why does this not surprise me?

[winterbadger]

President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Republican officials said yesterday.

from the Washington Post

Bush aides refused to discuss their opening position. Officials familiar with the issue said he plans to accept the commission's first debate, which is to focus on domestic policy, and the third one, which is to focus on foreign policy.

The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.

A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans.

This, coming from a campaign that closes its candidate appearances to anyone not already a supporter, is pretty rich.

Edit: This piece by DailyKos is excellent advice for the senator. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/6/233518/4477

Especially point #3

...You need a strong, simple and damning line of attack. That said, the dirty (but open) secret the conservative national media know, yet won't dare utter, is this: Bush is petrified to speak in public about most everything, and especially about policies and his specific record over the past four years. He's scared to do press conferences; scared to allow anyone who hasn't signed a loyalty agreement into his campaign events; scared to debate you; scared to talk about how his prescription drug plan is backfiring among seniors and fiscal conservatives, his immigration policies are backfiring among Latinos and social conservatives, his steel tariffs and tax cut policies are backfiring among blue-collar white workers in manufacturing states, and his No Child Left Behind and stem cell policies are backfiring among suburban white women. The key point is not the specific policies or economic statistics; to mention them, or call for weekly debates, is to fight smaller skirmishes instead of the larger war. Rather, push the macro message that Bush is petrified to talk about any of it. You and your surrogates should use these exacts words: not "doesn't want to," but "scared and petrified." Make the media repeat them, thereby forcing the Republicans to refute your charges in your language. And you need to do this now, pre-emptively, because Jim Baker came on board specifically to negotiate you down to two debates and Bush-favorable rules. You need all three; if you have established the "president is petrified" storyline in advance, no matter how scared Bush-Rove may be of debating three times they'll be more scared of being labeled scared for backing down. And when the tough questions during the debates on the economy, health care and Iraq are asked, and Bush's answers and eyes start darting around, he will ratify the scared-and-petrified criticism with his verbal and non-verbal responses.

Comments

[meepeek.livejournal.com]

Did you see the article which states that W's office won't communicate when ~or if~ he is going to participate in the debates? WTF? Has there ever been a presidential election in which there were no debates?

Things are getting mightily scary out there. Seriously.

[luscious-purple.livejournal.com]

Oh, there have been lots of presidential elections that were not preceded by head-to-head debates. They're hardly mandatory.

After the 1960 election, in which the first televised debates tipped the electorate in favor of JFK, nobody dared have a debate until 1976. So we went through three presidential elections in the modern era -- 1964, 1968, and 1972 -- without any debates.

[meepeek.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :) So in modern times, yes, but not in the last 30 years. I'd think he'd want to seem unafraid to debate Kerry, or take questions from a non-cherry-picked audience. After all, his spin team has people believing that he's "a great debater".