BUSH COULD LEARN FROM GORE'S READINESS TO DEBATE.

Byline: JOSEPH J. JACOBS Local View

FOR weeks, ever since Democrat Bill Bradley began seriously gaining on Vice President Al Gore in key presidential primary and caucus states, conventional wisdom held that the two Democrats would cut each other up badly. The winner would limp to the finish line against a fresh and marvelously funded GOP Gov. George W. Bush, who blew past his competition.

That's still possible, of course, perhaps even likely. But Gore's decision last Wednesday to challenge Bradley to a series of debates on the issues - and the likelihood that Bradley will agree to at least a few - carries some risks for the Texas front-runner.

Gore's call for debates on the same day he announced he was moving his campaign headquarters from Washington to Tennessee makes tactical sense, even if it is a tacit and embarrassing concession that he's no longer his party's front-runner. That has got to be devastating after years as the ``inevitable'' nominee and after clearing the field of all Democrats but Bradley.

But debates have long been a Gore strength - ask Ross Perot and 1996 GOP running mate Jack Kemp - and Gore had to do something to shake up a sagging campaign that has failed to define him and is being bled dry by the high-priced Washington consultants he hired.

Whether intended or not, Gore's debate call sends another message: If the Democrats are willing to debate each other in pursuit of their party's nomination, and those debates will likely receive widespread attention and news coverage, how can Bush get away with ducking until mid-January debates his Republican rivals are calling for now?

In GOP fights in 1980, 1988 and 1996 - years when there was also an open battle for the nomination - repeated multicandidate debates with all the contenders were routine, and not just in the last two weeks. No candidate, including Bush's father, then-Vice President George Bush in 1988, felt safe not participating. But with George W.'s overwhelming lead in the polls, in fund raising and among Republican elites, that doesn't seem to be true so far in this campaign cycle.

The first debate among all the Republican presidential contenders was originally scheduled for Oct. 8 in Florida. Bush refused to participate, and now it won't happen. Another such debate is scheduled for Oct. 28 in Manchester, N.H. All the other candidates are planning to be there, but not Bush. His campaign says he won't debate until Jan. 15 in Iowa, when voters start paying attention.

It now appears that New Hampshire is moving up its presidential primary to Feb. 1. As a response, Iowa is apparently moving its first-in-the-nation presidential caucus to Jan. 24. And if Bush manages to avoid all face-to-face confrontations with his GOP challengers until nine days before that, he will have raised the stakes considerably. Either he's home free or has not left himself enough time to recover from any serious gaffes he might make.

That's a risky strategy for a relative newcomer to electoral politics, especially one as carefully handled and scripted as Bush. Like it or not, debates among presidential candidates are among the very few opportunities voters have to size up candidates and see how they perform and think under pressure.

Bush can deliver all the ``substantive'' speeches in the world, but as long as he ducks out afterward and puts his advisers forward to answer questions or elaborate on what he said, as happened last week after his speech on military issues in South Carolina, people will wonder how grounded he is on topics presidents need to know about.

If he stumbles, misspeaks or allows an opponent such as Sen. John McCain or publisher Steve Forbes to get him on the ropes in that January debate, doubts and troubles can escalate quickly in the frenzied atmosphere of presidential politics. In such a case, Bush could be a political souffle: He rose fast, but could fall just as quickly if an opponent slams the oven door.

``If Bush is going to make a mistake,'' said a staffer in a rival GOP campaign, ``it's better to make it in October in Florida than in Iowa in January.''

In California last week, GOP rival Forbes repeatedly challenged Bush to a series of debates, each lasting two to three hours, in an effort to smoke Bush out. That's not likely to happen, and few voters would watch. Still, his opponents at least want to make him pay some price for ducking.

``If you play not to lose, you risk losing,'' Ken Blackwell, Forbes' national campaign chairman, said of Bush in an interview last weekend at the state GOP convention. ``Our objective is to shrink the ring. Bush is bobbing and weaving and ducking in the corner, so it's a matter of constant pursuit. The pendulum is swinging back to where clear and defining issues will make a difference. Platitudes and generalities and warm and fuzzy won't do it.''

Maybe so, but Bush, who leads all his competitors in national polls by margins of 5 to 1 and better, has no reason yet to let himself be drawn into premature engagement.

That can change quickly if the GOP race tightens or if the contrast with the Gore-Bradley race is so stark as to intensify the questions about Bush. Will he refuse to debate because he's so far ahead that it makes no sense to give his rivals equal billing on stage? Or because he lacks the wit and substance to do well?

If it is the latter, what happens next September or October when he's under pressure to debate the Democratic nominee?