This thread was created on the initiative of rubberducky who will also start out as host. Ducke has proposed that Michael Mele take over after the first surge of posts.
Over to you ducky!
2. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:25:14 PM
Richard J. Tofel of Slate's hey, wait a minute argues that the debate is largely a dog and pony show as Gore has already won the spin war.
And when the spinning is over, Al Gore will likely be the consensus "winner" of the debates—almost regardless of what happens during the actual encounter.
Why? Because the inhabitants of spin alley, and the TV reporters who serve as their echo chamber, have been overwhelmed by the speed of modern polling. While professional Democrats and Republicans in Boston will drone through their talking points, TV commentators will vamp for 20 or 30 minutes as the networks' pollsters conduct telephone surveys about who debate viewers thought "won" the contest. Then the commentators will adopt the poll results as wisdom, and the "losing" spinners will be left spitting into the wind. That's the way it was in the past two elections and the way it will be again.
is he right? aside from something monumental happening, which is about as likely as either Gore or Bush saying something absolutely new and not test market approved, Bush has little to no chance of being a clear “winner”.
are the debates even worth it? will they even sway opinion? some say no. i tend to agree. i honestly see little chance for the voters who have yet to make up their minds to (a) tune in the necessary numbers to matter and (b) be interested enough throughout the broadcast to pay attention
3. ranheim - 10/3/2000 3:26:36 PM
I, for one, will not be watching. Neither party is of any help to a self employed person - particularly a doctor.
Vote 3rd party in the hope that the % of votes for 3rd party candidates scares the bejesus out of one or both of the major parties.
This country needs change; large changes!
4. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:27:36 PM
Salon lists 10 questions they'd love to ask Bush/Gore.
No. 2: You both support the war on drugs, which has swelled the American prison population with hundreds of thousands of nonviolent offenders. Both of you have faced questions about illegal drug use, and the vice president has admitted using illegal drugs. Yet neither of you has faced prison time or arrest. First, how can you be a credible force in the drug war considering your history, and second what will you do to make sure that the force of the law doesn't disproportionately fall on the underprivileged?
...
No. 5: Gov. Bush, why shouldn't gays and lesbians, like, say, Mary Cheney and her partner, be afforded the same marriage rights as, say, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the same civil rights protections as anyone else? And why do you think gay civil unions would threaten the institution of marriage? Mr. Gore, do you still believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, and are you still planning to apply a litmus test to any prospective chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
what questions would you ask and can you predict their answers?
5. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 3:30:17 PM
I think they are worth it if only to see how these 2 present themselves...I personally would like a President to be one who is a quick thinker and one who can grasp a situation without having to ask his people what the situation means.
This debate will be judged while it is going on without having to bother calling people...FoxNews has a site set up to post ones thoughts while the debate is in progess.
6. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:34:25 PM
I think the debates will sway opinion. I think the "phoniness" and packaging complaints have merit, but are exaggerated. While it isn't too tough to respond to an initial question with a prepared stump speech, winning candidates in the past have taken advantage of the rebuttals to show that they can think on their feet, and losing candidates have floundered when they couldn't.
Given the tightness of the election, and barring any series of gaffes or scandals, the debates could easily determine the election.
7. CalGal - 10/3/2000 3:44:09 PM
I'll repeat from my politics post:
I'd like to see Gore a bit looser and Bush not look like a deer in the headlights. I'm hoping it will be a good debate. It certainly has been an interesting election thus far.
8. CalGal - 10/3/2000 3:45:44 PM
Oh, and I agree with Rask that the debates could determine the election.
9. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:15:15 PM
And we need to hear more debate predictions. What the hell is this thread for, otherwise?
Mine:
Gore tries to differentiate himself from Bush with command of details, citing gobs of evidence that Bush is unlikely to know enough about to effectively counter.
Gore uses the word "risky" at least 8 times.
Gore attacks Texas' environmental and education record.
Bush references the Buddhist temple.
Bush emphasizes leadership, character, and need for change.
When adlibbing on policy issues, Bush avoids discussing national policy details, focusing instead on something parallel that he did in Texas.
End result: Gore has probably stuffed his brain full of details that will portray Texas as a third world country. Bush won't be able to respond as effectively wrt national policy. Bush makes no major gaffes, but media quick polls show that 50% of the public think Gore wins, when compared to 40 for Bush, with 10 undecided.
10. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 3:20:01 PM
I predict that Gore will counter Bushs claims about all he did for Texas with cites that the Governor has very little power in the state and that most of the good moves were done at the instigation of the Democratics...
11. CalGal - 10/3/2000 3:22:14 PM
Ace,
Yes, I understand that, too. So what do you call the 164%?
Rask, there's a move on to create a Debate thread that becomes the election thread. Wanna host? It's not too much work. Wombat, Jones, BobbyJ, Michael Mele, y'uns too.
12. RosettaStone - 10/3/2000 3:23:54 PM
Speaking of numbers....
This morning I heard the news reader on MSNBC say that "an estimated 87 million Americans" will watch the presidential debate tonight.
This afternoon in the car I hear an ABC news reader says "some 60 million" people will be watching the event.
I've always been suspect when I hear that the Oscars have 1.4 billion people watching them. Numbers mean nothing to these people.
13. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 3:24:00 PM
The Democratics being a band out of Austin who really get down on the weekends....
14. CalGal - 10/3/2000 3:24:33 PM
I just hope they both do well. I'd like to see Gore crack a few jokes and seem natural at it. I'd like Bush to not look like a deer caught in the headlights.
15. janjon - 10/3/2000 3:30:53 PM
Rask - I think it also safe to say that W. will intone the name Ronald Reagan at least 5 times, more like 10, in the hope first and foremost to implant the image of himself as being the Big Boy reincarnate and secondarily by, somehow, tieing Gore to the image of being another Jimmy Carter (all this rather contrived "recession" business of late).
Unless it was a feint, Gore has been promoting the idea that he's going to concentrating on the future and what HE would bring to the party rather than on W. and what he so palpably doesn't. I somehow don't buy it.
I just hope that Jim Lehrer asks questions that W. (neither of them, actually) just can't respond to, or leave the impression that they are responding to, by latching onto one of the paragraphs or so of his stump speaches. (well, he could always do it of course, but what I mean is that he can't do it without looking totally like a fool.)
I watch Lehrer a lot and find him to be very well informed and a persistent questioner. I've never seen him in this kind of format though.
I doubt you will here "risky" from Gore. It didn't play too well in Peoria the last time out. Besides, that could be used by W. to say that was exactly the tag that Jimmy Carter used against the Saint.
16. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 3:34:29 PM
I predict Gore will claim credit for everything good that happened over the last 8 years even if he actively opposed it. He will blame Bush, Republicans, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharmacueticals, and business in general for everything that went wrong even if he campaigned for it. I predict the only thing he will be honest about will be his name and his party affiliation. Everything else will either be a lie, a distortion, an exaggeration or wishful thinking. In other words, I see this as just another campaign stop for Gore.
17. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 3:39:23 PM
I would be willing to host the debate and election thread. However, I would expect howls of protest from many different political corners.
I would do my best to maintain an Olympian distance from the fray. (Old school Olympian, not crotch grabbing and tongue out Olympian)
18. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 3:42:02 PM
I would not object to Jones hosting the debate/election thread.
19. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:50:35 PM
the preceding 9 posts were moved from Politics
20. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 3:45:55 PM
Debate predictions...
Unless Bush really screws up--which, of course, he might--he will win tonight by virtue of what I've noted about boxing matches. Most people will be paying more attention to Bush than to Gore because they have seen Gore plenty of times already, Gore is generally boring and off-putting, and they will want to see whether Bush flops. When people listen more to one candidate than the other, that candidate controls the scoring...so if Bush is prepared and performs well, he wins, regardless of Gore. (And if Bush is not prepared and doesn't peform well, he doesn't deserve to be president.)
Gore's job in this debate is to take the measure of Bush, perhaps even conceding this round, and hope Bush falls apart. Gore can afford to lose the opener, Bush cannot--especially not in a blowout. So Bush should have the initiative.
If Bush wins the first, I intuit that the second debate will go to Gore because of Bush's tendency to rest on his laurels after a victory. The third will obviously then be the tie-breaker. By the conclusion of the third debate, if Bush holds up, he will have won because the more people see of Gore the less likely he will be able to contain the real Al--self-righteous prig--whereas the longer the two share the same stage and Bush holds his own, the "realer" he becomes as a possible president.
Note, by "winning," I mean who actually helps his election chances. As for who will be declared the winner by pundits, etc., I think that's a rather useless exercise because so few people are truly objective in judging this contest. Given the closeness of the polls going into the debates, I submit it's reasonable to say that the debates' real winner will be the candidate who emerges victorious 30 days (or so) hence.
21. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:51:39 PM
as was 20
22. RosettaStone - 10/3/2000 4:00:41 PM
I know what I'm not going to do tonight.
NOT going to watch/listen to any of the pre-debate talking heads programs.
NOT going to watch/listen to any of the post-debate talking heads programs.
I will listen to C-SPAN radio after the debate. They have a call-in show, without editorial comment from the host.
23. mgleason - 10/3/2000 4:01:49 PM
My prediction: Gore will hammer Bush about his environmental record in Texas and the oil companies who developed the existing sham 'program.'
I agree that Bush will attempt to stick to Olympian pronouncements about character and leadership, but the devil's in the details, and he's very apt to flounder if Gore can lure him into making off-the-cuff statements or losing his temper.
24. CalGal - 10/3/2000 4:05:17 PM
From all I've read, Bush doesn't like prep work. He likes things to be "natural". I haven't heard much about his hard work in preparation for the debate. If he didn't, Gore will eat him alive.
25. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 4:06:59 PM
i predict that, like the primaries, Bush will take a hammering in the 1st debate take that information - go back to TX and come back stronger (with a decent Cheney performance) for the 2nd and 3rd debate and do much better.
by then, though, i don't think it'll matter.
the 1st debate will shape the next 2
26. janjon - 10/3/2000 4:07:52 PM
I have hopes, actually, that the three debates will end up being considered the best since they started in 1960. I base this in part on the fact that they do have varying formats, which I think appropriate. I base it in larger measure, however, over the fact that they will have only one moderator and that the chosen one, Jim Lehrer, while no doubt asking tough complex questions, will not be asking the obvious trick or loaded ones (like the Kitty rape monstrosity lobbed at Dukakis). I also hope that having one moderator will, somehow, allow for there to be at least some opportunity for sustained dialogue. Not just the quick question-answer-brief followup.
27. CalGal - 10/3/2000 4:11:11 PM
Jan,
I hope you're right. I agree that Lehrer does a good job on these things.
Will we ever have a real free for all debate, I wonder?
28. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 4:27:39 PM
One thing I'm fairly certain Bush will not do is lose his temper.
Hope everyone had a chance to see Frontline last night with the bio sketches on each man.
I agree that Jim Lehrer is a good choice to moderate.
29. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 4:31:58 PM
One Other Thing
does anyone else find this whole brou-ha-ha over NBC and FOX not originally wanting to air the debates in primetime (NBC because of baseball - FOX because of a much needed prime launch window) silly?
NBC is now offering their affiliates the choice and FOX will tape delay the debates. but, even if they didn't - with ABC, CBS, & C-SPAN airing them, who the hell cares? what a bunch of needless hand wringing
30. PelleNilsson - 10/3/2000 4:33:18 PM
As of now jonesatlaw is hosting this thread.
31. CalGal - 10/3/2000 4:33:43 PM
I did see it. I was going to mention it but wasn't sure which thread. It was well done; not too flattering of either guy.
32. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:34:38 PM
Personally, I think Gore should try to fluster Bush during the initial handshake by slipping Bush a rolled up hundred dollar bill with some baking soda stains on it, followed by a knowing wink and a "thumbs up" sign.
Bush should counter by wondering aloud if his poll ratings will go up if he also french-kisses Tipper.
But no one ever follows my advice.
33. Al D - 10/3/2000 4:35:52 PM
Unless Gore gives Bush a French kiss, I can't imagine the debates having any effect. Is there anything we don't know about their positions?
34. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 4:36:12 PM
Our local NBC station opted to go with the debates. Of course, if the hapless team Bush helped form were in the playoffs, they wouldn't have dreamed of doing so. No worries about that happening, though.
35. Al D - 10/3/2000 4:41:24 PM
If you think there will be surprises in the debate, ask yourself how many surprises there are is the posts above.
36. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:41:45 PM
Al: you assume policy positions are the only factors in making a good President.
37. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 4:43:08 PM
Cal: I agree. Though most conservatives would say PBS is liberal, Frontline is one show that I personally almost always find even-handed.
Maybe I just thought it was "fair" because it agreed with most of my preconceptions of each. Heh.
38. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 4:43:56 PM
Al:
Did you watch Jim Lehers special on debates of the past 40 years? You just never know when a "You sir are no Jack Kennedy" moment will crop up!
39. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 4:44:27 PM
I'm torn between the debates and the premiere of Dark Angel.
40. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 4:45:29 PM
Apologies to Jim for mangling his name...
41. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 4:46:48 PM
janjon - while no doubt asking tough complex questions, will not be asking the obvious trick or loaded ones (like the Kitty rape monstrosity lobbed at Dukakis).
I don't see how the Kitty rape question was either loaded or particularly difficult to answer. All he had to say was "Personally, I would have wrung the guy's neck and never given the matter another thought. However, we cannot base public policy on our baser instincts. The government cannot be in the business of revenge."
It would have been a home run for him and he would be hero. Instead he blew it.
42. Al D - 10/3/2000 4:48:24 PM
Rask
Quite frankly, I have no clear idea what makes a "good" President. Being honest seems like a good virtue, but it does not seem to be needed to be President or considered a great President. I would only worry about the future of America if Nader or Buchannon. Either Bush or Gore will keep businesses strong, no matter the blatherings of Gore. Browne might make things better, but libertarian thinking is far too scary for average Americans.
43. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 4:49:39 PM
I'm torn between the debates and the premiere of Dark Angel.
I'm torn between the debates and reruns of Mr. Ed. I guess it depends on which end of the horse I want to see talk.
44. CalGal - 10/3/2000 4:49:42 PM
Indy,
I thought it did a good job of establishing that Bush was a light weight. (The line, "Meanwhile, Bush was a frat boy." followed by Belushi in Animal House was a classic.) But it also made a good case for him having changed.
I'd forgotten how thoroughly Gore creamed Perot, too. That was fun to revisit. Still, they nailed him with the sister and tobacco speech, too.
45. Al D - 10/3/2000 4:58:25 PM
Judith
Yeah, that great line, "Your no John Kennedy " was such a good zinger, it got Dukakis elected. Is that how you Texans remember it? No wonder you don't want to see Bush elected.
The real point is that that kind of silliness does appeal to folks. As Barnum said, "No one ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the average American."
46. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 5:01:40 PM
Cal: I thought Al was hit pretty hard (as far as it went) by the fact he was a snitch on the football team and his equivocation about marijunana. Also, Bush seemed to have a much more normal childhood than did Gore.
My images of both were reinforced by the show. Another person (Judith, for example) might find the Animal House juxtaposition damning, but Gore's "hall monitor" role was worse to me. And in almost every shot, you could see Gore throwing his shoulders back, jutting out his chest, and trying to look like a hard guy, whereas Bush had the easy, affable swagger.
Mind you, I'm not overly fond of either personality type, but I think sure-minded introverts tend to make worse presidents than do gregarious delegaters.
47. Ronski - 10/3/2000 5:03:32 PM
I liked Indy's analysis.
I think it somewhat likely the press will be declaring Bush the winner tomorrow, because of the low expectations afforded him.
48. CalGal - 10/3/2000 5:04:00 PM
Oh, I forgot about the pot bit. Yeah, that was damning too.
I don't think either of them came off badly. Personally, I prefer ferocious, dedicated introverts to a lightweight extravert who was able to goof off because of his wealth. But I don't think the country will be ruined with either of them.
49. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:04:20 PM
JJ: your response for Dukakis would have been perfect. I do think that the question was out of line, bringing up images of personal tragedy during a political debate when a guy is doing his best to stay focused.
"Governor Bush, if your son was accidentally killed by a friend's handgun, splattering his brains all over your credenza while his body twitched spasmodically as all life left his body, would you change your stance on gun control?"
Sure, Dukakis' response was a bad one, but the question shouldn't have been asked.
50. RosettaStone - 10/3/2000 5:06:09 PM
RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson just sent me (and a million others!)an e-mail asking me to vote online after the debate on CNN and ABC websites.
(He doesn't tell me how to vote, fortunately.)
"Given the leanings of the members of the media, already we are seeing efforts to down play Al Gore's killer debate tactics so as to lower expectations for his performance.
"Moreover, we are hearing that many liberal left wing groups will be trying to stack the vote in favor of the Democratic candidate by bombarding the various news websites which will be polling immediately following the debate.
"The Democrats and their left wing allies are very good at organizing such guerilla efforts. We are alerting you to give you the opportuniity as an individual to be heard as loudly as these liberal special interest groups.
"Please log on tonight. Vote after the debate and make your voice heard!"
51. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:08:10 PM
"Being honest seems like a good virtue, but it does not seem to be
needed to be President or considered a great President. I would only
worry about the future of America if Nader or Buchannon. Either
Bush or Gore will keep businesses strong, no matter the blatherings of Gore. "
I think that is an honest assessment, but a President also needs to respond in a crisis, think on his feet, and handle himself in public. A debate is about as close as the public can get to seeing how they would manage this as President. I made the mistake once of supporting a candidate based on their policies on paper, ignoring other considerations (Dukakis). I have been more careful since.
52. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:23:35 PM
Rask - "Governor Bush, if your son was accidentally killed by a friend's handgun, splattering his brains all over your credenza while his body twitched spasmodically as all life left his body, would you change your stance on gun control?"
BUSH: If someone could show me a law that could prevent accidents short of confiscating all guns, I would consider it. I don't believe such a law does or can exist. I would prefer to spend our resources on efforts that will have a positive effect instead of chasing phantoms.
Sure, Dukakis' response was a bad one, but the question shouldn't have been asked.
If he can't take the fast balls, he shouldn't be at the plate.
53. janjon - 10/3/2000 5:27:47 PM
Rask is dead on correct as to why the Kitty rape question was inappropriate.
As for witty little bot mots that last as the memory of the debate, obviously a lot of them (like Bentsen's "I knew Jack etc." retort) don't sway the day, but I do think Reagan's "there you go again" was a pivotal moment and did a lot to get him elected. It served two purposes quite effectively: made Jimmy Carter seem like nothing more than a prissy, detail-bound guy AND, somehow, added a bit of gravitas to Reagan (as surreal as that now seems knowing what we know about the man.), sufficiently reassuring to voters.
Ergo, no doubt in my mind that W. has as his biggest objectives tonight to somehow emulate Reagan on both counts - make fun of Gore effectively and add to his own stature. Hey, it could happen I guess, but I wouldn't bet on it.
54. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 5:28:21 PM
Cal: On the one hand, I think we do have it so good right now that, yeah, neither one of them can screw it up, especially if the opposing party controls at least one house of Congress. But on the other, I guess there's enough Puritan guilt that I expect some sort of pay back if we don't husband the incredible bounty/opportunity/responsibility we've been blessed with in terms of historical importance and global power.
When I listen to Gore talk and study his career, I'm struck time and again by his certitude and his need to characterize those who disagree with him not only as wrong but evil. As for Bush, I worry that he doesn't have enough human empathy or seriousness. The single thing that has troubled me the most about him was the Tucker Carlson story about the Karla Faye Tucker execution. (I really wish that had been a taped interview.)
I think if the Clinton years have taught us anything it's that a president can serve during a time of peace and prosperity and his own personal defects cause the country more grief than his policies. And in a way, that is where American democracy is a dangerous slot machine: we have faith that the election process will eliminate the chance that a sociopath would ever have his finger on the button, but as the campaigns become more and more controlled and packaged, we know less and less about what really makes these guys tick. We just pull the lever and hope.
In hindsight even, our choices may not have always for the best.
55. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:32:00 PM
". The single thing that has troubled me the most about him was the Tucker Carlson story about the Karla Faye Tucker execution."
Bear in mind, Carlson interpreted his facial expression as a smirk as Bush relayed Tucker's pleas for mercy.
A lot of people interpret his mouth as "smirking" at inopportune times.
It seems to me that that's just the way the man's mouth turns.
If Bush is smirking, he sure smirks at odd times. He smirks when he talks about executing someone. He even smirks when Steve Forbes delivers a vicious attack against him!
He smirks when he talks about education. He smirks when he talks about his daughters.
Maybe -- just maybe -- he isn't smirking on all these occasions.
56. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:35:22 PM
janjon - (as surreal as that now seems knowing what we know about the man.)
As the saying goes: It's not what you don't kow. It's what you know that ain't so.
57. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:38:03 PM
Re: "Smirking"
One could also fault Barney Frank for always talking out of one side of his mouth.
58. janjon - 10/3/2000 5:40:45 PM
I hope to live long enough for the "full and accurate" biographies of Reagan to be written. (That should happen actuarily since I expect them to start popping out shortly after Nancy goes to her reward, and even though she's relatively well preserved - even taking into account all that plastic surgery -she's got to be in her mid-70s at best.)
Events starting at 11:43 a.m. because of cosmological confluences, indeed.
59. RosettaStone - 10/3/2000 5:42:32 PM
We live in a very Democratic county in Maryland. Maybe 70% demo in Montgomery. And lots of activists, for all the obvious reasons.
Maybe it's because people don't want to stain/ruin their Lexus/Volvo's rear bumpers, but I have not seen any GORE bumperstickers on cars.
Mind you, I've only seen two BUSH stickers, both family vans heading out Rt 270 to Frederick, but no GORE stickers.
Wombat, is that your impression?
60. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 5:52:15 PM
Ace: That's why I'd have really liked to have seen Bush saying it for myself. I've never even seen the original article...just snippets and regurgitations.
BTW, I'm not a bleeding heart about the execution itself--she committed a horrible crime. Just public callousness (i.e., an interview with a journalist) is bad in more ways than one.
61. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:01:18 PM
IJ:
Yes, I know that's why you wished the interview was on videotape.
But given that this was TC's first interview with Bush -- and everyone thinks Bush is "smirking" the first thousand times they see him -- I'm guessing it was just Bush's normal face.
Which may look like a smirk. But he's not smirking.
Bush "smirks" at everything. He "smirks" when he's ahead, he "smirks" when he's behind. He "smirks" when he attacks, he "smirks" when someone attacks him.
If someone is "smirking" at all times -- then they're not really "smirking." It's just how they look.
62. Al D - 10/3/2000 6:13:16 PM
I prefer "shit eating grin," myself.
63. Al D - 10/3/2000 6:24:52 PM
I will go out on a limb and make one pridiction.
Gore will propose Peticare. That would get him not only the PETA vote, but the oldsters' vote. We are owed that much, at least.
64. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 8:28:02 PM
RD, #4:
No. 3 on that Salon list was just priceless. If any U.S. presidential candidate actually has specific, detailed plans regarding 5 specific African countries that he can rattle off just like that, I'd consider that a reason to vote against him...
65. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 8:41:04 PM
BTW: I've never understood why some of these "bon mots" were so widely regarded as such. "You're no Jack Kennedy" was just a sheer insult, neither supported by any argument, nor dispositive as to the issue under discussion; "There you go again" wasn't even a line, never mind a great one -- it was just a throwaway linking phrase, like "On the contrary," or "Furthermore," or whatever.
"I won't exploit my opponent's youth and inexperience" was funny; "It's not his age, it's the age of his ideas" at least meant something. But the first two examples above? I just don't get it.
66. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 9:00:33 PM
What's wrong with smirking? Shows character, doesn't it? Shows that Bush is a man in charge. Look, he's so sure of himself, so sure of what he really believes that he can afford to smirk. After all, what does that smirk say but "See? I got this thing all wrapped up. The suckers are gonna buy it cause the people we pay top dollar to have told them over and over and over again that Gore's a liar. They don't want a liar, so they'll vote for me. They're all just a pack of wimps anyway. Just a bunch of fools. "
67. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 9:02:43 PM
Stumbo,
I never got "there you go again" myself. guess you had to be there.
And "You're no Jack Kennedy" was, as you say, just uncivil. Not witty, not a nice turn of phrase. Not a criticism of a policy. Just an ad hominem attack.
Never got that one, either.
68. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 9:25:44 PM
Which one can stay awake longer?
69. mgleason - 10/3/2000 9:38:57 PM
I told you Gore could make Bush lose his temper. Shrub is getting pouty -it's even less attractive than the famous 'smirk.'
70. CalGal - 10/3/2000 9:47:39 PM
Thus far, it's been a great debate. Lots of give and take, lots of passion.
71. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 9:52:50 PM
Some more silly snapshots: 
... but yeah -- so far, it's been much less boring than I expected.
72. CalGal - 10/3/2000 9:55:53 PM
It's damn near freeform, with Lehrer calling time out. Very little canned. More so on Bush's side, but not by much.
73. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 10:06:01 PM
Cayley... heh. I thought only geeks like Steven Landsburg picked out names like that.
74. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 10:09:36 PM
It's not going to be easy to sit through two more of these.
75. CalGal - 10/3/2000 10:12:02 PM
You didn't like it? Very wonkish.
76. Uzmakk - 10/3/2000 10:13:34 PM
Golly, think how different it would have been with Nader or Buchanan there.
77. Uzmakk - 10/3/2000 10:13:57 PM
or that Harry Browne fellow.
78. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 10:15:06 PM
Well ... CalGal, it's always painful to watch someone get crushed like Bush is getting crushed.
Gore is an accomplished time hog, by the way.
79. CalGal - 10/3/2000 10:19:24 PM
I think Bush is losing, but given that this is not his type of debate, I think he's holding his own quite well. I would have thought he would have been hamstrung with numbers and details, but at least he's giving the impression of having facts and figures ready.
Gore is loose, though. And that exchange with Lehrer just now was great--nice deprecating humor.
Lehrer: We could be here for hours talking over the minutiae....
