The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« Cheney, Bush labelled 'Draft Dodgers' | Main | Flashback: Zell Miller's 1992 Keynote Speech »
September 03, 2004
Bush | Three debates "too many" says Bush strategist

The Arizona Republic is reporting that a member of the Bush campaign is saying that a third debate is unnecessary and would needlessly “dominate the entire fall schedule.”

“Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics,” Reed was quoted as saying.

On Thursday, after Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman visited a breakfast of the Arizona delegation to the Republican National Convention here, he refused to elaborate when asked whether that was the Bush campaign’s position.

“Debates are always very important,” Mehlman said.

But will Bush agree to all three of the commission dates, including the one in Arizona?

“We’ll see,” he said.

In later calls to The Arizona Republic, Bush campaign aides asking not to be identified insisted that Reed was not speaking officially for the campaign and that no decision had been made on the debates.



Posted by Solonor at September 3, 2004 11:58 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Remember when Kerry said there should be a debate a week.

Now Bush is in a position of strength for these negotiations. If I were him I’d limit to two and no more.

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 01:15 PM

two debates are sufficient. kerry runs the risk of having a consistent message if there is only one debate. and after he takes a pro and con position, what’s left for that third debate?

Posted by: wafflestomper [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 01:53 PM

skip & wafflestomper - excellent points!
I agree - two debates are enough.

Posted by: Jim [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 02:02 PM

I think the norm has been two, plus one between the VP candidates.

Posted by: tagryn [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 02:12 PM

“Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics”

What does that mean exactly? That you would have to explain you position instead of limiting it to soundbites?

Posted by: dave [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 02:27 PM

A couple of things come to mind Dave:

First the time for preparation, next the logistics of being in the right place at the right time.

These guys are busy and taking time out to do the prep work for a debate forces sacrifices elsewhere.

And again, with all the travelling arriving at the debate site prepped and ready with the entourage is a tough job.

Besides these debates are about as similar to actual debates and the gatherings in Boston and NYC are similar to conventions.

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 02:56 PM

C’mon here, folks.

For Dubya, one is too many.

Posted by: Don [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 08:07 PM

The conventional wisdom in modern politics is the candidate that is ahead wants less… while the trailing candidate wants as many as he can get.

Kerry is a pro at debating and most know he will always take Bush on conventional points… so does the Bush camp and former MA Gov. Weld (who ran against and lost to Kerry for Sentate a few years ago) is advising them accordingly. If Bush holds the lead by five or fewer points, he’ll be glad to settle for one debate.

There will probably be just two, though, plus one by the VP nominees.

Posted by: steve [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 3, 2004 11:23 PM

..anybody catch ((DON)) during the convention.. ya still need to do something with that hair…but you where great,that Dennis Miller cut was one for the ages…

Posted by: Rob_NC [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 4, 2004 08:07 AM

No, we need 3 debates. Third debate means that if you ask Kerry the same “yes-no” question 3 times you at least end up with two yesses or two nos, though certainly not three of either.

3 debates is the minimum to divine where Kerry stands on the issues.

Posted by: DWC [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 4, 2004 08:49 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)