Opinion: Debate limits let Bush avoid being tested

After much jockeying between George W. Bush and Al Gore over the question of debates, Bush, who apparently is not known to perform well in a traditional debate forum, has offered to meet Gore in three debates, one moderated by Tim Russert on a prime-time edition of Meet the Press, one moderated by Larry King on his CNN talk show, and a traditional debate in front of an audience.

This angers me. I could very cynically state that it's another example of a spoiled frat boy whining to get his way into the White House as easily as possible. But my frustration with his proposal goes deeper than that.

The debates are meant to be not only a demonstration of how the different nominees stand on various issues, but also a test of how well the person handles pressure, for the presidency is possibly the most stressful job in the world. There are no easy outs when one is president. This is precisely what Bush is trying to get.

At the very least, Bush's actions show callous disregard for the American people. At the very worst, it is a demonstration of unparalleled cowardice.
-- Joseph C. Jones, Clearwater

Bush should show he's worthy

How embarrassed the Republicans must be now that their presidential nominee has made clear what the rest of us have known for some time: that he is incapable of an intellectual debate on the issues.

Bush's feeble attempt to avoid the traditional presidential debates is truly comical. He had the audacity to hold a press conference, acting as if the debates were his idea. Let's face it, George, Larry King Live and Meet the Press are not going to cut it. If Bush thinks he is worthy of the highest office in the land, then he should stand up on the podium and state his case. Three times. Hopefully the voters are smarter than Bush's advisers believe them to be.
-- Tom Weiskotten, Tallahassee

The easy way to office?

Texas Gov. George W. Bush "offers" to debate with Vice President Al Gore three times before the elections. He wants to do two "fluff" debates (Meet the Press and Larry King Live) and have just one official presidential debate (sponsored by the bipartisan presidential debate commission). And from these debates, and the many biased political advertisements that will appear, we the people are supposed to decide who our next president will be.

Could it be that Gov. Bush is counting on the Electoral College to elect him president and is therefore not really interested in any "official" debates that could sway people's opinion and the Electoral College?
-- V. Paradis, Seminole

A matter of fear

George W. Bush is afraid to debate Al Gore. We all knew it and now he admits it. He thinks the public will not see through his scam of dodging true debates by offering to participate in programs with Larry King and Tim Russert.

I would hate to see George Bush as president represent our country against some of the international heavyweights. Can you imagine him standing up in front of a bunch of hardball reporters in an open press conference? Why doesn't George Bush come right out and say he is not man enough to face Al Gore in the "bipartisan presidential debates."
-- Jack Long, St. Petersburg

The spoilsport

George W. Bush's plan to limit the debates will limit the number of viewers who would otherwise watch. It is akin to the little boy who says: "If you won't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home."
-- Robert Yerger, Largo

Campaign ads are a public service

An AP report in the Times on Sept. 1 declared that the new George Bush TV ad, which questions Al Gore's credibility is "decidedly negative."

What is so negative in pointing out that a man who might be the next president has declared that he took the initiative of inventing the Internet? This and other patently untrue statements that Gore has unequivocally and unhesitatingly uttered should give any American pause to consider how formidable governments like Communist China and Russia must be licking their chops to think that they might be negotiating with a U.S. president who regularly resorts to such flights of fancy.

The press is quick to point out those moments when George W. Bush stumbles over a word under the pressure of interviews and speeches but does not show the same eagerness in pointing out the transparently false and apparently premeditated bizarre declarations of Al Gore, such as his Internet statement, his contention that he and his wife were the subject of Love Story, that he was the first to demand action on the Love Canal pollution and that he didn't know his visit to the Buddhist Temple in California was a fundraiser.

Because the press makes so little of these Gore declarations, the Bush campaign, for its own purposes as well as for the information of the American people, is compelled to do what the press will not. We all make mistakes in public speaking, as has George W. Bush, but very few of us, no matter our position, go around telling whoppers like the ones we have heard from Gore. In my opinion, the Bush ad stands as a positive public service.
-- Kevin D. Murray, Tampa

A childish effort

The new George W. Bush advertisement is humorous, but lacks content and maturity. Its presentation reminds me of something one might do at home with a video camera to roast a friend at a fraternity party. It surely lacks the content and quality needed in an advertisement to campaign for president of the United States. Is this how millions of campaign dollars should be spent? Does this ad help the Republican Party communicate on issues important to voters?