Gore: I can do that.
80. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 10:24:46 PM
"I think Bush is losing, but given that this is not his type of debate."
Tough shit.
81. CalGal - 10/3/2000 10:29:12 PM
Ick. It was so nice without the jex/Cellar sort of mindless idiocy. I don't suppose you can take that stuff somewhere else?
82. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 10:34:45 PM
Honey, this is Politics.
And Politics isn't pretty.
83. Uzmakk - 10/3/2000 10:35:28 PM
Gore looked a bit like Ronald Reagan at times.
84. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 10:37:24 PM
Gore is still dancing with the can lady? Jeez.
85. CalGal - 10/3/2000 10:37:35 PM
Wow, the next debate is going to be even more informal?
86. JRoth - 10/3/2000 10:37:58 PM
I can't remember when I was last so bored. Gore probably 'won' but a leader this guy is not. A manager type, but no leadership. Bush doesn't look good, IMO. Too many pat lines. Other opinions?
87. CalGal - 10/3/2000 10:39:47 PM
Really? As I said above, it was much more interesting than I expected, and I thought it was a lot less formal and plenty of give and take.
88. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 10:40:12 PM
Bush got creamed. I don't see how he's gonna do better in the other formats. Gore is a master of speaking with out the aid of breath (I have an Aunt who can do with out oxygen when speaking.) A very useful skill.
89. CalGal - 10/3/2000 10:41:48 PM
Well, the talking heads on CNN agree with me. There's a terrifying prospect for you.
90. mgleason - 10/3/2000 10:43:01 PM
Paul Gigot is out of his mind saying that Bush looked 'presidential.' He was rattled every time he had to move one iota from his stump speech.
91. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 10:52:56 PM
Potential Gore weaknesses. He sure did have a lot of expensive sounding ideas.
92. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 10:56:07 PM
Well, the big question is, who liked Dark Angel ?
I liked this debate; thought Gore won; was surprised Bush didn't stay away from loaded words like "promise"; and think he should definitely stop using those cutesy terms of which he seems so fond.
93. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 10:59:16 PM
I don't have a lot of faith in the people they talked with after...one lady bought into the "they've had eight years" tripe without even considering the Republican Congress' role in the lack of progress on some of the issues.
94. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 10:59:58 PM
Gee, the PBS commentators all agree with CalGal, too.
Political junkies like most of us are not the audience for these things. I couldn't get past the repetition and the boredom of it all. If Bush's only chore was not to get in trouble, I guess he accomplished that.
95. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:03:23 PM
Okay, who checked out ABC? Did George and Sam agree with me, too?
CalGal: she knows the minds of the talking heads.
96. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 11:04:54 PM
Judith --
The "they've had eight years" argument, and the "I've worked with Democrats and Republicans" argument are potentially Bush's best arguments with voters.
97. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:05:12 PM
George Steph. said Gore won....I know you meant Will but he wasn't on.
98. JRoth - 10/3/2000 11:05:21 PM
I love the mental image of a grave and serious President Gore carefully wrapping Medicare in a velvet cloth and putting it in THE LOCKBOX. Do you think he'll hide it under the bed??
The more I review the clips the more I worry about the quayle thing with dubbya.
99. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 11:06:53 PM
Don't forget to tighten the iron-cladding on the box, JR.
100. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:08:07 PM
Michael, I know...I'm from Texas and hear it ad nauseum. I'm nearly barfing right now listening to the local pundits, the guys from Dallas who would throw themselves in front of a wagon to impress Bush, band or otherwise.
101. mgleason - 10/3/2000 11:09:27 PM
Two areas of concern for Bush supporters:
1. Gore hammered home exactly who benefits from the Bush tax cut, and that this cut costs more than all of Bush's other proposed benefits like prescription drugs, increased money for education, increaased money for the military, etc.
2. Bush failed to explain how he plans to handle the transfer costs of his SS reform.
A tax cut plus money being taken out of SS for investment, money that funds current retirees (whose benefits Bush promises not to cut), means that any shortfall must be made up from tax revenues. The soft underbelly of Bush's plan is that his tax cut is actual while the surplus he's banking on is projected, and he relies too heavily on the stock market's good fortune to continue. Gore was successful in making that clear.
I'm not convinced by Gore's SS plan, either, but if any math is essentially 'fuzzy,' it's that which underpins Bush's assumptions in this area.
102. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:10:07 PM
Judith,
Oh, I didn't think there's doubt that Gore won on points, but not that Bush got creamed. It was an interrupt driven debate, lots of facts and figures, and he held his own.
MM and JR were saying that Bush got creamed, and I didn't think so.
And I did know that it was Steph not Will--checked in during the last couple moments.
103. joezan - 10/3/2000 11:12:08 PM
Yawn.
104. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 11:12:33 PM
Yeah, I said he got creamed. Now I'm watching the CNN undecideds, and Bush obviously didn't get creamed in that room.
105. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:13:15 PM
CalGal: She knows the decisions of the undecided.
106. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:14:30 PM
Well, I've lost the networks and am stuck with these local dweebs. And I was unable to access the FoxNews Rate The Debate site I had preregistered with the other day; evidently they had so much participation it caused technical problems...they finally put up a message about tech difficulties. I was furious.
107. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 11:14:38 PM
The MSNBC undecideds seem to like Bush, too.
108. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:16:18 PM
Again, I don't think it's that they thought Bush won the debate. It's just that he really exceeded expectations in a format one would have thought would have defeated him.
109. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 11:18:28 PM
Considering that several MSNBC undecideds said they would now vote for Bush (and I heard none say they would now vote for Gore), I think *they* think Bush won outright.
It's not a question of pure debate skill (though Gore's vaunted skills were in short supply; at least they weren't on display with the rest of the merchandise).
It just could be that people like Bush better, and like his ideas better.
PS: Gore didn't do himself any favors by SIGHING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS every other minute Bush was speaking.
He sounded like a douchebag.
A six year old douchebag.
110. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:18:37 PM
I thought Bush looked bad on the foreign policy question and strangely, on the "emergency" question. Naturally, since I don't like him, I was hoping he'd do badly on the entire thing but he did much better than I thought he would. I was so wishing he'd really lose it but I guess he won't...he'll be more pumped for the next ones.
111. JRoth - 10/3/2000 11:19:25 PM
Does anyone think that Bush is of more than middling intelligence?
112. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:20:46 PM
Jeez, Ace...I was sighing, too.
113. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:20:46 PM
Ace,
Oh, I don't know why but I read your post as about talking heads. Duh.
I should say that some Gore switches have occurred, too.
114. joezan - 10/3/2000 11:20:48 PM
Anyone else notice Algore trying to pull the Clinton face - the one where he squints one eye for punctuation?
Very contrived.
115. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 11:20:54 PM
JR:
I do. I think Bush has the IQ he's reputed to have-- around 125. Superior, but not big league.
116. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 11:22:33 PM
Judith,
You weren't on camera attempting to seem "Presidential" when you were sighing like a lunatic, were you?
Nah. Thought not.
117. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:23:13 PM
JR:
I will never admit that Bush is of more than middling intelligence...he could RE-invent the internet and I would still think him this side of dumb...the smart side of dumb but only somewhat.
118. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:24:07 PM
Anyone watching CNN? I know it's sad to say this, but it is such a nice trip to see a young, articulate (goodlooking) black kid in college talking about how he hasn't made up his mind, how he's thinking about the issues, and so on.
119. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/3/2000 11:24:46 PM
Interesting debate... the first time i've paid attention to American politics this year.
My impressions (those of an outsider, basically):
Gore was too emotional.
Bush had a better 'presence' than I'd expected.
Bush blew it when he missed Lehrer's question, and answered it wrong.
Bush's attacks at the end were in bad taste, and Gore handled them well.
Gore didn't impress me as a debater as much as I'd expected.
Both candidates sounded canned and stilted, for the most part.
Gore promised far too much. It reeks of pandering.
The issues which hit home to me:
The supreme court appointments. I certainly don't want to see women lose their right to choose.
Environmental issues... I hope that the fragile Alaskan environment can be protected.
120. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:24:51 PM
No, Ace, I was only exasperated with one of the people on camera trying to look presidential.
121. Toenails - 10/3/2000 11:26:47 PM
I wanted Bush to screw up, big-time, and I must admit he really didn't. He may have actually won the debate, despite having (in my view) much the less appealing political positions. But whether he "won" or not, he succeeded mightily by not turning out to be the dolt that many expected him to be.
I think he just won the election, unless something incredibly important happens in the coming weeks.
122. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 11:28:00 PM
Toenails,
You're being silly. Bush was the same old Bush --adequate at best.
Granted, Mele is absurdly negative on Bush, but you're even worse in the opposite direction.
123. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:28:25 PM
Good lord, I hope not!
It would be a sad day if winning the election depended on nothing more than not falling on your ass in a debate....
124. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 11:29:43 PM
I doubt I can sleep but goodnight, anyhow....
125. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 11:29:45 PM
As I've said before, though-- Gore's "debating skill" is, and was, greatly overexaggerated. As Niner has pointed out, this is the man who lost... to Dan Quayle.
126. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:30:27 PM
Irv,
If Gore came off as too emotional to you, that's probably a plus. He's known for being stiff and wooden. No one mentioned that this evening (that I saw), which means he probably successfully loosened up.
I agree about Bush's presence--he needed to show he could think on his feet, and he did. I also think the attacks at the end were a bad move, and Gore was pretty damn smart to handle it as he did.
CNN just did a "flash" poll. Gore won, according to the voters, most of them didn't change their mind, and over 70% thought both of them did extremely well.
127. clydefo - 10/3/2000 11:33:24 PM
Bush showed that he isn't in the same league as Gore. It was like watching Michael Jordan one-on-one against a second-string college player. Did Bush have a cold or is that "snorting" a facial tic?
128. Toenails - 10/3/2000 11:33:41 PM
I never thought anyone would ever call me "positive" (absurdly or otherwise) on Bush.
I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstance. But his biggest drawback going in was the constant press push to Quaylize him, and he pretty much put that to rest.
Given the close poll standings, I would expect a sizable Bush boom in the coming days.
129. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:35:15 PM
Toe,
I agree with you, and so do the talking heads.
So we must be right.
BTW, on CNN Gore is gaining more votes in the undecided crew.
Did anyone read Kinsley's piece on the undecideds?
130. Al D - 10/3/2000 11:41:01 PM
Judith
I agree that Bush fumbled the foreign policy question. However, I think he handled the emergency question better than I would have expected. I too wish Bush would drop the pat phrases and just explain what he wants to do. Both distorted, but Gore much more than Bush.
Pelle
Just how do you think he should have answered the question about Gore's character? Would it have been better if he just said, "Well, we all know Gore is a habitual liar."?
131. Al D - 10/3/2000 11:41:53 PM
Irv
I meant to post that to you, not Pelle.
132. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 11:44:30 PM
>>Granted, Mele is absurdly negative on Bush, but you're even worse in the opposite direction. <<
Mele is not "absurdly negative" on Bush, Mele's first reaction like walking up the aisle in the movie theatre is that he got creamed. But that's on points.
Mele doesn't think Bush hurt himself, even if he did get creamed on points.
On the Gore side, he may have convinced a lot of people that keeping him around would be awfully hard on their nerves. He was quicker on his feet, but then he's been on the public payroll for 24 years. He talked a lot more about the specifics of Bush's proposals than details of his own plan.
If anyone kept a tape, I'd be willing to bet that Gore stole 58 or minutes of face time too.
133. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 11:46:05 PM
One thing I loved was Gore's energy position (just mentioned, approvingly, by some CNN ex-undecided) -- we can't drill more, but we need lower prices; how do we reconcile this? Oh, no problem: we'll just come up with new technology.
Is Al promising to personally come up with this technology?
134. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 11:52:59 PM
The other day Bush said, "Gore likes electric cars, but he doesn't like making electricity."
Gore did seem to put way too much emphasis on some kind of scientific or magical savior to deliver new technology. Not surprisingly, Bush was confident on the energy question, but I though he cheated himself out of time and examples -- maybe the oil man just assuming that people know what he knows coming into play.
Bush can own the energy issue if he wants too. But he'll have to talk and maybe even teach about it more.
135. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 11:55:34 PM
As for the trust/personality bit at the end:
Bush: "I didn't like hearing about 'no controlling legal authority.'"
Gore: "I'm running as my own man. Tipper and I have been married for 30 years..."
Is it just me, or did Gore have a one-and-only canned scandal-deflecting routine, and used it even though it didn't even remotely apply to the actual accusation?
136. CalGal - 10/3/2000 11:56:54 PM
That's because it has been shown to have worked.
137. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 12:02:09 AM
Right. He's counting on the voters being too stupid to notice.
138. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 12:04:18 AM
(And he's probably right.)
139. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 12:06:56 AM
Well, Al Gore didn't listen to me--he was his usual over-bearing self--and as a result he "won" the debate...in the sense Michael Mele has described. That is, he clearly dominated the discussion, hogged a disproportionate share of the time, and demonstrated that he knows far more than anyone else about everything. In contrast, Bush's performance was decidedly weak except in a few areas (I thought he did well on education). But in terms of what each needed to do, I think Gore would have been better served to let Bush flounder and not horn in and lecture us all while "going for the jugular."
