Text 3910, 56 rader
Skriven 2004-10-21 22:53:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Bush Pulls Out of Rac
=============================
-=> Quoting John Hull to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS>> Actually I've heard Nader, on TV, make a very justified complaint  
 FS>> about Kerry.  He said if Kerry would stop acting like a spoiler  
 FS>> and drop out of the race, Nader might be able to beat Bush!
 
 SD>> I may rip on Nader, but he does have some valid points.  If Nader 
 SD>> was running  directly against Bush, I'd have watched every debate. 
 SD>> :)
 
 FS> All presidential debates would be more interesting if they were 
 FS> always three-man affairs:  One Democrat, One Republican and any 
 FS> other candidate whose party received the most votes during the 
 FS> previous election (aside from the Democrats and Republicans) ... 
 FS> that way we'd have Nader debating this time, Pat Buchanan 
 FS> debating last time ... it would liven things up. 

 JH> I don't know that we need to liven things up.  All we need to do is
 JH> stop trying to call these softball Q&A sessions debates.  How about
 JH> having a REAL debate?  Let the candidates stand up there and hack away
 JH> at each other.  It isn't always the slickest talker that wins such
 JH> exchanges.  Its usually the one who can think well under pressure and
 JH> who comes across as the most believable.  I think Bush would've eaten
 JH> Kerry's lunch under such a scenario, but the way they set them up, this
 JH> last set of "debates" favored a slick talker. 

That's true enough.  It has always annoyed me a bit, calling 
those affairs "debates".  It would be far more interesting to 
have them discuss things face-to-face with a moderator mainly to 
keep the audience under control.  They could talk about anything.  
Each would naturally select what he considered to be the weak 
point of his opponent.  If the opponent was evasive that would be 
seen by many millions of potential voters.  And if one simply 
tried to out-shout the other, that, too would be seen by millions 
of potential voters.  This procedure would tend to keep *both* 
debaters honest all the while giving the TV audience a good idea 
of what each one really believed.  

The problem with that, of course, is that the Kerry people would 
*never* have agreed to it for obvious reasons.  Both G.W. Bush 
and Ronald Reagan would have profited by such a debate since both 
had clear visions of how they wanted the future with no 
waffling by either man.  I don't know *how* Clinton would have 
made out against George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole.  Clinton is a 
snake-oil master so maybe that would come out in a debate and 
there wouldn't have even been a *first* Clinton administration.

Such a debate will never take place anyway ... [sigh] ... I think 
there's a greater chance of a three-man debate -- and that isn't 
very likely either ...

... Everything I need to know, I learned from my cat.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)