Your editorial concerning the presidential debates was, as usual, biased and ignored several facts.

Had you done some checking instead of blindly agreeing with your favorite candidate, you would have discovered several facts.

Clinton debated Dole only twice in 1996. So much for the “traditional” three-debate argument.

Gore himself last March, on the Larry King show, broached the subject of Larry King hosting a debate. When King readily agreed Gore immediately accepted. Now who is reneging on a commitment?

Who says that the bipartisan committee is neutral? This may be a debatable issue. I tend to question anything labeled bipartisan.

What is wrong with NBC hosting a debate. All of the TV-owning American public can watch by using a remote or getting on their feet and changing channels. The purpose of the debates is to educate the electorate, not to satisfy the ratings cravings of the networks.

Also, I would venture to guess that a great majority of the American public has cable or a dish. So, in my opinion, that argument doesn’t wash.

The present format does not lend itself to a free and open exchange of policy ideas. It is too limited and stilted, the questions quite often are poor, and the moderators tend to draw attention to themselves.

Could it be that the vice president, for all of his vaunted debate skills, is creating and perpetuating the issue because he may be afraid of George W. and perhaps the truth?

Peyton E. Cook