If people watch all three debates (and I'm not sure that many folks want to hear "wealthiest 1%" and whatever it was Bush was trying to say that many more times), I think Gore is going to wear really thin: "Do we really want to listen to this guy for four friggin' years? If other countries think the U.S. is arrogant now, just think of dealing with Al Your Pal day in and day out."
Some comments about previous posts: I disagree that Bush ever lost his temper. Comparing the tax cut to additional spending as Gore repeatedly did is disingenous, but Bush was guilty of letting him get away with it. If you give everyone in the country a mere $100 rebate, you're talking about almost $30 billion in annual revenue, so a large tax cut is always going to involve more dollars than just about any new program. Bush should have shot back with the total expense of all of Gore's new spending and how much that would cost each taxpayer. That would have delinated the issue the way Bush was trying to ("I'm giving you money, Gore's spending your money"), rather than the way Gore wanted to ("Bush is giving your money to the rich folks").
Finally, Jim Lehrer asked the question that led to Bush's statements about Gore's fundraising, so I don't think it's fair to say he attacked Gore, as both Dan Rather and Irv have characterized it.
140. CalGal - 10/4/2000 12:07:36 AM
No, they just don't care.
BTW, I also thought it was a great idea to not have the audience applause.
141. Autodaffy - 10/4/2000 12:10:57 AM
Who put that hideous makeup job on Gore? Not since Nixon/Kennedy has a candidate looked so inept with the powder. He had too much rouge adn still looked pasty. If Karenna did it he should beat her the rest of tonight.
142. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 12:11:23 AM
One stylistic point that relates back to what Ace and I were discussing earlier today: Whoever told Bush to quit smirking should relax the edict. When he smiles, his eyes become very animated and give him a much more youthful, rascally appearance. In truth it can seem smirky at times but if he must choose between a smirk and a squint, go with the smirk...at least when the format is not a canned speech.
For one thing, the squint makes it seem as though he's trying really hard to remember what it is he's supposed to say. I'm reminded of Alfalfa in the Little Rascals trying to recite a poem or sing "The Barber of Seville."
143. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 12:12:15 AM
Stumbo:
I too was waiting for Bush to pounce on Gore's "Newfangled Magic Bean Technology" non-answer, but of course, with Bush one is always waiting for that moment of Grace which never quite comes.
Gore's answer was incredibly stupid. Trouble is, you need someone who's fast on his feet to point out how stupid it is.
144. Autodaffy - 10/4/2000 12:14:07 AM
By the way, could all you hypoctrites stop offering up reasons that person you favored going into the debate won? Its a little insulting to your integrity, and I hate to see people degrade themselves.
145. CalGal - 10/4/2000 12:15:53 AM
Auto,
Don't be a putz. I don't feel like fighting, and it's been a civil thread. If you want to be an asshole, go to the Inferno.
146. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 12:18:59 AM
Re: "Magic Beans"
Perhaps Bush should have said, "If you believe that magic technology will save us from dependence on foreign oil, perhaps some magic technology can save seniors from sickness as well."
I mean, *JESUS*. You get a tough question, and you suggest that Magic Beans will solve your problems.
147. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 12:22:10 AM
>Whoever told Bush to quit smirking should relax the edict. When he smiles, his eyes become very animated and give him a much more youthful, rascally appearance. In truth it can seem smirky at times but if he must choose between a smirk and a squint, go with the smirk...
That's very good advice, Jones. This race is billed as being between a likable guy you wanna drink beer with, vs a competent guy who is stiff and dull. Bush better come up with the likable part pretty soon -- so far his brand of stiffness reads like fear. The Alfalfa comparison is dead on.
Ace --
Fast on his feet in this setting, Bush definitely is not. Let's see how he does at a table. Let's hope for our sake (if not for his) that his coaches are reading this stuff.
148. Autodaffy - 10/4/2000 12:34:38 AM
Cal Gal,
You think me incivil in the same post you use the words asshole and putz towards me? My, my.
149. CalGal - 10/4/2000 12:40:26 AM
Actually, I exhorted you not to be a putz and assumed the possibility that you might not want to be an asshole. Both optimistic statements, but that's just the way I am.
Last post to you here unless you feel like discussing the debate. Take it to the Inferno.
150. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 12:40:29 AM
Auto:
Putz, asshole, bonobo, or not, your generalization was just flat-out wrong.
Witness Toenails, a self-identified Gore supporter, stating that Bush won (or "may have won") the debate -- and Ace, a self-identified Bush supporter, contradicting him/her.
151. clydefo - 10/4/2000 12:43:00 AM
It's amazing how easily Al Gore has already assumed the persona of our Next President. He used his initial response to welcome and thank everyone. Bush clumsily launched into a rebuttal. Gore "commended" Bush for supporting heating oil aid to old folks. At the very end, as Bush held back, Gore took over the stage and greeted Jim Lehrer, waved the families onto the stage, and for a moment there, I thought he was going to plant a big kiss on Laura Bush's cheek.
152. CalGal - 10/4/2000 12:47:50 AM
Clyde,
Yeah, the body language was interesting. He's acting very much the incumbent.
Whoever made the point about Gore's makeup--I agree. (just watching the debate over)
153. Autodaffy - 10/4/2000 12:49:59 AM
Stumbo,
You are generalizing. I didn't say everyone was spinning their candidate. And what do you mean putz, asshole? I didn't use those terms. The bonobo still does apply to you. As your immediately preceding post makes clear.
154. Autodaffy - 10/4/2000 12:54:35 AM
Cal Gal,
You ended up contradicting yourself re the Strangelove/Failsafe plagiarism issue in movies, and now you deny the clear intent of your post to me above. How did you get to be such an idiot, and why do you think giving orders to others will paper over your stupidity?
155. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 1:03:20 AM
Auto:
"I didn't say everyone was spinning their candidate."
Perhaps some etiquette lessons are in order. When you address a large number of people as "all you hypocrites," it might be a good idea to go out of your way to explain that you're only referring to the hypocrites among them.
156. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:03:29 AM
Interesting little note:
To keep the candidates cool, university officials turned the thermostat inside the Clark Athletic Center gym well below 65 degrees. That's the show-time temperature, once the lights were flipped on and seats filled, that was required under contract by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
No one wants to be caught sweating!
157. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 1:09:41 AM
To clarify my earlier comments about Bush's attacks at the end... yes, they were in response to a question from Lehrer, but Bush would have looked better if he had refused the bait.
I watched the debate on BBC, and the commentators there had much the same line as that expressed by most here... Gore may have "won" the debate on facts, but Bush impressed many people by not coming off as a moron. Bush may have been playing a game with this... no matter what happened, Gore was unlikely to live up to expectations, and Bush was likely to exceed them, and both did just that.
158. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 1:09:53 AM
As for the bonobo thing, Auto -- I've been wondering:
It's fairly routine for someone to call someone else a monkey, as a term of invective; but why that particular species? Do you know something about my sex life that I don't?
159. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:14:53 AM
Irv,
You know, I was actually quite impressed with Bush's willingness to go to the net. (is that the tennis term? I haven't watched it in a while.) Or, as the Sicilians say, go to the mattress.
He interrupted, came back with quick answers that seemed on target (whether I agreed or not was irrelevant) and was ready to do battle. He also didn't lose his temper.
Still, the general impression thus far seems to have been that they both did well. I guess some people here found it boring, but it seemed far less scripted than the last few debates, in which journalists spend 20 minutes pontificating on some ridiculously specific question that the candidates then ignore in favor of a canned speech.
I also noticed a lot of compliments going from Gore to Bush, which was a wise move.
160. ArtVandelay - 10/4/2000 1:24:05 AM
I wonder; Since Bush is suposed to be Bluto from ANimal House__'fat drunk and stupid, is no-way to go thru life , son..."__ then who would Gore be from that movie/?
He thinks he's Otter, but he's really Hoover, or NEdermayer. Maybe Greg Marmilard.
But the debate was more intresting that i thought it wes going to be, and Bush may have won by just *not loosing*.
161. ArtVandelay - 10/4/2000 1:26:22 AM
To keep the candidates cool, university officials turned the thermostat inside the Clark Athletic Center gym well below 65 degrees.
I thought the canidates' nipples' looked hard! ;-P
162. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 1:29:00 AM
Cal:
I agree with your take on it. Both candiates did fairly well, which scores more points for Bush than Gore. It was boring in some ways, but fascinating in others. I definitely plan to watch the other debates.
I also noticed a lot of compliments going from Gore to Bush, which was a wise move.
Yes and no. Each time, Gore made sure to take credit for the points he complimented Bush on. And by doing so, he played into the "consecending" image he has tried to avoid. Heck, he was condecending.
163. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:37:14 AM
Irv,
But you know, I think a bit of condescension actually serves him well, provided that he doesn't take it too far.
Overall, though, it's quite a kick to have the election be this interesting. It's been over 20 years since we didn't pretty much know who was going to be the President at this point in the cycle.
164. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:37:30 AM
Incidentally, I think I know why Mele (and I myself) are pepetually frustrated by Bush's debate performances.
It's simple.
We get frustrated because we know the "right answers" to the question. And by "right answers," I mean "Right answers" -- We know the proper William F. Buckley approved conservative answer.
We know how Bush ought to answer questions. We know he should be more like Reagan. Or at least more like, say, John Kasich.
But Bush doesn't give those answers. Bush is conservative. But he's not *a* Conservative. He's simply not a member of the Conservative Movement, and he never will be.
He will not give us "The government that governs least, governs best"'s. He will not make statements about free enterprised -- unfettered free enterprise -- being the greatest engine for human happiness ever devised.
He will not do these things.
He will continue advocating his positions, without advocating them *philosophically.*
Just as Clinton was a semi-Republican, Bush will continue being a semi-Democrat. He will not challenge the assumptions of the semi-socialistic nanny-state because, like the typical non-philosophical, apolitical moderate, he isn't terribly against the semi-socialistic nanny-state.
he just wants... less of one.
165. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:43:19 AM
But not less of a nanny state to be considered "scary" by apolitical moderates.
Bush gives very little to Congressional Republicans to bite onto-- he offers no movement, no larger, coherent agenda.
Again, much like CLintonism, "Bushism" is personal. Just like "Clintonism" was whatever Clinton believed at the time -- poll-driven positions calculated to not offend apolitical centrist voters -- so is Bushism.
Gore's positions are more coherent (if all coherently bad). He favors big taxation and big socialistic spending. That's coherent -- that's just Old Democratism.
Whereas Bush... well, there's no real unifying logic. He's *for* tax cuts. Well, okay. That's sort of the sine qua non of Conservatives. Then again, he's for fairly generous expansion of the welfare state (prescription drugs, etc.)... in the "appropriate case."
What is "the appropriate case"?
Well, much like Clintonism, "the appropriate case" means you appropriate the other side's most popular issues... just water them down a bit. Again, like Clintonism, there is no unifying theme or philosophy to these appropriations. They have nothing in common, except that they're popular with 55% of the American public.
166. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 1:44:33 AM
Gore could easily overplay his "Presidential" demeanor. The Italians have a saying about "Papabile" (possible Popes) "go into Conclave a Pope, come out a Cardinal."
In another forum I've seen other people who basically loathe Bush saying he got more out of it than Gore. And more than one Dem I know there, is gloomy about Bush winning after a "new burst of Bush enthusiasm following the debates."
I've seen Bush (on C-Span) in a few town meeting-style contexts (admittedly before Republican crowds) and he is a "people person." He conveys real warmth and generates enthusiasm.
Interesting election -- I hate the choice, but as a matter of pure junkie thrills, it's fascinating. The polls may turn out to be all wet, but they paint an interesting ever-changing picture.
167. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 1:46:00 AM
May I reiterate my surprise that Gore trotted out the can lady again? (I mean, with all the revelations about her having a wealthy son and all?) And, furthermore, my suprise that Bush didn't even attempt to counter that? Surely that should've been a major prepping point.
168. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 1:46:33 AM
Ace:
You bring up an interesting point about both candidates. It seems to me that a lot of traditional conservatives put up with Bush because he is the candidate, but aren't too enamored of him, and the same is true with Gore and traditional liberals.
I don't know what it says for the political process or what the electorate wants, but I'm sure some people here have thoughts on it.
169. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 1:50:20 AM
Btw, was I the only one who found Bush rather half-hearted on the abortion issue? Gore was scoring points there, and Bush could only weakly say "Yes, I'm pro life." It's like he doesn't really believe it. It's a topic I would think a candidate could show some feeling about, and Bush looked like he wanted to change the subject.
Stumbo:
I suppose his pollsters found it works, despite the revelations.
170. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:51:39 AM
Well, with no real discontent about too little done for us or too much done for others, we all huddle in the center.
171. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:52:27 AM
"It's like he doesn't really believe it. It's a topic I would think a candidate could show some feeling about, and Bush looked like he wanted to change the subject."
Because it's a losing issue. Bush is forced to be nominally pro-life by his party. But the country is at least 55% pro-choice.
So of course he's half-hearted about it. Bush would be happy if "abortion" were never mentioned again for the next five weeks.
