I know the next “big thing” on the political calendar is the Republican convention later this month, but I keep looking past it and thinking about the debates. The first match-up, assuming Bush agrees to the schedule, will be in Miami eight weeks from tomorrow.<\/p>\n
The Commission on Presidential Debates deserves credit for being clever. This year, instead of negotiating with the campaigns for times and places, it simply chose locations and created a schedule on its own and asked the campaigns to agree. Wisely, the Commission chose swing states for each event — Miami, St. Louis, and Tempe for the presidential debates, Cleveland for the vice presidential debate — making it harder for the campaigns to say no.<\/p>\n
At this point, Kerry has (somewhat enthusiastically) embraced the Commission’s proposal. The Bush gang, meanwhile, is playing coy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, would not say when a decision might be reached on the schedule.<\/p>\n “We look forward to a vigorous debate with the Kerry campaign on the issues. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the terms at the appropriate time,” Schmidt said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I hope that singular “debate” was not meant literally.<\/p>\n In any event, the Boston Globe’s Steven Stark had a column<\/a> yesterday on this in which he suggested this year’s exchanges could have more meaning than of the debates from recent cycles.<\/p>\n This year, more than any year since 1960, the election will come down to one thing: which candidate impresses the American people the most in that reality television series otherwise known as the fall televised debates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think this has some merit; I’m just not sure if it’s good or bad. That said, there have been several instances in which debates have had a significant impact. Reagan and Clinton, for example, used the debates to demonstrate their ability to appear “presidential” against incumbents the public was ready to vote against. Ford’s suggestion that the Soviet Union had limited authority in Poland in ’76 caused considerable embarrassment in a very close campaign. Dukakis’ infamous death-penalty answer in ’88 clearly did considerable harm to his prospects.<\/p>\n And, much to my chagrin, W. Bush managed to somehow convince viewers four years ago that he was competent enough to be president, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.<\/p>\n Which brings me to this year. Who’s likely to benefit most from these debates? There’s no obvious answer.<\/p>\n I know many (too many) Dems who are anxiously looking forward to them, assuming that Kerry will embarrass Bush and get a boost in the polls. Forget it. Everyone thought the same thing four years ago and look where it got us.<\/p>\n Indeed, many hoped Bush would have one of those Ford-in-’76 screw-ups that would show how unprepared he was. The truth is Bush did<\/i> have such a moment — he falsely accused Russia’s former prime minister<\/a> of embezzling IMF funds. Bush had no proof to bolster the charge, and he was later threatened with a slander suit over the false accusation, but political reporters showed little interest in the gaffe and the public was hardly alerted to the mistake at all.<\/p>\n
\n
\nStark argues that the debates have been largely inconsequential since JFK faced Nixon 44 years ago. On this, I think he’s mistaken. Indeed, it’s not an entirely fair sample — after the 1960 campaign, presidential candidates didn’t debate again until 1976.<\/p>\n