Here’s a look at the infamous GOP mailer that I wrote about the other day (via Andrew Sullivan) :

Like I’ve said previously, I pity the more moderate Republicans right now. Their party is being run by witch-burning lunatics. If you’re a conservative and you despise this sort of thing, the best thing that could possibly happen for your party is for Bush and his rogues gallery to be defeated. If you have any hope of regaining control of your party, you need to lose before you can win.

And to clear up a caustic statement I made in my earlier post, I have no problem with anyone who holds “traditional values”. As far as I’m concerned, you can go to church every day and give every penny you make to those money changers on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. As a liberal, however, I’m deeply offended by those who are inclined to bear false witness against me and claim that I want to ban the Bible.

What’s even more disappointing about this sort of thing is that it works. The reason it works is because one of the realities of far-right Christianity is a persecution complex. Watch TBN for a while and you can see what I’m talking about. Televangelists will preach about liberal attempts to subvert “Christian” values, their news is dominated by stories of Christians being murdered for their beliefs, and the talk about Jesus’ tolerance, love, and forgiveness is marred by the hateful attitude toward homosexuals. The reason this Bible banning bullshit works is because the intended audience already believes people like me want to hurt them.

To take this back to politics, these lies are from the Republican party. Their involvement in the divisive politics of victimization that I described above are enough for me to never give them my vote. As far as Democrats are concerned, their choices are to either write off this portion of the electorate when stumping for votes or to adjust their message in an attempt to pander to these voters. Considering how deep-seated the hatred of liberals is, I stand by my earlier statement : “Fuck those voters.” At least, as far as the election is concerned. There’s nothing John Kerry could do or say that will convince them that he isn’t a dangerous hippy who wants to replace their Bibles with the Koran.

Despite the fact that I’m an atheist, I’ve got friends and family members who I love very much who are part of this world. Because of the extremity of our respective beliefs, we both know that the subject of religion is probably best left untouched. Nevertheless, it’s hard to avoid thinking about the fact that their religious leaders are filling their heads full of crap about how much I want to destroy them. So, forgive me if I’m a little pissed off here.

Every time I hear one of the President’s supporters insist that the “coalition of the willing” is a broad international effort, I’m reminded of Paul McCartney’s insistence that Wings was just another rock band. Just like nobody bought a ticket to the Wings Over America tour because they wanted to see Linda and that guy from the Moody Blues, the willingness of Estonia and Latvia to support the war doesn’t change the fact that this is a United States led occupation.

For a good example of the U.S. control over Iraq, check out this anecdote from George Will (via Matt Yglesias):

After “This Week” arranged with Allawi’s office for Sunday’s interview, the State Department called ABC to say that the office of U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte in Baghdad had decided that the interview would not happen until this coming Sunday, after Allawi’s U.S. visit. This attempt by the U.S. Embassy to exercise sovereignty over the prime minister raised interesting questions about just what was actually transferred on June 28 when sovereignty was supposedly given to the Iraqi government. The White House recognized the inconvenience of such questions. The interview occurred.

If you think Iraq is controlled by an international effort, ask yourself if John Howard is allowed to set the schedule for Iraq’s “prime minister”. Or better yet, ask any Iraqis if they even know who the hell John Howard is.

Looks like Bush trotted out this familiar canard at his U.N. speech today :

Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders.

Here’s my question : Where did Bush get the idea that fighting terrorists abroad means we won’t have to fight them at home? He can’t honestly believe this shit, can he?

Considering that we’re fighting an enemy that hijacked four airplanes simultaneously, I kinda doubt the President’s assurance that al Qaeda is incapable of attacking us on multiple fronts. The fact that it only took 19 men to pull off the 9/11 attacks means that we’re dealing with an enemy that can mount a massive attack with a small amount of men and resources. And unlike Mr. Bush, our enemies are flexible enough to adjust their plans to changing conditions, patient enough to wait until their attacks hurt the most and are least expected, and determined enough to sacrifice their lives in order to hurt us. Terrorism scares the hell out of me and this politically-motivated, Tinkerbell act isn’t helping.

I don’t know what’s worse : A President who lies to us when he insists that the worse the fighting gets in Iraq, the safer we are at home….or a President who really believes that having our troops bogged down in a foreign quagmire is the best way to protect us from terrorism.