It surprises me that such a poorly prepared advertisement would be released by George W. Bush, his staff or the Republican Party. To air such a childish advertisement stimulates doubts about the judgment and character of George W. Bush. Let's hope he gets the message and starts airing commercials that are informative and of value to voters. This is not taking the high ground. It is not high-minded or positive, but it does speak about one's maturity, judgment and character when the going gets tough.
-- Richard Oliver Mayer, Palm Harbor

Make it left vs. right

The polls generally are showing a close race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, which is to be expected all the way to Nov. 7. I believe that almost all who will vote Democrat are satisfied with the economy and all that the current administration takes credit for. Although it would be unfair to deny the positive aspects of the Clinton era, there are large numbers of us who will make our choice based on other factors.

I just can't believe that everybody who will vote for Bush is simply reacting to a sex scandal. There are lots of social conservatives who see a possible continuation of a left-liberal trend under Al Gore on such issues as abortion, gun control and extreme environmentalism. Bush needs to remind his base of this fact.

Ralph Nader has driven Gore even more to the left. If Bush crafts this as a left vs. right choice, he stands a better chance of getting elected. We don't want to bargain with our rights or principles to maintain prosperity. A president who can do the right thing with the economy need not be a left-winger who will veto a bill to restrict certain abortions, ban guns and do all the other things liberals want him to do.
-- Leonard Martino, Tampa

Clear the air on Whitewater

Re: Criticism mounting over Whitewater findings plan, Sept. 2.

Why all the hullabaloo by the Democrats over Independent Counsel Robert Ray's plan to make -- prior to the November elections -- a general statement about the conclusions of the Whitewater investigation, which include Hillary Rodham Clinton's role in the episode? As a candidate for public office, it would seem to be in Mrs. Clinton's best interest to have all investigation findings, conclusions, reports and relevant data publicly released prior to election time.

Would not public knowledge of the facts "clear the air" and rid her of the unfavorable perception some have regarding her being involved in unethical and illegal practices?
-- A.E. Roberts, St. Petersburg

Where are third-party candidates?

I have yet to see any significant coverage on Dr. John Hagelin, the Natural Law Party/Reform Party presidential candidate. What little you have been covering on third party candidates has been about Patrick Buchanan.

Locally, we have a wonderful Natural Law candidate for Congress, Josette Green. Where is the coverage for these candidates with their innovative, common-sense solutions to health care (not disease care), the environment, food supplies, crime, education, foreign policy and the economy?

It is your job to keep us informed so we can make an intelligent choice about who we want representing our best interests.
-- A. O'Brien, Largo

The price of irresponsible business

In 1974 I purchased a brand new Ford Elite. It came with Firestone steel-belted radials. On my first trip with the car, the right rear tire blew out on I-75 with less than 300 miles on it. Later that night, , another tire blew out. A dealer replaced both tires with the same kind. In all, I replaced the original four tires with eight new ones of the same make and design. They all blew out. I complained to Firestone and was told I had no case since they replaced all the tires.

These were the days when consumers had no place to turn to. I told Firestone that all I wanted was reimbursement for the price of four tires so I could buy a different brand. They said they didn't operate that way. I finally purchased new, different-brand tires and never had a problem.

Since the news of Firestone's latest problems, I've learned that they did have a recall in 1978 for all their faulty steel-belted radial tires. I am writing this letter to tell the Firestone company the chickens have come home to roost. Don't blame a strike on the workers; you and the Ford Motor Co. have always nickel-and-dimed the consumer when it comes to saving lives. In fact, the entire auto industry does it. Now you can pay the cost for being irresponsible.

My heart bleeds for the consumers who lost their lives because of your carelessness, but it does not bleed for you.
-- Arthur R. Wallace, New Port Richey

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com. E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its "Save as'' function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page