Amazingly enough, it seems that the debate scheduled here for Oct. 8 will actually happen. Somehow, the CPD and the Bush and Kerry campaigns have worked out terms that all three parties are comfortable with, and preparations are still proceeding as planned. However, in the wake of these exciting developments, I struggle to find exactly what has changed in the new guidelines and rules.
Originally, the Bush campaign was concerned. They were not comfortable with their candidate’s ability to respond to impromptu questions from undecided voters, and they also feared that voters would disguise themselves as “undecided” so that they would be able to throw him off with partisan questions or rhetoric. Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign continued its lurch, not speaking out or taking charge of the issue, but rather taking its usual stance of simply reacting to the bolder and stronger actions of the Republicans.
But now, after a little bit of work and some negotiations, everybody’s happy. Instead of “undecided” voters, the questions at the debate will now be asked by “soft Bush” and “soft Kerry” supporters. This ranks up there with the silliest ideas I have ever heard, along with the notion that there are areas in Iraq too dangerous for our military. (If we’re fighting a war, we’re fighting a war; of course it’s going to be dangerous).
What, exactly, is a “soft” supporter? How will the alleged softness of these voters be measured? Who defines what is meant by soft? Plus, how does the Bush camp know that those wily liberals won’t just change their fa‡ade from being undecided to now being “soft Bush” supporters? Furthermore, won’t the addition of partisan politics to what was previously an open forum make the situation more, rather than less, difficult for our improv-challenged president?
The problem that lurks for the Kerry camp is evident to anyone who has seen footage from recent rallies in support of President Bush’s candidacy. At the meetings, to which only Bush supporters are allowed, the President faces a slew of compliments and praise, with the occasional interlude of a general, easy lob of a question that W. can knock out of the park with whatever happens to be the catchphrase of the week for his campaign. Are these voters attending the forums “soft Bush” supporters? And if so, exactly how soft are they?
It is also very interesting to me that all the voters who are asking questions have to get their proposed queries checked and verified by the debate organizers, and that if they at all deviate from their question, the moderator may cut them off immediately. So, even though it seems that a compromise has been reached, it looks to me like the Bush campaign has won yet another battle. The questions are pre-written, pre-approved, and may not be altered in any way, shape or form.
This is certainly not the original proposed format; it allows Bush to avoid having to answer questions on his feet and signals another way in which the Bush camp has out-maneuvered Kerry. From the Swift Boat Veteran ad campaign to their dogmatic but successful convention, the Republicans have been unrelenting in their attack while the Johns remain reluctant to fight back. If this keeps up, Kerry and Edwards will be in exactly the same place Gore and Lieberman were under just four years ago: watching Bush being inducted as president for the next four years.