Kerry’s been making the rounds on some talk shows over the last couple days and it’s given him the chance to really lighten up. Quips like this one could really help endear him to undecided voters (via MyDD)

Why did it take so long for the Bush and Kerry campaigns to agree on a debate schedule? Sen. John Kerry had the answer for television’s Regis Philbin, who has hosted the quiz show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”

“The big hang-up was George Bush wanted to get life lines, you know, so he could call somebody,” the senate candidate for president quipped Tuesday while appearing on “Live With Regis and Kelly.”

Kerry also got a good one-liner last night on Letterman :

Kerry’s best shot at narrowing the race will come in the presidential debates, which begin on Sept. 30 at the University of Miami. Letterman and Kerry joked about the negotiations that led to Monday’s announcement of an agreement on debate scheduling and format. Kerry said the campaigns had argued over seating arrangements for the vice-presidential debate. “I wanted to have John Edwards stand,” Kerry said. “Dick Cheney wanted to sit.” Letterman asked about a possible compromise involving squatting. Kerry said that wasn’t the deal. “Well, now what’s gonna happen is, well, we compromised and now George Bush is gonna sit on Dick Cheney’s lap.”

Like I’ve mentioned before, Kerry’s in danger of falling into the Gore-bot trap if he’s not careful. What little I’ve seen of him “breaking character”, he seems like a really likeable guy. Hopefully he’ll keep it up and let the American people get to know him a bit in the next six weeks.

Seriously, if you haven’t watched or read it yet, Kerry’s speech was really, really good. Every bit of the speech is quotable, but lemme just point out a few good bits :

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The President has said that he ?miscalculated? in Iraq and that it was a ?catastrophic success.? In fact, the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions ? from the beginning ? in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
. . .
By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

His two main rationales ? weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection ? have been proved false? by the President?s own weapons inspectors? and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
. . .
The President now admits to ?miscalculations? in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment ? and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we?re not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings? major outside studies? and even some in the administration itself? predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we?d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq?s infrastructure. They were wrong.

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

It seems like every time Kerry gives an awesome speech, the next day he’s talking about something completely different. Hopefully this time he’ll follow the advice of LiberalOasis (and many, many others) and keep the attacks strong. He should just give this same exact speech every damn day (with some minor variations to respond to Bush justifications and to keep it fresh). The more Kerry repeats these points, the more the media will be able to pick out soundbytes that hit Bush where it hurts.

Awww…looks like baby Bush grew up a little over the weekend. Good for him.

Negotiators for President Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry agreed Monday to three 90-minute debates beginning Sept. 30, including one town-hall format with questions from undecided voters in the audience.

The two campaigns essentially went along with recommendations by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. However, the topic for the first debate will be foreign policy and homeland security rather than the economy, as the commission had suggested.

The final debate, which the commission had said should be about foreign policy, will be about the economy.

So what’s the deal here? Was the Bush campaign’s wishy-washy act a ploy to lower expectations? Or did they realize that you can’t run as a tough guy if you’re gonna act like a chicken?

The one big change here is the flipping of the two debate topics. I wrote previously that I think the schedule favored Kerry a bit, since he hadn’t even started his attacks on Iraq yet. Now that he’s got a week and a half to get some cred on Iraq, you can see why he gave such a badass speech this morning. If Kerry knows what’s good for him, he’ll give a speech that tough every day until the debate.

As far as the third debate, the momentum going into it is a toss-up right now. The last employment report prior to the election is gonna be on Oct. 8th. If it’s good news for Bush, he could ride a wave of “we’re turning the corner” into the confrontation and try the old “don’t change horses mid-stream” trick. It’s more likely that the numbers will be lukewarm and not really help or hurt either side. If those numbers don’t help, I’d advise Kerry to seize on the state unemployment figures like I did in this post and this post. The economy still sucks in some of the states that Kerry needs to win.

What about the middle debate? Well, on paper I’m one of those who think Bush’s speaking style is especially suited for the townhall format. Any time Bush doesn’t have to use big words, he’s got an advantage. On the other hand, this will probably be one of the handfull of times over the last four years in which he’s had to ask any hard questions. Considering that the audience can ask any question they want, the possibility of Bush getting thrown off-balance by a question he doesn’t expect is pretty high. Personally, I wanna hear someone ask him “Mr. President, how much money have you personally made from your tax cuts and how much do you stand to make if they become permanent?”

Remember that cartoon my friend and I made? Well, I’ve been pretty lax about keeping you guys informed about it, so here’s a few things to watch out for :

If you’re a subscriber of the Dish Network, we’ll be on the Free Speech T.V. channel’s show “SourceCode” all this week. Click here for details. (Note : The version appearing on the program is a special three and a half minute edit. Yeah, I think that’s kinda weird too…)

Tom’s heading up to Canada to represent our short at the Ottawa International Animation Festival. Among our competition in the “New Media” category are “The Meatrix” and some guys who call themselves JibJab.