His position on abortion is quite well thought out and consistent. He just isn't particularly thrilled to share it.
172. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:53:27 AM
It's a topic I would think a candidate could show some feeling about
He can't afford to alienate women. As it is, they are pretty solidly in Gore's camp.
At the same time, he can't move off the Republican party line.
The abortion pill timing was so diabolical that one might wonder if Clinton nudged the FDA.
173. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:57:41 AM
"The abortion pill timing was so diabolical that one might wonder if Clinton nudged the FDA."
One might wonder why a rational person would have any doubts about this.
It doesn't take eight years to determine if a pill is safe or not.
174. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:00:10 AM
Ace --
We get frustrated because we know the "right answers" to the question. And by "right answers," I mean "Right answers" -- We know the proper William F. Buckley approved conservative answer.
Right in one.
Remember (I always do) -- Dubya is a Bush. I'm convinced he is proud of every compromise he ever made. Remember how Bush Pere used to throw "Danny" Rostenkowski's name around?
They are the real deal inheritors of Rockefeller Republicanism -- "the Dems pass the programs, but Republicans can administer them better" used to be the conventional wisdom about that wing of the party.
I like Bush's education rap. He has real passion about it, and it shows. He has a tremendous advantage over Gore who can't be as forthcoming because Gore's position is "we can't hurt our friends in the teachers unions."
For all of that, using Federal dollars as a club on locally controlled education is not a "Movement Conservative" position. Given that the unions and Ed. schools in academia have already had profound non-local impact on education the Bush club may be the right weapon, but it's hard on a boy who used to love his National Review (which has also wandered far from it's moorings, btw.)
175. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:00:25 AM
Well, it didn't take three, either. And there were at least two years of holdups due to things outside Clinton's control.
I was joking; I'm sure you're not.
176. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 2:03:53 AM
"For all of that, using Federal dollars as a club on locally controlled education is not a "Movement Conservative" position."
I think it is.
Conservatives wouldn't have chosen this path had we had a say in the Initial Bargain.
But we didn't.
So we have federal money being used to influence local school board decisions.
Those are the "facts on the ground," as they say.
There's no point calling for an end to Federal Title I money. You might as well rename yourself "Mondale" and announce a tax increase.
So you do what you can.
And what you can do is make the most of a situation not of your making. You use that Title I money to encourage competition and to empower the end-users -- parents -- atomistically.
177. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 2:06:38 AM
12 years, according to Gore (if I remember correctly).
178. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 2:08:23 AM
Stumbo,
I believe George Bush Sr. held up testing.
But Clinton has had the pill for eight years -- and he believes in it.
Anyone who believes it is just coincidence the pill came out six weeks before the election is, I'm afraid, also probably willing to believe that Clinton and Monica never had an "affair."
179. RustlerPike - 10/4/2000 2:08:43 AM
If I were Gore's advisor, I'd advise him not to beat around the bush (sorry) and attack immediately. Why not simply tell Bush - "Look, George W., you ugly connected-eyebrowed Neanderthal doofus... you are so obviously a total idiot - I mean, now do you know who the president of Indonesia is?"
Whereas Bush should have countered with: "Gore, you are an overgrown faggot. At least I tried coke and I was pretty good looking when I was young. There aren't even any pictures of you when you were young... you were always hiding behind your dad's shoulders, the way you're hiding behind Clinton's now.
180. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 2:12:13 AM
Mele,
I'm not particularly offended by Rockefeller Republicanism. To tell you the truth, I don't buy Conservatism so much as I despise liberalism.
You True Republicans better get it through your heads: The Old Man is gone, and he isn't coming back.
Bush is more conservative than Bush Sr. and Dole. That's the best we'll be able to do for a long, long time.
So... just chill. A man with minor-league, half-hearted liberal policies is better than a man with The Real Thing.
181. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:14:28 AM
Ace,
Oh, sure. Clinton is such a selfless and giving guy that he'd hold up approval for eight years just because it would help his successor.
I'm thinking not. As I said, it was held up in distribution for a long time because of external problems with the company chosen to distribute it.
So at best, the FDA was ready on its own terms and Clinton got to make the call as to when--before or after the election. And even that seems unlikely.
182. Al D - 10/4/2000 2:16:08 AM
Going to the mattress was a term meaning to hide out.
183. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 2:17:58 AM
"Oh, sure. Clinton is such a selfless and giving guy that he'd hold up approval for eight years just because it would help his successor."
He could hold up for one year.
No point approving it in 1999, you know.
I am... baffled.
I guess Clinton/Gore's decision to make thousands of aliens with criminal backgrounds voting citizens in time for the 1996 election wasn't political, either.
Just a big coincidence.
Despite the emails which read: "Must be complete by November 1996... there are political considerations."
184. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:23:24 AM
It couldn't have been approved in 1999. There was no distributor for it.
And given that the aliens didn't promise to vote for Clinton, I am unmoved by the horror of your other example.
185. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:29:47 AM
Ace --
You're not easy to agree with I see.
I'm not particularly offended by Rockefeller Republicanism. To tell you the truth, I don't buy Conservatism so much as I despise liberalism.
I'm not particularly offended either. We live in a post-ideological age.
The Old Man is gone, and he isn't coming back.
Sad but true. At least he was there when he was the right man for the job. He's also a large part of why we live in a post-ideological age.
I agree completely with you analysis of the Education facts on the ground, which is why I mentioned that the unions, et al, have already changed education. Using Title I money as Bush proposes is a better idea than using it in the ways liberals have used it.
And liberals give me gas. It does seem like their numbers are decreasing. One of Clinton's gifts.
RU-486:
I think it's a little silly to think Clinton held up approval for eight years. But if he still has the power to hold it up for eight months you can bet the farm that he exercised that power.
186. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:32:44 AM
Al D --
Going to the mattress was a term meaning to hide out.
Yes, but the purpose of the hiding out was in order to wage war on rivals. Roughly synonymous with "batten (sp?) down the hatches."
187. vonKreedon - 10/4/2000 2:39:26 AM
Ace's analysis of Bushism, in Message # 164, seems on the money. But I then wonder at his negative response, in Message # 176, to the idea that Bush's education policy fits the mold the mold of "appropriate case" for big gummin't?
Regarding the debate, I'd give it to Bush based on his handicap (as in golf), but now his handicap gets lowered for the next debate. However, I was very surprised to have both Matthews and Noonan give it to Gore in a big way. Noonan appeared to be dressed for a funeral.
188. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 2:44:58 AM
CG:
"And given that the aliens didn't promise to vote for Clinton,..."
I doubt that solemnly and legally-bindingly promising to vote for Clinton was actually part of their naturalization ceremony. However, it's not very unlikely that some poll or study had concluded that a sufficiently large proportion of them would indeed probably vote for him.
189. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:50:09 AM
Will Lehrer get them to talk about immigration and the War on Drugs in the next debate? Those are ideal issues for a sit-down and chat format.
190. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:51:29 AM
Stumbo,
I would actually suspect the motivation to be those other non-native citizens who might vote for him due to his support of immigrants.
Otherwise, he would have tried to get it done by October, not November.
191. ArtVandelay - 10/4/2000 3:01:22 AM
Alright, I guess the Animal House analisis didn't work. From what I saw (first hour), Bush was better than expected. Clear and effective, stayed on message. Gore did well, but not up to his reputation as a great debator.
Bush got a decent zinger off early on about "...Gore not only invented the internet, but he also invented the calculator." Not bad, and Gore didn't help things by audibly sighing so much when Bush was trying to make a point. Lots of beefing over who's figures were 'phony" or not, no conclusive proof as to which.
Gore's position on energy policy was standard. He wants to be all things to all people, talking about increasing supply and curbing demand. Well, if you do one you don't really need the other, do you? Besides, there's no shortage, and gas is cheaper then water or milk. Gore talked like he had just come up with something on that area last week, or day before yesterday.
192. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 3:02:40 AM
CG:
Your first point may well be valid, but I don't see how the second is.
"By November" means "Prior to the start of November." Ergo, prior to Election Day.
193. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 3:07:25 AM
... Then again, this move wasn't highly publicized, so why would it have affected too many folks who were already citizens?
194. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:12:46 AM
Non-native citizens? I imagine there's a grapevine.
In any event, I think the motive is pretty weak.
195. DaveM - 10/4/2000 3:17:04 AM
The DOJ's report (in .pdf format) on the claim that Clinton-Gore accelerated the naturalization of immigrants in '96 for voting purposes.
196. DaveM - 10/4/2000 3:20:45 AM
I watched the debates with a bunch of my bourgie classmates. All of us were comfortable with Gore's performance, and thought that it would help him if it had any effect at all.
I just skimmed the rest of the thread, but it didn't seem anyone mentioned the Governor's comment to the effect that "It's not the president's role to decide right and wrong." That was rich.
197. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 6:12:36 AM
My two cents: Gore "won" by any objective measure, but (as others have noted) Bush helped himself more by his adequate performance. I also thought Gore behaved badly with the sighing. And maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but I thought it was rude of Gore to refer to Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas as "Scalia" and "Thomas" (even though I share Gore's disapproval of their positions).
Sometimes Bush seemed desparate to fill in his alotted time. One question about responding to a fiscal crisis left Bush with nothing to say, although he managed to spend his three minutes saying it. Along the way, Bush mentioned that Alan Greenspan was the Fed chairman, like a student stumped by an essay question trying to get partial credit by reciting what little he DOES know.
198. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 7:54:24 AM
Whenever I disagree with some of the idiot posts from StopOhio and others here I'm going to loudly sign, giggle, do other noises, makes faces at the monitor, and rip up paper as loudly as I can.
I know it's immature but I learned to do it last night watching the vice president
199. joezan - 10/4/2000 7:54:35 AM
Bush's mentioning Greenspan was very obviously (to anyone but a demohack) a device to deflect Gore's constant attempts to marry himself to the successful economy.
...and, speaking of Demohacks:
DaveM:
...but it didn't seem anyone mentioned the Governor's comment to the effect that "It's not the president's role to decide right and wrong." That was rich.
Not nearly as rich as Gore's brain fart, where he started going on about how he's his "own man", and how long he and Tipper have been married... which of course had nothing to do with either the original question or GWB's comments.
200. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:07:21 AM
From http://slate.msn.com/Readme/00-09-11/Readme.asp:
Understandably eager to win back the White House now and worry about doctrinal niceties later, the Republicans may have gotten carried away. They have maneuvered themselves into a situation where their leaders—including their presidential candidate—are required to be disingenuous on almost every topic.
On social issues, Republican leaders pretend to be hard-core conservatives, when most are actually far more cosmopolitan than they let on. Meanwhile, on domestic policy issues, they endorse new spending and regulations like drunken liberals, while their inner conservative surely writhes in agony.
Years ago Hendrik Hertzberg, now of The New Yorker, coined a term for politicians who pretend to extreme social-conservative views they don't really share. He called them "closet tolerants." Ronald Reagan, after a lifetime in Hollywood, almost surely had no moral objection to homosexuality. But he pretended to share the views of the religious right.
Abortion is an even better example. Raise your hand if you think that George W. Bush—or George H.W. Bush or Trent Lott or whatsisname the speaker of the House—actually believes that abortion is the murder of an innocent child. But they feel they must pretend to believe it. Then they must try to explain why the murder of innocent children should not be a "litmus test" for admission to their party's "big tent." It cannot be done. As with gay rights, a double pretense—abortion is murder, but that's OK—gets them pretty close to where their sincere beliefs might bring them anyway. But the round trip must be tiring for those with any capacity for reflection.
201. Dusty - 10/4/2000 10:14:32 AM
IrvingSnodgrass
I agree generally with your take on the debate.
You did say one thing that I'd like to comment on:
The supreme court appointments. I certainly don't want to see women lose their right to choose.
Gore pulled the "scare" tactic that Bush would appoint more people like Scalia. And while it is accurate that Scalia tends to have closer to an original intent than a "living document" approach, and might have reached a different decision on Row v Wade, we can be sure that Roe v Wade will never come up again for the first time. The point of my obvious statement? Scalia, and other "conservative" interpreters of the Constitution hold something even more sacred than original intent, and that is precedent.
A challenge to Roe v Wade will probably occur, but a change will require an overturning of a precedent. Conservatives will require more evidence to overturn Roe v Wade than they would have required to reject it if they had sat during the original case. I think it is plausible that Scalia and Thomas will vote to uphold the Roe v Wade, unless a very special case is presented (and I cannot think of such an example).
202. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:15:47 AM
I think Bush is particularly trapped by this problem. As Ace says, he's caught between the rock of his base, and the hard place of the undecideds. This leaves him looking really lame on abortion, on the military, and on anything related to SS/Medicare.
Take abortion. I don't believe for an instant that the republicans (and Bush) really want to reverse Roe v Wade. It was interesting to see Bush use the clinton formula--about wanting abortion to be rare. If this were a real debate format, there would have been immediate rejoinders--sex ed for children? Condoms in high school? --that would have left Bush babbling.
Or take the military and foreign intervention. Bush wants a bigger military that won't do anything. If this had been a real debate, the rejoinder to the nation building line is "So, under a Bush administration, we'll be withdrawing from Korea, right?"
