarolynEC]

12. *sigh*

Please consult your dictionary. Look up "denigrate," and you'll see something to the effect of "to deny the importance or validity of."

Look up "debate." You'll find it's a fairly loose term, one that can easily encompass the format of Thursday's event.

Then look up "unhelpful," and consider the effect of your complaints.

While you may find some satisfaction in etymological exactitude (real or imagined) it does no one any good to diminish the value of this event for John Kerry and those who support him.

[Awsi Dooger]

5. Zero; and JFK, Carter and maybe Clinton would have lost minus debates

Although Gore certainly would be in office right now without them.

I'm baffled by these anti-debate threads. Right now Kerry would lose by 2 or 3 points without this stage and opportunity, but has every chance to prevail if he can successfully attack the flip-flop and leadership charges.

Bush's performance and who is judged the winner are basically irrelevant. This is a job interview for John Kerry.

[Mika]

8. Calling these "debates" a charade isn't bashing debate

There isn't going to be a debate.

Its a dual public relations Q&A event, or, as you say - its a job interview.

Still, not a debate.



_________________________________

The GOP's Axis of evil

Universal health care

Universal education

Democracy

_________________________________