Third debate would only be a waste of television space

In the 21st century political world, election debates are geared toward undecided voters who want to see more of a contrast between the candidates. This year they make up a mere 10 percent, so what's the point of holding three debates? If Americans don't know the differences between John Kerry and President George Bush's character and policies by now, they never will. Their differences are splattered across newspapers and cable news every day. \nIs anyone else wondering who belongs to this 10 percent? If you haven't made up your mind about this election yet, you don't have any strong convictions or beliefs because, as most of us know, there's plenty at stake in this election. The contrast between the two politicians is stark in every issue: health care, education, the war on terror, abortion, etc. \nBush isn't "backing out" of a debate with Kerry -- the president's campaign hasn't even agreed to the debate structure and schedule yet. At the second and third debates, the two candidates will be regurgitating the same things they said in the first one. \nWhat is said in the debates this fall will just become (if it isn't already) campaign rhetoric. So why waste a night of precious prime time television to demonstrate the difference between black and white?