Chris Ware, KRT CampusOne of our dreams as journalists has always been bursting through the doors of the Student Life office and yelling, “Stop the presses!” Actually, we were about to leave to grab a beer at Cicero’s when the scoop came in: President Bush’s posse is apparently considering skipping the already-scheduled debate at Washington University.
Bush’s people reportedly have issues with the previously decided format of the debate. With the first and last debates focusing on domestic and foreign policy, respectively, our debate is scheduled to be a more informal town hall meeting. Undecided St. Louis voters will pose questions to both candidates. The official objection to this plan is that the supposedly undecided voters (handpicked by Gallup) could in reality be partisans planning to ambush the President with pointed questions. Also, they would favor a sharp delineation of foreign and domestic issues in the debates.
We all know why the debate is supposed to be held here in St. Louis, Mo. It is the biggest city of a swing state with 11 electoral votes up for grabs-a state whose division between rural and urban makes it a microcosm of American divisiveness. It is also the only debate being held in the Midwest. One can only question the wisdom of a course of action that forgoes such a crucial state. A decision to abandon St. Louis could send a strong message about this president’s valuation of Missouri and undecided voters in general.
Our crystal ball has poor reception in the basement of the Women’s Building, so we cannot say for sure what will happen. But let’s assume that he does decide to skip the debate on our campus. We are lukewarm about both candidates, and although we each plan to vote differently in November, we both agree that this action would be an affront to the hard work both students and faculty have invested in preparation for a successful debate. The University has been planning for this debate for over a year, and to pull out with less than a month remaining shows a complete lack of respect for our community.
We certainly feel honored to even have the opportunity to host such a prestigious event, but we also feel that the hard work we have done so far should not be rewarded with rejection. This is especially true at a time when competition between universities is fierce and name recognition helps us attract the best and brightest young minds from around the country.
We must recognize, however, that the Bush team would not be considering this move if they did not think it was a politically savvy one. A bad performance by our historically gaffe-prone president would lead to endless ridicule at the hands of writers ranging from present company to the staff of Saturday Night Live. Bush’s strong point has never been impromptu speaking, and because this debate uses questions from the audience, there will be less opportunity to anticipate queries and avoid blunders.
Bush’s current lead in the polls, while precarious at best, gives him an incentive to play it safe and stick to his strong suit. He doesn’t need any incoherent rambling on the current “strategery” for the situation in Iraq. Clearly, Kerry stands to gain the most from this debate.
It is unfortunate that such a blatant political move reminds us of the sleazy shenanigans of his predecessor, President Clinton, who managed to win reelection despite his cancellation of the debate scheduled here in 1996. Perhaps Bush has forgotten his vow to restore dignity to the White House after years of scandal, for it can only be described as scandalous when the leader of our country shirks public discourse. It makes us wonder what he is afraid of. After all, vigorous public debate and open dialogue is the foundation of our democracy, whose constitution both candidates have sworn to uphold.