In your editorial you find Dukakis and Bush equally at fault for the dreary debate outlook. You then go on to state that the Dukakis camp would like to get their man face-to-face with Bush whenever and however possible. That being the case, how can you damn Dukakis in the same breath as Bush? It's obvious that the blame for the inability to schedule more than two debates rests squarely on the narrow shoulders of the vice president.
Bush seems content to let the electorate make up its mind based upon the reflected Reagan Administration record combined with the tired cliches he spouts nightly in 30-second sound bites, rather than on a substantive head-to-head discussion of the issues facing America as we enter the next decade. On the other hand, Dukakis is chomping at the bit, ready and willing to debate the vice president as soon and as often as possible.
That The Times can see no difference between their opposing policies regarding debates points to an editorial bias favoring the Republican candidate. Can a formal endorsement be far behind?