Or, my favorite, Bush opposes government regulation of business and supports tort reform. How can you hold both positions simulataneously?
So he ends up making vague statements about he wishes things would be, leaving the impression that Gore is more familiar with Bush's policy proposals than is W.
203. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:19:25 AM
But, Dusty, Bush is getting what he deserves on this issue. He is using code words. He is telling conservatives that there will be a litmus test. And, in my view, he's selling them down the river. He'll appoint Souter-type guys, not Scalias.
204. Dusty - 10/4/2000 10:19:29 AM
Is there a transcript out yet?
I'd like to see the exact phrasing for a Gore statement that I'll paraphrase from memory. The context was the appointment of SC judges.
After Bush said he didn't have a litmus test, Gore said[paraphrasing] "I don't have a litmus test. But the judges I select will uphold Roe v Wade"
My question. Does Gore, the self-acclaimed science expert, not know what a litmus test is?
205. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:21:43 AM
What struck me most of all was just how much it seemed to me that both candidates were just flat lying--saying tested, canned things that they don't really believe.
It was brought home most forcefully at one point--it was one of the foreign policy discussions when Gore said something that he seemed to actually sincerely believe. It rang true, but cast a bright light on all that rung false around it.
I'm voting for Nader. I can't stand either of these guys.
206. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:25:40 AM
NYTimes published a transcript this morning.
Gore said that when you go about picking a judge you look at all his positions, that he supports Roe v Wade, and expects a SC candidate he picks will do so as well. That's not an unreasonable position. Bush was trying to take a similar position, but couldn't articulate it, IMO.
I guess this is exacerbated because antichoice voters are one issue voters. Bush wants them to turn out. But the moderates he needs are prochoice--I did think Gore did a job of turning the "keep the government out of your life" rhetoric back on Bush on this issue--and so he has a much more difficult dance to do than does Gore.
207. JRoth - 10/4/2000 10:27:02 AM
I'm looking forward to the VP debate. There should be more fireworks since these guys are supposed to attack, and the campaign staffs won't be as uptight. My early call is Lieberman slices Cheney.
208. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 10:29:04 AM
Here's an example of the power of words. And the pressure that the national media put on their members to stay the course on abortion.
From TV critic Tom Shales' article in today's WPost:
"Lehrer committed another blunder when he said to Bush, 'You're pro-life.' Generally, reputable journalistic organizations do not use this term to refer to those opposed to abortion. Would Lehrer have turned to Gore and said, 'You're anti-life'? He should know better."
He should know better.
209. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:31:04 AM
MR. BUSH Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. But the voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me.
I -- I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They -- they shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint.
I've -- I've named four Supreme Court judges in the State of Texas and I would ask the people to check our their qualifications, their -- their deliberations, they're good solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.
MR. GORE Both of us use similar language to reach a -- an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor litmus tests but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution and in my view the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with the -- with -- with our country and our history.
And I -- I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment and when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are -- those are code words and nobody should mistake this for saying that the Governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, just -- it's very clear to me.
And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.
210. Dusty - 10/4/2000 10:32:24 AM
Is there a transcript out yet?
I'd like to see the exact phrasing for a Gore statement that I'll paraphrase from memory. The context was the appointment of SC judges.
After Bush said he didn't have a litmus test, Gore said[paraphrasing] "I don't have a litmus test. But the judges I select will uphold Roe v Wade"
My question. Does Gore, the self-acclaimed science expert, not know what a litmus test is?
211. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:35:37 AM
These seem to be the same positions. Bush is a strict constructionist, which rules out a right to privacy, and therefore he will appoint an anti-choice constructionist.
Gore believes that unenumerated rights belong to the people, not the states,and that among those unenumerated rights is the right to privacy, and therefore he will appoint judges with those positions, who will be, necesssarily, prochoice.
I object to the republican claim of supporting strict constructionism. Take the takings arguments as an example. There's no way that the original intent of the FF was to prohibit zoning rules by that clause.
212. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 10:35:57 AM
According to what I'm reading, Gore may have made another white lie last night when he said he went to Texas with FEMA's Witt to witness the hurricane destruction.
213. PsychProf - 10/4/2000 10:36:42 AM
It is hard for me to believe that either Gore or Bush would not nominate SC candidates that refect their personal/party ideology...
214. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:37:30 AM
Pretty funny to hear Bush's response to "what have you done in a crisis" was "turn immediately to the federal government for help."
215. stostosto - 10/4/2000 10:37:52 AM
Why all the fuss about South Carolina candidates?
216. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:38:48 AM
PP--
Which Bush philosophy? The primary Bush or the general election Bush?
I think he'll be like his dad, appointing moderate right of center guys.
217. Wombat - 10/4/2000 10:47:32 AM
Impressions:
--Bush seemed more uptight than Gore
--Detonation of a nuclear bomb under Gore would not have forced him "off message"
--The requested non-response of the audience made Bush's lame zingers fall even flatter
--Tammy Faye Bakker was Gore's makeup person
--Will Bush be able to work with a Republican Congress?
--Did Bush really state that in the longer term, his tax plan will have the rich paying more than Gore's? Is that something he really wants to claim, given his backers?
218. Wombat - 10/4/2000 10:48:58 AM
On a more substantive note:
On energy, Gore missed a chance to describe the sort of innovations that have gone from the drawing board to preproduction during the last 8 years (hybrid automobiles, in particular).
I was amazed that the role of Congress in the last six years did not come up. One can legitimately argue that the Clinton administration blew the first two years of its time in office, but after that Congress, peopled by ideological activists with less sense and experience than Bush, were responsible for excess partisanship and truly reckless governance.
In education, Bush misheard--or decided to misrepresent--Gore's statement on national testing. Bush jumped on Gore for saying that national testing would be voluntary instead of mandatory. As I recall, Bush's own party opposes any kind of national testing that isn't voluntary (state's rights and unfunded mandates, y'know). I am also sorry that Gore couldn't find--or chose not to use--an example of a crumbling and/or overcrowded school in Bush's home state.
In sum: Bush didn't screw up, but couldn't counter Gore's substantive criticisms with anything other than lame quips and earnest but unfounded assertions. Gore made the decision not to go after Bush's record in Texas, his lack of experience on the national scene, his callowness on foreign and defence issues. It may have been the right thing to do, but I regret it. Slight edge to Gore.
219. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 10:49:27 AM
Rosetta:
That wasn't a white lie or any type of lie told by Gore about FEMA. Much as you'd like it to be, it wasn't.
220. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 10:50:45 AM
What's with Al Gore's neck? Or chin? Or both? His face is getting flat and fat.
221. bubbaette - 10/4/2000 10:51:45 AM
I cannot imagine anyone watching the second and third debates given how mind-numbingly BORING the debates were last night. They managed to stretch 30 minutes worth of content into 90 minutes by repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating themselves.
Neither one got off a good sound bite, IMO -- which seems to be the purpose of the debates.
222. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:52:27 AM
Simmering underneath Bush's calls for bipartisanship and the failure of the administration to get a lot of their promises kept by working with Congress is Congressional gridlock, and impeachment.
The Republicans have lost every time fingers were pointed. Bush does not want to associate himself with Congress.
Personally, if there were a gridlock spot on the ballot, I'd vote it in a heartbeat. We only have a surplus because neither side can get anything through the house, the senate and the oval office.
223. bubbaette - 10/4/2000 10:56:03 AM
As in every campaign lately, the elderly were pandered-to shamelessly. Seems like every four years the candidates vie with each other to see who can throw more money at this group.
224. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 10:56:26 AM
Wombat:
It would have behooved Gore to read the Dallas and Fort Worth papers because one of Bushs vaunted charter schools closed it's doors yesterday owing 5 million in debts and Falsely claiming almost double its enrollment to the state in order to receive more money. Three other charter schools have closed just this month in the state. These schools were brought in during Bushs term as Governor.
225. janjon - 10/4/2000 10:59:13 AM
- for undecideds looking for reassurance that W. has at least passable skills for the Presidency, they probably got it.
- for undecideds looking to learn more about the candidates' positions on issues that count with them, they more than probably would now be at least leaning strongly towards Gore. Gore did a more than passable job in explaining in simple (some would say simplistic, but hey the polls indicate that most Americans still don't know much about what Gore and W. stand for) terms his positions and comparisons with W.'s on tax cuts, social security and medicare protection, and abortion. Energy was a mixed bag, but if anything Gore co-opted W.'s charge that Gore is anti-supply.
I don't think either candidate came over as a smoothy. And, you often had the feeling that W. was on the verge of making a boo-boo. Did anyone else notice the way he would nod his head vigorously at the end of his comments? Almost as if to say, there- I made it through. Same with his puffing up his cheeks and blowing out air at the end of the debate. OTOH, there were several occasions when W. did aggressively respond to Gore, including interrupting him and in effect taking the mike away. Tough to do with Gore.
W.'s handlers must have one real regret - even their rather mild efforts to paint Gore as the know-it-all exaggerator didn't have much resonance, and the attacks at the end were very easily turned around and deflected by Gore. In a way that indeed made it look like W. was the only one being negative last night.
Based on my predictions, I was astounded that Reagan's name only came up once and then by Gore (along the lines that he had worked with him when Gore was a Senator.) I have the feeling that line was there to be used as a rebuttal of sorts if W. started trying to make the I-am-the-new-Reagan-and-Gore-is-the-old-Carter insinuations, and that it just sort of came out.
A fascinating evening.
226. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 10:59:30 AM
Judith: Radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt says otherwise this morning. He claims that Gore did not got to Texas with Jamie Lee Witt when there was the Texas disaster.
"Maybe Gore got the disaster mixed up with a fund raiser. Anyone can make that mistake if you say there's no controlling legal authority."
227. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 11:02:06 AM
What's with all of the concern about Roe v. Wade? Who cares if it's overturned? Do you really think all states would outlaw abortion?
As for the right to privacy:
1) Sure, you have the right to keep your pregnancy private. Terminating that pregnancy is another matter for which there is no federal jurisdiction.
2) What about the privacy of an 18-year-old man who wants to sit and have a beer? Why can the states regulate this? I'll tell you why: It's because people have a right to free association and that means sovereign bodies (states & communities) can establish laws that forbid activities they don't like. If you don't like it, tough shit. Move somewhere else. I'm sure there are enough hedonists in this country that they can band together and create "utopian" communities.
228. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 11:05:12 AM
janjon, How can you say Gore explained his tax plan? I don't think he really has one other than "trust me, you're the 'right' kind of person who will get a tax break". G.W., on the other hand, stated it simply: If you pay taxes, you'll get a reduction in your rates. The less money you make, the greater reduction in rates.
229. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 11:06:19 AM
As soon as Gore said the FEMA thing, I started wondering if it was true because it had all the markings of his usual "tendency." I thought, "Bet the Republican fact-checkers are going to be all over that!"
According to ABC News:
Fact: Gore did travel to Texas in late June, after the fires broke out, but he was there to address the Texas Democratic Party, not to inspect fire damage. And Witt was not with him at any point during the trip.
Incorrigible.
230. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:06:52 AM
1. yeah, that's what Roe v Wade says. No federal jurisdiction, no state jurisdiction. A right held by individuals.
2. Are you saying that you disagree with the notion that citizen's come of age, and acquire rights by doing so? Do you object to the age limits for elective office? For the vote?
231. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:06:59 AM
Rosetta:
Ah, the radio show host said so...well, get back to me when your buddy Drudge says it's a lie.
232. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:09:13 AM
Judith-
I think Indy's link is credible. Take a look. Gore did it again.
233. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:09:38 AM
IJ:
So when was the hurricane aftermath? FEMA has been in this state on more than one occassion and for more than one disaster, you know.
234. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 11:13:44 AM
Remember Judith. With Democrats it doesn't matter if they tell the truth or not, with some enablers.
And, of course, Al Gore now wishes that he had gone there with FEMA director Witt.
235. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 11:13:45 AM
Judith: Read Gore's statement...
“I accompanied [Federal Emergency Management Agency Director] James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out”
He specifically said fires.
236. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:14:07 AM
Yeah, and Gore said this this morning:
"I was there in Texas. I think James Lee Witt went to the same fires. I’ve made so many trips with James to these disaster sites. ... if James Lee was there before or after, then, I got that wrong then,” Gore told Good Morning America. "
He got confused, conflated the event and made a mistake.
If it weren't part of a pattern, it would be trivial. But like Bush's inability to speak clearly, the pattern is the story.
237. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 11:15:43 AM
Jay,
The United States does not recognized "untouchable" rights not stipulated in the Constitution. If a right is not specified in the Constitution, then the federal government is powerless to "protect" it. Now, many will argue the 4th amendment addresses a right to privacy. As I said though, that doesn't address your right to terminate a pregnancy let alone address what constitutes life.
Not at all. I certainly recognize that. Pro abortion activists apparently don't, however. Consider their opposition to parental notification and in general any attempt at all by states to regulate abortion.
238. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:17:50 AM
My apologies to Rosetta (and you've no idea how THAT hurts!).
