Softball questions from Larry King. On cable. That's George W. Bush's recipe for the ideal presidential debate. Bush left the impression that he'd also prefer that the debates be held in prime time -- in Guam -- but he didn't come right out and say that.

Voters can come to their own conclusions as to why the Bush campaign would prefer a format that limits tough give-and-take -- and limits viewership. But that's the gist of the alternative debate plan Bush tossed out over the weekend. There's room for negotiating over some of the details of the proposal put forth by the bipartisan Commission for Presidential Debates, but the public should resist the Bush campaign's attempt to turn the commission's work on its head.

As it did for the past three elections, the commission has spent more than a year working out the complex logistics, diplomacy and other details needed to bring the major presidential candidates together under conditions that encourage serious discussions of the issues before the largest possible national audiences. This year, the commission -- led by former Republican national chairman Frank Fahrenkopf and former Democratic national chairman Paul Kirk -- has proposed three 90-minute debates that would be telecast in prime time by all the major networks on Oct. 3, 11 and 17.

Vice President Al Gore quickly accepted the commission's invitation. But back when he was screen-testing his over-eager persona, Gore gave the Bush campaign an opening by casually proposing additional debates moderated by CNN's King and Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press. Gore says he's still willing to square off with Bush in those forums -- but only after Bush agrees to the commission's debates, too. For now, Bush is willing to participate in only one commission debate. For their part, the other networks want no part of televising debates controlled by CNN or NBC, so Bush's plan would generate only a fraction of the audience the commission's debates have produced.

The debate over debates is a petty distraction, and Bush probably will have to back down. When the Texas Republican was ahead in the polls, he had leverage to alter the debate format to his advantage, as President Clinton and Bush's father did in the past. However, no previous candidate has tried to sabotage the commission's work to this extent. And now that his lead has evaporated, Bush can't afford to be seen as a debate spoilsport.

Along with the recently concluded national conventions, presidential debates traditionally give voters their best opportunity to judge the candidates for the White House. This year, the pre-debate jockeying may turn out to be quite revealing, too.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page