3 days until the first scheduled debate between Bush and Kerry, at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. Read over the 2000 debate between Bush and Gore. I said it before, Bush ripped Gore apart, mostly because he could lie about anything, and not have any accountability.

Between Bush and Kerry, I don't doubt that the immediate post-debate spin will have, at best, saying it was even, or more likely, that Bush beat Kerry. The whole idea of Bush being two-faced, and living in a fantasy land, will probably not take hold until the blogosphere yells it loud and clear, over all the debates. For the 2000 debates, the audience grew less as the debates progressed, that might be the opposite this time around.

One of the most interesting things I look for, is how the candidates address each other-- it's one of those guy things. In 2000, Gore simply said, Governor Bush, or the governor mostly. But did Bush refer to Gore as Vice President?  Very rarely, and when he did, it was to backhand. Instead, here's what Bush used to refer to Gore:

• we do come from different places
  
• my opponent, my worthy opponent
  
• his plan
  
• the man, this is a man, this man
  
• this is an administration
  
• he should have been, he's not very right tonight, he spent, he claims, he just said
  
• he'll put liberal activists justices
  
• you've had your chance, Vice President.
  
• as the vice president said, it's time for the man to go.
  

Killer instinct. And then, toward the end of the debate, we get this from the Vice President:GORE: Look, Governor Bush, you have attacked my character and credibility and I am not going to respond in kind. I think we ought to focus on the problems and not attack each other.Way to top off the retreat Al... and all the guys in the room just went, yea, Bush kicked your ass. That was Gore's 2000 problem.

But reading through that whole transcript, you just gasp at the "say one thing and do another" two-faced way that Bush has resided. It's couldn't be more obvious, like this:

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

I would like to see a list of what Bush said, from those 2000 debates, and what he did; but we all know the media's got his backside there, with the 9/11 changed everything opportunistic gimmick.