The Arizona Republic is reporting that the Bush campaign is considering dropping the Oct. 13 debate with John Kerry (the third of three), which is currently scheduled to take place in Tempe, Ariz. Call me crazy, but I think this is a world-class bluff.
President Bush’s campaign won’t say for sure whether he will agree to the three debates proposed by the independent Commission on Presidential Debates, or if a Republican strategist was right this week when he said the Bush campaign would agree to only two debates.
[…]
GOP strategist Scott Reed was quoted by the Reuter news agency this week as saying the Bush camp’s position is that “two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule.”
“Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics,” Reed was quoted as saying.
Reinforcing concerns, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman visited with the Arizona delegation at the convention and refused to say whether Bush would appear at the Arizona debate.
This strikes me as an elaborate head-fake.
First, Arizona is a critical “battleground” state this year. The independent Commission on Presidential Debates wisely chose locations that the candidates would actually want to appear in. The three presidential debates are scheduled for Sept. 30 in Miami (Florida’s 27 electoral votes are up for grabs), Oct. 8 in St. Louis (ditto Missouri’s 11 electoral votes), and Oct. 13 in Tempe (Arizona’s 10 electoral votes are as competitive as any in the country).
If Bush refuses to participate, it gives Kerry an edge in a key swing state. Sounds unlikely to me.
Second, Bush won’t want to reinforce an image of weakness. There were two presidential debates each in 1984 and 1988, but three each in 1992, 1996, and 2000. If Bush tries to cut back this year, it’ll suggest the president is afraid of Kerry — and if Bush isn’t brave enough to stand up to a “Massachusetts liberal,” how can he be strong enough to stand up to terrorists?
Finally, and most importantly, the Bush campaign has been playing an annoying game in this area for months. It’s part of the plan.
In March, Kerry proposed monthly “issue” debates. Bush balked. Kerry tried again in April, to no avail. In July, the debates commission released its schedule. Kerry accepted the schedule immediately; Bush aides said they’d think about it. Last month, Bush refused to acknowledge that he’d participate in three debates.
There may be some truth to the notion that Bush is afraid to debate Kerry, but what’s really happening here is a convoluted strategy of managing expectations. Bush isn’t trying to duck the Arizona debate; he wants us to believe he’s trying to duck the Arizona debate. That way, when the debate isn’t a complete disaster for him, he’ll claim victory.
The Gadflyer’s Paul Waldman explained last month, these guys have perfected the debate-expectations scheme.
Here’s how the strategy works:
1. Drag out the negotiations over the terms of the debates in order to convince reporters that you’re terrified you’re going to lose the debates.
2. Propose fewer debates than the other side wants, in order to convince reporters that you’re terrified you’re going to lose the debates.
3. Start talking about what a mediocre debater your guy is.
4. In progressively ridiculous terms, talk about how great a debater your opponent is.
It worked in 2000, so why wouldn’t it work again?
We’re seeing numbers one and two right now and we’ve already seen number four.
Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, told CNN earlier this month that Kerry and Edwards were “two of the probably best debaters on one ticket maybe in the history of the country.”
I predict that Bush will “reluctantly” agree to the commission’s schedule, but raise a big fuss to make it seem like a great sacrifice. Then, when he gets through them without drooling on himself, the campaign will characterize Bush as having Cicero-like skills.