Last year, a group of Lawrence residents worked hard to have the city nominated as a site for one of the 2004 presidential debates. The group put together an excellent package of information about Lawrence and the university, facilities that would be available and why Lawrence would be a good location.

Eventually, representatives of the Lawrence-KU group were told they had not made the cut.

Prior to getting word Lawrence was out of the running, a Journal-World staffer spoke with a person who had been deeply involved with the 2000 and 1996 presidential debates.

He said the local group should be cautious, to not get overly enthused about the prospect of Lawrence being host to one of the debates. First of all, he said, the candidates will make the decisions as to when, where and how many debates there will be, not some self-appointed group that tries to get the public to believe it is in charge.

He said they would not be held Monday nights, due to the television conflict with “Monday Night Football” games. The debates would be Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, he said, to avoid Friday-night conflicts with high school sports activities and other weekend programs.

This same individual only two months ago said negotiations had been under way between representatives of the Bush and Kerry campaigns and that a new format was being discussed. He said one debate would focus on foreign affairs, the other on domestic matters. He indicated Vernon Jordan was one of the chief negotiators for Kerry and that he was requesting — perhaps demanding — that the two presidential candidates be seated for one of the debates.

The former Bush debate adviser said he thought it would be a mistake for Bush to be seated as he believes when the president, Republican or Democrat is involved in a debate, he should always stand.

In the earlier visit, he said there would be a rather confined time period in which to conduct the debates and that no debates would be less than a month or three weeks before the election.

Now, it appears, the suggestions offered by this observer are true. The so-called “Commission on Presidential Debates” may try to organize and schedule the debates, but it is clear the candidates themselves will make the decisions.

Bush and his advisers will decide if they want two, three or maybe even only one debate. That was the case in the Bush-Clinton debate, the Clinton-Dole debate and the Bush-Gore debate. The president and his people called the shots.

The current flap over the number of debates is nothing new. It has been standard procedure since the debates first were televised. The challenger always wants to show himself in the best possible manner and the incumbent wants to be careful not to agree to anything that would weaken his position or expose him to a verbal ambush.

It’s politics as usual. Kerry spokespersons can be expected to cry foul and accuse Bush of being unwilling to debate. Bush and his advisers are in the business of doing everything they can to win the election, rather than acceding to a challenger’s demands and trying to appear as a nice, agreeable guy.

The above-mentioned aide to Bush in previous debates noted the first debate gets the highest TV viewership and that many viewers are watching primarily to see whether one of the candidates makes a major mistake, just as most of those watching NASCAR races are waiting to see a giant wreck.

Politics is a rough and tough business, and there is no political battle more intense than the fight for the White House.

Neither candidate wants to give any advantage to his opponent, no matter what the public perception may be or what the self-appointed organizers might like.