Bush noncommittal on debates

Boston date seek at risk if governor agrees to only two

By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 8/16/2000

USTIN, Texas - More than eight months after the presidential debate schedule was announced, Governor George W. Bush has not yet committed to any of the three proposed debates, including one in Boston, and may participate in only two, a top Bush aide and other sources said.

Bush has ''not decided on the number of debates'' he will attend, communications director Karen Hughes said yesterday, raising the possibility that he would skip one of the events announced by the Commission on Presidential Debates last January. Although Bush plans on debating Vice President Al Gore in some fashion, his aides ''have not really had a formal discussion yet'' to determine what settings would be appropriate, Hughes said.

''I believe President Clinton and Bob Dole debated twice. I believe two times has been the norm,'' Hughes said. ''But we have not really talked through all those issues.''

Bush has long said he would make his decision after the conclusion of both conventions and is expected to do so in the coming weeks.

The vague response from the Bush campaign is a growing concern for officials in the cities hosting the debates, including Boston. The first debate is scheduled for Oct. 3 at the University of Massachusetts. If Bush narrows his participation to two sites, it would surprise few if he bypasses the liberal Northeast, a region he largely avoids and one Republican official wryly described as ''one of the less hospitable locations available.''

Officials at both the Bush campaign and the debate commission said formal invitations have not been extended, a delay designed to give third-party candidates a chance to rise high enough in the polls to meet commission criteria for participation. Both Bush and Gore are expected to be invited, and Gore agreed to all three debates months ago. The bipartisan debates commission is led by the former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican national committees.

For Bush, the obvious question is whether a debate might expose his weakest suit, creating a free-wheeling setting in which he might have a verbal lapse or succumb to grilling by Gore on policy details.

At the same time, Bush, with a longstanding lead in the polls, may have no real need for further exposure, several political strategists said. But he could benefit from sharing a stage with Gore, showing off his characteristic calm and humor and thereby appearing more affable than his opponent, several Republican officials said. And the public relations risk of rejecting one of the debates so late in the season is great, opening Bush to accusations of being either scared or too arrogant to participate.

Already, Gore has pursued this line of attack, creating a ''debate duck countdown'' on his Web site and challenging Bush to follow his example. And the Gore campaign has another, more potent weapon on its side: David Letterman, who invited the two men to debate on his late-night show and has relentlessly roasted Bush ever since for not responding. Gore has said he would do it.

''We can't get anybody from George W. Bush's office to return our call,'' Letterman told his audience earlier this month. ''If this is the way they run the campaign, how do you think they're going to run the country?''

Yesterday, a spokesman for the Gore campaign was clearly delighted that the issue remains unresolved. Doug Hattaway accused Bush of ''ducking debates because he wants to avoid talking about real issues.''

''As soon as we begin debating the issues, it becomes clear that Bush's agenda is just a massive tax cut for the rich,'' he said. Told that Bush might consider attending only two debates, he said it would be ''part of a strategy of avoiding debates in any way, shape, or form.''

Asked whether he was essentially calling the governor of Texas a chicken, he said: ''Duck is the closest I'll come.''

Hughes, the Bush communications director, said Bush participated in numerous debates with his Republican rivals earlier this year. If Gore accuses Bush of avoiding the debates, she said, ''the vice president has a problem with credibility.''

She said the delay in making the decision is due to the number of requests extended. ''We've got a big stack of debate'' invitations, Hughes said.

Bush also has been practicing his debating skills for months, indicating that he is serious about participating. But not until the end of the Republican convention has he turned his full thoughts to the next event, aides said.

Few political strategists, Republican or Democrat, believe Bush is going to skip all of the events. To do so would be to defy recent history. Every presidential race since 1976 has included some form of debate among the candidates. And since 1988, the debates have been organized officially by the commission.

But the number of debates has varied. In 1988, two presidential debates were held, as well as one vice presidential debate. Four years later, there were three presidential debates. In 1996, three presidential debates were scheduled. But when Middle East peace negotiations grew serious, President Clinton and Senator Bob Dole agreed to hold only two, said John Scardino, media director for the debate commission.

''Officially, we'd like to believe candidates would respect the process we've come up with as an independent organization,'' Scardino said. ''We will do everything we can, but realistically, there is no law that says there has to be any debate at all.''

Debates also are scheduled for Oct. 11 in St. Louis and Oct. 17 in Wake Forest, N.C. A separate vice presidential debate is set for Oct. 5 in Danville, Ky. Alterative sites are Madison, Wis., and St. Petersburg, Fla.