We’ve still got DVD’s for sale. At cost. Cheap. (and you get a free poster too).

We’re still trying to get this thing to other animation and/or political film festivals. If you know of any that we should enter, lemme know.

Guess where this massive Kerry/Edwards rally from July took place….

…nope, that’s not Central Park, it’s North Carolina. If a state they’ve never had a chance of winning can generate a crowd like that, I can’t help but think there’s a groundswell of support out there that isn’t being counted in the polls. The key is to make sure that enthusiasm doesn’t die (it may already be on life support).

By the way, how long do you think it would take the Bush/Cheney campaign to get all those people to sign loyalty oaths?

In the grand scheme of things, Tucker Carlson is a pretty good conservative pundit. He’s not rabidly shrill like the guys at Fox and he’s not a mumbling, traitorous sack of shit like Bob Novak. A show like Crossfire tends to bring out the worst in both sides of the aisle, but Carlson doesn’t bother me as much as most right wingers.

Nevertheless, there are a couple things about him that really piss me off. Everyone’s got a debating tactic or two that they resort to when backed into a corner and Tucker’s were on full display Friday. For those who ever find themselves in a debate with Mr. Bowtie, keep an eye open for the following :

Putting words into his opponent’s mouth:

BEGALA: Would that President Bush listened to the generals who warned him about going to Iraq.

CARLSON: I’m all for listening.

BEGALA: Like General Anthony Zinni, the four-star general who said — in fact, he described…of going into Iraq as — and I quote him here — “a brain fart.”

CARLSON: Bush is evil. No, I know. Bush is evil. You’ve got that right.

BEGALA: No, he’s not. But he should listen. He should listen. And I want a president who’s smart enough and tough enough to listen to good advice.

CARLSON: You agree with me. OK, You agree with me. The campaign is a disaster.

BEGALA: No, it’s not.
. . .
BEGALA: I think the president should tell the truth. The president should tell the truth.

CARLSON: No, I know he’s evil. You’re right.

BEGALA: No, he’s not evil. He should tell us the truth.

CARLSON: That’s right. He’s a liar, evil. All the same.

BEGALA: Should he tell the truth?

CARLSON: No, he’s evil, actually.

BEGALA: Should he tell the truth?

CARLSON: He’s evil.

BEGALA: Should he tell the truth?

Asking questions to which he doesn’t want to know the answer

CARLSON: Now, Paul, I asked you a minute ago a pretty simple question. Does John Kerry think the war was justified? You couldn’t answer it.

BEGALA: I don’t work for John Kerry.

CARLSON: No, no. I’m just interested. I ask the question every day. I’m going to continue to ask the question until I get an answer.

BEGALA: I think it’s unjustified. I think the president lied about it.

CARLSON: Hold on. My next question, should we leave our troops in Iraq? Should we pull them out? John Kerry hasn’t answered that either. What do you think?

BEGALA: I think that he should listen to experts who tell him that he’s misleading the country. The intelligence experts briefed the president

(CROSSTALK)

(BELL RINGING)

CARLSON: OK, OK. I know Bush is evil. But should we pull the troops out?

Tucker’s right on one count. He does ask the same question every damn day. If he really wanted to know the answer to that question, he could go to JohnKerry.com and see Kerry’s plan for himself :

We must change course in Iraq. Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. The United States must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

John Kerry and John Edwards will forge a new policy to promote stability, democracy, protection of minority and women’s rights in Iraq, and peace in the region. John Kerry and John Edwards will work to gain new military and financial commitments from other nations so America isn’t carrying the burden and risk virtually alone.

John Kerry and John Edwards will make the creation of a stable and secure environment in Iraq our immediate priority in order to lay the foundations for sustainable democracy. They will:

Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Plan for Iraq?s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq?s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq?s internal affairs

Is Kerry’s plan not detailed enough? Is it too optimistic? Is it just plain stupid? There are plenty of ways to criticize Kerry’s ideas on Iraq, but saying over and over again that he doesn’t have a plan is a goddamned lie.

Do the political analysts for CNN even bother watching the news they’re being paid to interpret??

WHITFIELD: So we’ve been hearing both camps say they want to focus more on the issues, the issues as of late, voters have said they want to hear more about the economy. They want to hear more about the wars, the ongoing wars on terrorism and the war in Iraq. So if that’s the case, then why does it seem that whether it’s the latest intelligence document or whether it’s the latest reviews on Congress, all paint a very pessimistic view of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. It seems as though Americans are still very much in support of the way the Bush administration is handling things. Doesn’t it seem like a contradiction?

