Ducking the debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates, an independent, bipartisan organization, has proposed three 90-minute primetime network TV match-ups between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry (one domestic policy, one foreign policy, one town-hall-style session with questions from uncommitted voters), along with one all-purpose debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards.\nThe Kerry campaign has agreed to all three debates, while the Bush campaign is struggling to commit to any more than two (his negotiating team wants to drop the town-hall).\nThis is not uncommon practice, and it is deceptive. In 1996 President Bill Clinton used the power of the incumbent president and his wide lead over Sen. Bob Dole to snub the first debate. President Bush initially flinched in 2000 at the commission's debate proposal but accepted their recommendations in the end. There are desires to debate the issues internally and behind the scenes rather than in public and out-front.\nThe debates are important because they show the candidates operating together and against each other. A president doesn't necessarily have to stand at a podium and debate his Cabinet or his special advisers during his presidency, but he does have to be able to vocalize his opinions and make himself clear and concise. His ability to argue in a compelling way is requisite to help establish opinions and policy.\nIf we're to believe this is the most important election of our lifetime, as the two parties like to say, we should see our candidates taking their roles as campaigners seriously.\nWe need as much of a chance as possible to see our candidates interact. We can read every word of their platforms; we can watch their snip-its on television; we can see their ads; and we can hear their speeches. But a true measure of a candidate is felt in his performance in the debates. Voters deserve the chance to see how their candidates stack up.