David Broder of The Washington Post and bloggers Ethan (salto mortale) and Mark Schmitt (The Decembrist) have all suggested recently that Bush might fear debating Kerry, and might try to avoid debates with him altogether. Broder even posits a scenario whereby Bush calls for three-way debates (including Nader), hoping this will motivate Kerry to agree to no debates at all.

Bloody hell, people -- did we learn nothing in 2000?

In the 2000 debates Bush came off as a cocksure boy-man, the captain of the football team; Al Gore sometimes talked in a somewhat monotonous singsong, so it didn't matter that his positions were better or that he was smarter, better informed, and more honest than Bush -- Bush was "cooler," and that was that. If you don't believe me, ask the media, which loved Bush and hated Gore, and wasn't shy about saying so, especially with regard to the debates.

This year? Well, the press doesn't like Kerry -- and, oh yeah, he can slip into singsong too. Bush, by contrast, is an even more cocksure teenage boy than he was four years ago. Bush doesn't have to say smart or logical or decent things in order to win the debates -- he just has to make the press believe that Kerry is a weenie and he's just given him the beating he deserved. The press loves this scenario -- regular American trumps elitist liberal grade-grubber. Admittedly, they may finally be tired of the Bush act. But I wouldn't count on that.