SCHNEIDER: Well, think of it this way. There are three different issues that are dominating this election: the economy, that’s John Kerry’s issue. He does very well on that, although recently Bush has made some gains. The war on terrorism, clearly Bush’s issue and the Republican convention really made that central to the message they wanted to send out. Bush will be strong in fighting terror.

Iraq is a key. The Iraq issue has been helpful to Kerry because voters who vote on Iraq are dissatisfied with the war and unhappy with the way things are going. But their numbers were diminishing. The White House did a very smart thing. At the end of June, they staged a very elaborate ceremony in Baghdad where the United States, the occupying power, handed over power to the Iraqi government. Ever since the end of June, Iraq has diminished in importance as a concern to American voters.

What the hell is he talking about? If this dude had been paying attention, he’d remember that the news about the Iraqi handover was that the “elaborate ceremony” never happened because everybody was afraid of getting blown up. The closest thing they had to a ceremony was Paul Bremer speeding to the airport and Bush writing “Freedom Kicks Ass” on a bar napkin.

Uh oh…it looks like those crafty Republicans have caught onto our secret plans (via Andrew Sullivan):

GOP Mailing Warns Liberals Will Ban Bibles

WASHINGTON – Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word “BANNED” across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word “ALLOWED.” The mailing tells West Virginians to “vote Republican to protect our families” and defeat the “liberal agenda.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn’t aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. “It wouldn’t surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage,” Gillespie said.

This is the most crazy-ass, paranoid bullshit I’ve ever read. Anybody retarded enough to believe that all liberals want to ban the Bible is probably the kind of person who would vote for Bush, regardless of anything he actually does, because he says he loves the Lord. Fuck those voters. I’m glad they’re not on our side.

During WW2, some great editorial cartoons were produced by Dr. Seuss. Yeah, that Dr. Seuss. Having just recieved the book yesterday, I couldn’t help but notice how well a few could apply to our current leadership :

“People need to be aware of this talk out of Washington, D.C. that says, oh, don’t worry, we’re just going to tax the rich. That’s not the way it works in the tax code. The big rich dodge taxes, anyway. It’s companies like this who end up paying more taxes, and that would be wrong for our economy. We need to make sure these tax cuts we passed are permanent and that Congress doesn’t raise the taxes.”

- George W. Bush, July 14, 2004

“I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

President Bush acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that he had miscalculated post-war conditions in Iraq, the New York Times reported.

The paper quoted Bush as saying during a 30-minute interview that he made ?a miscalculation of what the conditions would be? in post-war Iraq.

But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency was the unintended by-product of a ?swift victory? against Saddam Hussein?s military, the Times reported.

- Reuters, August 27, 2004

“And there?s something else we owe you and all the men and women serving right now in Iraq. We owe you the truth. True leadership is about looking people in the eye and telling the truth ? even when it?s hard to hear. And two days ago, President Bush came before you and you received him well, as you should. But I believe he failed the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth. You deserve better. The Commander in Chief must level with the troops and the nation. And as president, I will always be straight with you ? on the good days, and the bad days.

Two days ago, the President stood right where I?m standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. He did not tell you that with each passing day, we?re seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder ? that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists. He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away.

He did not tell you any of this, even though ? as the country learned today in the New York Times ? his own intelligence officials have warned him for weeks that the mission in Iraq is in serious trouble. But that is the truth ? hard as it is to hear. You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence, while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines.”

- John Kerry, September 16, 2004

“On Homeland Security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The one billion dollar cost would have been paid for by reducing the tax cut of 200,000 millionaires by five thousand dollars each. Almost all 200,000 of us would have been glad to pay 5,000 dollars to make the nearly 300 million Americans safer?but the measure failed because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided my tax cut was more important- If you agree with that choice, re-elect them. If not, give John Kerry and John Edwards a chance.”

- Bill Clinton, July 26, 2004

You know what they say about people who refuse to learn from history…

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the new regional unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out today and…well…your local economy sucks. Over the last few months, your unemployment has been rising again and you’re still nowhere near the low unemployment you had when Bush came into office :

The simple fact is the economic policies of the Bush Administration have had a disastrous effect on your local economy’s ability to recover from the recession. If this was a true “recovery”, you should be seeing a steady increase in job growth and a steady decrease in the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, neither one of these seems to be the case. Are you better off than you were four years ago? I don’t think so…

So I’ve been thinking about Rob Garver’s recommendations for the Commission on Presidential Debates (which I quoted here). While I agree completely with Garver, I really doubt the CPD would ever do something as bold as having a one-sided debate, expecially if the proposal looks like a partisan attack. But that shouldn’t stop Kerry from taking the idea.

If Bush chickens out of the second debate, Kerry should pick up the bill and hold the townhall-style meeting in St. Louis alone. Instead of fielding questions from undecided voters, he should up the ante by inviting prominent conservatives to ask any question they want. While Bush hides from the American people, Kerry can hold his primetime “Tough Questions” event and answer questions from conservative heavyweights like :

Tucker Carlson

Pat Buchanan

Bill Bennett

Ralph Reed

Bill Kristol

Newt Gingrich

David Frum

Andrew Sullivan

While the Kerry campaign might have a hard time getting conservatives to sign on and news channels to show it, its placement between the two major debates would ensure some coverage and participation. The beauty of this strategy is that even if Kerry does a mediocre job in his “Tough Questions” forum, he can use his willingness to walk into a political lion’s den as a way to show voters what a big baby Bush is.

Flightsuit boy is trying to run out the clock on the debates :

The commission that proposed three presidential candidate debates says time is running out for the Bush and Kerry campaigns to agree on details so organizers can finalize their plans.

The Commission on Presidential Debates last week sent a letter to the two campaigns asking for a meeting about their concerns, but has heard nothing back.
. . .
The commission needs 10 days’ time to produce its first proposed debate, Brown said. The other two presidential debates are scheduled for Oct. 8 and Oct. 13, with a vice presidential debate set for Oct. 5.

Sen. John Kerry’s campaign agreed in August to the all venues, dates and moderators proposed by the commission, but President Bush’s campaign has not said whether it will agree.

This quote, from a different article, really rubs me the wrong way :

The Kerry campaign wants three debates but Republican officials have said Bush wants to limit the number to two and that the one which could be axed is the Oct. 8 session in St. Louis, which would have questions from undecided voters.

“Two is enough for the American people to make a judgment, but at the same time it doesn’t overwhelm the entire fall campaign,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.

Okay reporters, here’s a follow-up question for you : “What is the Bush administration doing for ‘the entire fall campaign’ that’s more important than informing the voters of this country where they stand and what their plans are for the future?”

I wish the Commission on Presidential Debates would grow a pair and follow this recommendation :

Here?s a modest proposal for the Commission on Presidential Debates: Stop negotiating right now.

Inform both campaigns that the commission will be sponsoring three debates, the times, dates, and formats of which have already been announced. There will be a seat and a nameplate for each candidate; if only one of them shows up, he gets to answer the moderator?s questions all by himself for 90 minutes, while the cameras show an empty chair where his opponent ought to be.

Kerry has already agreed to the three-debate schedule, and if the commission places its imprimatur on the event he will show up. This puts the Republicans in a dilemma: either allow Kerry 90 minutes of uninterrupted access to voters nationwide, or put President Bush on stage with him.

Most of the major broadcast networks indicated last week that they have not finalized coverage plans for the debates, but all seem prepared to give them significant airtime. ABC spokesperson Julie Summersgill said that the network would devote two hours of prime-time programming per debate to each of the commission?s three events.

Asked what the network would do if the president failed to show up for a debate, but John Kerry did, she said, ?You tell me what the debate commission says about it, and I?ll tell you what we?ll do.?

The major television networks may not always acquit themselves perfectly when they cover presidential elections, but one thing they have an unerring nose for is high political theater. A commission-sponsored debate between a major-party candidate and his opponent?s empty chair would be too much to resist.

Word of the day : George W. Bush is a poltroon for failing to share a stage with his opponent and defend his record.

UPDATE : Here’s some internals from the latest Pew poll that show just how important these debates are :

The tightening race underscores the stakes for both candidates in the upcoming presidential debates. The public remains highly engaged in the campaign: 71% say they have given a lot of thought to the election and 40% are following election news very closely, up from just 22% four years ago.

This increased attentiveness is carrying over into heightened interest in the debates. Six-in-ten voters (61%) say it is very likely they will watch the debates between Bush and Kerry, which is significantly higher than debate interest in the last two elections.

Hope you undecided voters are paying attention to the “debate on the debates”. One side wants to highlight the differences and talk about the issues, the other side wants to hide out with his pre-screened audience and hope all the scary questions go away.