However, I wouldn't fault Gore for screwing that one up because it's a matter of recalling one event among many...what I would fault him on is not using an ironclad example that he could be certain of; given the unfortunate situation of his getting nailed for "embellishment" all the time, he should be more careful. Or just flat out keep his mouth shut if he isn't 100% sure of what he's saying.
But were that the case, both candidates would be strangely silent, I fear.
239. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:20:47 AM
Indy and Jay:
Apologies to you both....
Of course, while crafting an apology to Rosie, I see he didn't waste an opportunity to label me an enabler once again...you try to do the right thing and get gigged, nonetheless.
240. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:21:24 AM
Cyg-
Before the Civil War states regulated citizen rights. Congress could not abridge citizen rights, but the states could. The Civil War was about individual rights superseding state rights. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is the federal government reaching past the states, and enforcing individual rights, sometimes in opposition to the states. So you had federal troops escorting kids to school in opposition to governors standing in school house doors, because the federal government was defending those citizens' rights.
Likewise, the right to privacy could not exist before the 14th amendment. The amendment that reserves unenumerated rights to the "states or the people" meant the states, in practice, pre Civil War. Now it means the people.
I've always found it odd to see conservatives opposing individual rights of any kind, in deference to state intervention.
241. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 11:23:10 AM
What do you mean you can't fault him? It's a pattern with this guy. He has to constantly embellish facts to raise his stature. He's like that kid we all grew up with who constantly lies to try and impress his friends.
For Christ's sake: Gore volunteered this FEMA thing. "Uh, can I respond to that?"
242. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:23:24 AM
Yeah, Judith, but when you're wrong, the quicker you own up the better. As Gore illustrated with his response. As I say, as an isolated event, it's not a big deal. But along with internet thing, and the drug price thing and so on, it starts to be a problem for the candidate.
243. CalGal - 10/4/2000 11:25:55 AM
Jay,
Starting to be a problem? It was a bigger problem a year ago, because "I invented the internet" and "I was the hero of Love Story" are things that the average citizen can grok much better than "I went down to Texas with the FEMA guy".
So yeah, as an indicator of a weird problem, it's more on the scale. Damage, I'm not sure.
244. Wombat - 10/4/2000 11:26:30 AM
The more I hear of Gore's "stretchers," the more they resemble Reagan's comments to an astonished Yitzhak Shamir about being on the lead tank liberating Dachau, or on cadillac-driving welfare queens, etc.
I think there is something more deep-seated about Gore's overstatements, as was hinted at in the excellent Frontline program on the two candidates. I wish he could figure out a way not to do it; I don't know if he can. On the other hand, enough of the criticisms of some of them have been sufficiently de-bunked.
245. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:28:44 AM
Jay:
I know it's a problem for him, as it should be. But I don't think it's any worse than claiming you can single handedly change education in this country and using your state as an example when the very things you are proposing aren't working all that well in your state.
246. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:30:39 AM
Don't get me started on education. The president is essentially powerless on education issues. Making it an issue in this election is a Big Lie by both guys.
247. Wombat - 10/4/2000 11:31:44 AM
Maybe Gore should always have some one standing next to him to stamp on his foot every time he comes out with a "stretcher."
248. CalGal - 10/4/2000 11:32:42 AM
Sneeze loudly. Cough. Scratch his balls. Something. Dude, you're making shit up again.
249. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:32:48 AM
He'd be in constant limp mode, then.....
250. Wombat - 10/4/2000 11:34:25 AM
Cal:
I would say embellishing...
251. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 11:35:06 AM
well, the real pity of it is that the part that's 80% true is usually a good point. He was involved with DARPANet funding, is right that drug companies price discriminate, does go onsite at disaster areas with FEMA people.
I spoke with him once when he was senator, handed him a copy of Foreign Affairs that had an article I wished a Senator would read. Recalling that event, I wondered whether W. has ever read an article in foreign policy publications. The bar in this debate was set so low for him, it would have taken a complete disaster for him to fail.
252. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 11:37:03 AM
The next thing that Gore lied about last night, according to his critics, was the lack of a desk for the Florida school child.
253. Wombat - 10/4/2000 11:40:12 AM
That's the most frustrating thing. By "gilding the lily" when he doesn't have to, his accomplishments--and the point he is trying to make--get diminished.
254. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 11:40:27 AM
Gore: I am me...see me...I am Gore...I am...
Bush: I...umm...well he...um...he is a...he done uhh...DAMN IT..I Guvner of Texas...doesn't that count for something?
255. Dusty - 10/4/2000 11:56:22 AM
JudithAtHome
I understand how difficult it must be for you to apologize to RS, so you are to be congratulated for it.
However, I agreee with Jay - if this was an isolated event, it wouldn't be a big deal, but it is part of a pattern. And it wasn't an offhand remark. It was deliberately calculated to undercut Bush's response.
This thread is moving too fast.
256. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 12:06:05 PM
Being a gentleperson, I will not goat.
257. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:11:08 PM
But, Rosetta. You just can't help being the goat. It is imbedded in your nature.
258. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 12:18:37 PM
Bush missed an excellent opportunity with Gore's classroom example. When Gore described the child with no desk, Bush should have pointed out that if she had a voucher she could have gone to a private school where she would have had a desk.
259. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:20:13 PM
I am awaiting Jack's reaction to W.'s little story about crying with some victims of some natural disaster (was it the fires or the hurricane), because that is what governors do.
260. bubbaette - 10/4/2000 12:21:59 PM
Anyone else see Bush snorting and sniffing last night? Wonder if he has nasal problems.
261. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:26:34 PM
For whatever the reason, he looked very small on the screen. He certainly isn't a small man - perhaps only an inch or so shorter than Gore. And, while not as barrel-chested as Gore seems to be, he's not exactly a puny guy. But, up there, he looked small. Not exactly like the deer in the headlights, but...somehow...like a well dressed/groomed rodent.
That is going to come over much more meanly than I intend. But, that is the way it looked to me.
262. Dusty - 10/4/2000 12:28:19 PM
JJBiener
YES
Exactly the point I made to my family.
BTW, we turned it into a real family affair. All four of us watched the debate, then spent close to an hour analyzing it.
The odd thing was that I spent much of the time defending Gore. My son was highly critical of a number of claims made by Gore (the ad nauseum 1% of the most wealthy crack) and I find myself cautioning him not to go overboard.
263. Dusty - 10/4/2000 12:29:07 PM
Did anyone count the number of times Gore used the term "lockbox"?
264. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 12:31:31 PM
I watched the beginning of the debate then listened to more of it in the car. They say you get a different impression without the visuals, and I think that's true. I didn't hear Gore's heavy sighs (road noise blocked them out) and I didn't see his awkward expressions. What I did pick up on was Gore's condescending / exasperated laugh when he answered questions. It is the attitude that got him in trouble early in the campaign. It was the one thing I thought his handlers would have made sure to control. He came across as pompous, petulant and priggish. These are not characteristics the American people tend to embrace.
The other thing I noticed was the beginning of the debate. Lerher said there would be no opening statements, then he asked Gore a specific question about a statement he had made about Bush. Gore ignored the question and proceeded to give two minute opening statement. So much for following the rules.
265. ChristinO - 10/4/2000 12:32:07 PM
I didn't watch much of the debate last night. Every time I hear a sound bite from Bush he seems to be speaking in generalities about some vague intent he has to do right by the American people, but he never seems to have an actual plan. Last night didn't seem to be any different.
266. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:33:21 PM
They both have bought in, heavily, to the idea that you gotta keep it simple and you gotta repeat and repeat the simple. As I indicated above, with the very large number of voters who even now apparently don't have a clue as to what either of them stands for, I see the logic in doing so. Broadly stated, same principle as most political advertising. Simple little statements of for/against positions, repeated ad naseum.
267. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:42:38 PM
Apropos of my comments above about what the undecideds who are looking at issues would have seen last night, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, Tom Oliphant, wrote a concise little column in today's Boston Globe about the abortion issue. Here it is: W. Really Would Prefer For Good Reason That The Abortion Issue Would Just Stay Quietly In The Back Room
268. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 12:44:39 PM
Anyone else see Bush snorting and sniffing last night? Wonder if he has nasal problems.
Perhaps to get "up" for the debate...?
Did anyone count the number of times Gore used the term "lockbox"?
Did anyone count how many times Bush said "umm or uh"?
269. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:47:31 PM
Not that we will ever know, but anyone want to speculate just how many man/woman hours went into determining just what put down phrase (like in fuzzy matn ) W. would use and when.
Those who invested said time must be just bonkers today at knowing how ineffectual all of that effort turned out to be. Actually, you can substitute counterproductive for ineffectual.
270. Dusty - 10/4/2000 12:49:39 PM
JJBiener
Gore ignored the question and proceeded to give two minute opening statement. So much for following the rules.
I noticed that. Given that the campaigns settled on the rules, does this mean that the Bush camp did not want an opening statement, while the Gore camp did? Why would this be? (Presumably, if they both wanted opening statements, they would have agreed to opening statements.)
I fault Lehrer for not taking more control. The most obvious area was failure to control time, but I think a good moderator would have noted when the speaker did not respond to the question. Both were guilty of this, and I think it should be pointed out more.
271. Al D - 10/4/2000 12:55:58 PM
janjon
When you are expressing your own very biased opinions, try to stay away from phrases su7ch as "You got the feeling he was going to make a booboo."
272. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:56:09 PM
Gore won (or lost) the toss re who got the first question.
It is a time honored technique in these things for the speaker to do his own thing in terms of the response he gives, to hell with the question asked. The trick is to do it in a way that at least gives lip service to the idea that it is a response. Gore didn't quite succeed at it on that first question, but he was smooth enough.
I for one prefer for the dialogue to be more or less open ended, if it is flowing, instead of adhering to the time constraints.
OTOH, I would have been quite upset had either of them brought props (they had agreed not to). A la the grandstanding that Ricky Lazio did in his debate with Hillary with the one page agreement. (They also had agreed - no props.) Since that whole episode has probably irretrivably sunk Ricky, I am sure he wishes now he hadn't done it.
273. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:57:04 PM
Al D - and exactly who are you to tell me what to say and when? Bug off.
274. Al D - 10/4/2000 1:02:34 PM
janjon
I, of course, meant my remark to be helpful, but you seem to take offense. What a pity.
275. bubbaette - 10/4/2000 1:03:28 PM
I fault Lehrer for not taking more control. The most obvious area was failure to control time, but I think a good moderator would have noted when the speaker did not respond to the question. Both were guilty of this, and I think it should be pointed out more.
I agree. I hate it when candidates do this -- and they all seem to do it to some degree or another. There were a couple of areas where they seemed to get stuck and just ate up time throwing the same tired lines at each other while acting like it was crucial that they get one last iteration of something they'd already said before.
Altogether, I thought it was an uninspired performance by both candidates. Gore did seem to have a better grasp of details -- esp. in foreign affairs, but that would be expected in a V.P. v. a Gov.
276. vonKreedon - 10/4/2000 1:03:46 PM
Regarding Bush's sniffing, his campaign said, before the debate I believe, that the Bush has a cold.
I thought that Bush did well to avoid the voucher issue. At one point I thought that Gore had set Bush up to go for the voucher issue, but Bush didn't bite. I was pleased to see Gore come out in favor of charter schools.
My family also made it a family event. Our seven year old son is quite interested in this race, arguing with a Bush supporting classmate at school and all that.
277. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:04:30 PM
AlD kisses janjon's boo-boo.
278. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:05:41 PM
Al D. Helpful? Gratuitous and pointless. Bug off.
279. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 1:12:02 PM
My take:
Bush made no major mistakes, but was killed on any sort of policy discussion. It strongly came across that Gore knew more about Bush's proposals than Bush did. My favorite moment was in regards to Russia and Serbia, where Gore verbally patted Bush on the head for a good try in suggesting to get Russia involved, and then explained exactly why it was bad idea at this time.
Gore needs to watch that fucking condescension of his. His sighs, and eyerolls really piss people off.
280. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 1:16:15 PM
Janjon: Take my advice. Silence is a great peacemaker.
281. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:17:50 PM
Rask
Gore needs to watch that fucking condescension of his. His sighs, and eyerolls really piss people off.
Gore did play the "superior-position" thing to the hilt. Too bad. He had Bush, who appeared quite 'elfin', self destructing from his own deliverance aura, yet allowed himself to get into what I perceived as "siblings vying to be mommy's favorite son" format.
282. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:18:26 PM
Stone. Not particularly interested in peace. Granted, he's harmless. But, irritating nonetheless.
283. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:21:46 PM
I don't disagree about the condescension concerns re Gore. But, in today's political climate, what drives people up the wall much more (understandably considering the barrage we all get) is going negative or being perceived as doing so.
As mild and tentative as they were, W.'s efforts didn't really work. But they did open up the opportunity for Gore to respond that HE wouldn't be attacking W's character etc. And, he did so matter-of-factly, without appearing either unctuous or hurt or whatever. In the little tit/tat these things are, that was a clear victory for Gore.
284. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 1:22:08 PM
Jay, Re Message #240:
I don't know if you're purposely distorting what conservatives including myself stand for or just aren't aware, but you're missing the point. Conservatives don't want to regulate individual rights per se. Rather, they want people to be free to determine with whom they associate and what can take place in their community - for better or worse.
285. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 1:23:48 PM
Yeah, I noticed that G.W. sniffed a little. I also noticed that Al Gore droned on like stoned imbecile.
286. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:26:24 PM
For Jexster, Wherever He Might Be: 
287. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:26:38 PM
Gore = Little Eddie (Munsters) all grown up?
288. Dusty - 10/4/2000 1:34:41 PM
labwabbit
Last time I checked, saying "umm" was a common trait shared by a lot of people. It is a common way to pause in speech. I use it a lot (although I try not to).
But the term "lockbox" is deliberately used as an evocative phrase. I wouldn't object, if it were accurate, but it isn't. And I'm not simply picking the nit that there isn't a physical lockbox; obviously "lockbox" is intended to metaphorical. The metaphor is intended to suggest that the money will be allocated in such a way that politicians cannot meddle with it, or use it for other purposes. This is abject nonsense. There are ways to put things beyond the simple meddling of politicians, but this isn't one of them. A provision for a so-called lockbox, passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President, can be undone by a bill passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President.
They are misleading the electorate when they use this term.
(Yes, I know that Republicans do it too. They are also misleading the electorate when they do it.)
289. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:35:29 PM
Gore's distortions:
1) He was never with Witt in Texas as he claimed.
2) Re "Kailey having to stand in class": Ludicrously misleading. The classroom might have been crowded-- because the room was packed with $100,000 of new science equipment which had just been delivered and had not yet been set up.
Is Gore against $100,000 in new science equipment?
3) Gore charged that Bush's plan would leave kids in failing schools for THREE YEARS before his voucher-liberation took place. Gore claimed that his plan, on the other hand, would work immediately to close failing schools, then reopen them under new, better management.
The problem: Gore's own plan calls for waiting for PRECISELY THREE YEARS before closing and reopening a failing school.
This is a monster lie.
290. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:36:55 PM
If Bush doesn't confront Gore with these facts at the next debate... well, then I just don't know what to say.
291. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:37:08 PM
Gore said lockbox twice, I thought. Once about SocSec, once about Medicare.
292. Dusty - 10/4/2000 1:40:43 PM
Gore used the term "lockbox" four times. It seemed like more, probably becuase it irritates the hell out of me, but it was more than twice.
293. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 1:41:35 PM
Ace: I also wonder about Gore's statement re his uncle who was gassed in the Balkans.
To my knowledge Americans served almost exclusively on the Western Front during WWI. Now it's also true that Gore could simply have slipped up and meant France, but in that case, bringing in his uncle was totally irrelevant to the point he was making, which was about Kosovo.
So in that case it would again be a useless personal family embellishment.
But I don't know for certain that his uncle was not in fact gassed in the Balkans during WWI.
294. Dusty - 10/4/2000 1:44:14 PM
295. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:46:50 PM
"To my knowledge Americans served almost exclusively on the Western Front during WWI. Now it's also true that Gore could simply have slipped up and meant France, but in that case, bringing in his uncle was totally irrelevant to the point he was making, which was about Kosovo."
It would also mean that Gore confuses France with Kosovo.
We'll see. I, too, always imagined that Americans were deployed only in Northern Europe.
296. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:50:11 PM
It was definately more than twice. He used the term in both subjects, but uttered the term repetitively as metaphorical reference.
Dusty
Yes it is true what you say about "um" or "er" etc. However, when intellect, and projected honesty are goals these "natural" pauses cause appearance to uncertainty in knowledge and truth. A liar is much more prone to search for the answer, while an honest person can respond spontaneously.
It did not help in his efforts to project strong principle and well-laid planning.
297. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 1:51:32 PM
Cyg-
Conservatives don't want to regulate individual rights per se. Rather, they want people to be free to determine with whom they associate and what can take place in their community - for better or worse.
I thought conservatives did not want their community intruding their lives without compelling state interest. Roe v Wade represents a reduction in intrusion, so has always seemed like a conservative policy.
298. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:55:00 PM
labwabbit:
Hillary Clinton says "Ummm" and "Uhhh" literally --and I do mean literally -- every second, third, or fourth word.
299. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 1:56:39 PM
Did Gore say his uncle was gassed in the Balkans? I don't remember perfectly, but I recall his saying that Europe fought World War I began in the Balkans, and that his uncle was gassed there (there meaning Europe).
300. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 1:57:31 PM
I think that both candidates did stray from the rules they negotiated before the debates. Gore did so first, and probably most. Bush then followed suit. Leher did not control the debators effectively, and seemed to invite them to break the rules in addressing each other with questions. Again, I think Gore was the first express offender, and Leher called him on it.
301. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:58:46 PM
#298
Case closed....
302. Wombat - 10/4/2000 1:59:25 PM
American troops were also stationed in Italy in WWI, and I am sure there were liaison staff with the Army of the Orient in Salonika.
However Gore was noting that WWI started in the Balkans, and that his grandfather fought in it (as did mine.)
303. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 2:00:35 PM
Indy, Rask:
Gore said, ". . . Look, that's where World War I started, in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poison gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. . . "
304. Wombat - 10/4/2000 2:01:46 PM
Perhaps Clinton should have kept li'l willie in a lock box.
305. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:04:09 PM
labwabbit
My objection is the implication of parallelism.
Bush's "um's" and "err's" may signal lack of intelligence to you (although I haven't noticed a strong correlation), but my observation about Gore was not suggesting that he was unintelligent. I was suggesting that he was deliberately misleading an pandering to an uninformed electorate. As CalGal might say, different thing entirely.
306. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:04:33 PM
I think he did...just not his own.
307. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 2:05:01 PM
Rask: Here's the quote...
Look, that's where World War I started, in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poison gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict.
As I said previously, it could very well be that it's just ambigious wording. But the point he was making was about Bosnia (I mistakenly said Kosovo), and it occurs in a laundry list of his accomplishments. So, as I said, even if he meant Europe, then it's still an embellishment not relative to the point.
Here's the larger statement:
When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city and most of my peers felt against the war, as I did.
But I went anyway, because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place.
I served for eight years in the House of Representatives, and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control.
I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years, I've served on the National Security Council.
And when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe, with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that's where World War I started, in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poison gas there.
308. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 2:07:41 PM
(Previous was cross-posted with Ohio.) BTW, Ohio, I agreed with a post you made upthread and was pleased to see you actually offer some criticism of Gore.
309. Wombat - 10/4/2000 2:08:07 PM
Oh come on, Indy. He meant in World War I. I daresay someone will comb the records to find out whether his uncle was actually in the Army, and whether or not he got gassed.
310. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:10:59 PM
And though Gore firmly believed the war was wrong, presumably he felt it unnecessary to express that view by say, refusing to participate in an action he considered immoral, or by risking a prison sentence instead, or by seeking conscientious objector status if his view was based on an overriding religious principle, or by leaving the country and campaigning against the war in another nation.
No, only by making sure he would go and another Tennesean might not have to, could he live with his conscience.
Well, perhaps.
311. msgreer - 10/4/2000 2:11:53 PM
800-973-2211. Curious? Go to Health Thread.
312. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:14:23 PM
OhioSTOPAS
Yes, you are correct. It appears to be ambiguous. Deliberate perhaps? My guess is no. he isn't that clever.
313. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 2:15:05 PM
Wombat: Sure someone will. And I didn't intend to make too much of this point. But even giving Gore the benefit of the doubt, read the entire statement above and see what you think of that detail's rather kitchen-sink inclusion.
314. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 2:15:53 PM
Jay,
Yeah, right. Conservatives don't believe people of like mind can gather and create a community of like-minded people with laws meant to mold the community as they see fit. What was I thinking?
315. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:19:14 PM
I don't know enough about how the draft worked. (I got a high number, and didn't bother to learn details). For someone who does know, is the following accurate:?
But I went anyway, because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place.
Was there really a quota system down to the town level?
316. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:19:29 PM
317. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:20:37 PM
Dusty
In the context of the debates, it projected an uncertainty and lack of confidence particularly in response to direct scrutiny of his statement by Gore. Uh...well...umm = not sharp.
318. Al D - 10/4/2000 2:21:41 PM
saying "umm"
Who is the Motie that has a penchant for putting umms, gratuitously, I might add in his posts?
319. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:22:19 PM
Here we are parsing Al Gore's words again. Why? Because Gore has a weakness for family tales that put heart breaking fizz into his brand of snake oil.
No doubt some newsie is combing the family history as we speak.
320. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:24:00 PM
labwabbit
You missed my point. I probably didn't express it well.
321. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:24:24 PM
...ummm, I give up.
322. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 2:25:34 PM
umm, no idea Al. who are you thinking of?
323. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:26:28 PM
Ronski. All I get is the lead-in page. If that is as it should be, a little guidance as to where to go please.
324. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:28:27 PM
Some Florida Republicans Come to Their Senses
325. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:28:54 PM
Sorry, that should have gone into Politics.
326. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:29:03 PM
Dusty
The blame shall be based equally here. Your expression is aptly clear, but between phone calls and lost souls wandering about my office...
...the apology is mine to give for not having answered in more direct fashion.
327. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:29:43 PM
Dusty --
>Was there really a quota system down to the town level?
Draft boards did have a quota. In a small town there would probably be only one draft board that also encompassed a lot of countryside as well. Whether that was his reason back then is unknowable. He may have been as keenly interested in "maintaining viablity in the system" as Clinton (or Al Senior may have been.) "I'm a veteran" always sounds good on the stump, especially back then.
328. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:30:22 PM
labwabbit
I understood your point.
329. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:31:12 PM
janjon,
It's voter.com, and it's slow to load, though trying again helps. It's Jack Germond's column, in which he says that Bush's performance was good but not good enough for him to overturn Gore's advantage in November.
330. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:38:32 PM
ronski. Having not read the article, I really can't say I agree with it, but I certainly agree with your summary. For the reasons I gave above - Gore by far has the advantage with respect to the issues that will count with these great undecideds.
331. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:42:29 PM
BTW - and, FWIW, the Iowa Electronics Market graphs now show that the narrowing of the margin between Gore and Bush has not only stopped, but there is a trend of several days now of Gore (who has been in the lead for some time now) steadily increasing the margin between him and W. The prices are now .6 for Gore and .4 for W.
(and, although technically for Politics, I suppose, the spread between Hillary and Ricky continues to grow. It is massive.)
332. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 2:45:31 PM
Strictly on a linguistic level, the "umms" and "uhs" from both candidates did not distract me as much as Bush's use of "you lnow" at least two times that I noticed.
333. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:49:26 PM
In W.'s defense, I don't recall a single "you lnow".
334. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:49:40 PM
Ronski,
Thanks for linking that article in. I like Germond; he's a sensible guy.
335. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:53:18 PM
Also a rather nice guy, as I recall.
336. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 2:56:33 PM
I have only one thing to say about the debate.
What was up with Al's rosy cheeks?
He looked like a "find" at a Holiday Inn oil painting sale.
337. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:59:53 PM
Finally got the article to print, ronski.
Take this in the spirit in which offered - he agrees with me in virtually every thing he says. He just says it better.
I'd forgotten how well he writes. Is he still syndicated?
338. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 3:00:04 PM
janjon:
A check of the transcripts reveals that both candidates used "you know." An example, from Bush:
"It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off, you know, tomorrow what we should do today."
I haven't counted all the uses, but the two that stood out to me were by Bush, including the one above. If someone has the time, perhaps an accurate count is in order.
339. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:00:36 PM
I thought Germond was Baltimore Sun, or did he leave that years ago and I missed it?
340. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:00:59 PM
Jack - no comment, not even a little one, about W.'s story about crying with some disaster victims because that is what governors do?
341. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:01:35 PM
but I also thought he was syndicated.
342. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:02:41 PM
irving. forgive me, since it was small of me to have done so, but I was just having a bit of fun with your typo as in "you lnow".
Carry on.
343. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:02:47 PM
Do governors go to disasters and cry? I thought governors appointed judges. They do a lot, you know.
344. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:03:05 PM
janjon
Sure.
For the record. Blech. Blech on that, blech on Gore's self-serving congratulations to his own military service, and a final blech on the continued use of human props (Florida standing girl/Massachusetts couple).
But I am hopelessly out of date.
345. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:06:21 PM
no. I'll blech to all of that too. And, as you know, I most certainly am not out of date.
346. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:07:01 PM
Oh, the props were stupid. Used a great deal by both of them. Idiotic.
Come now, Jack, you know that you're not who they're selling to. None of us are.
347. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 3:08:37 PM
How is lnow pronounced?
That mus' be southern-slang. Sordda like-L-I-B, M R Lies.
348. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 3:08:38 PM
The prop that keeps on giving.
The Tin Can Lady came to Boston, Mass., from Iowa in her expensive motor home with her poodoo to get another 15 minutes of fame.
I wonder how much the gasoline cost to move that van across the country? And who paid for the trip?
349. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:09:18 PM
just wait till the town hall debate occurs. Junkie that I am, even I am tempted to find something different to do that evening.
350. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:09:29 PM
If we were their targets, we wouldn't be saying "blech", we'd be saying, "Oy!"
351. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 3:09:34 PM
"But I am hopelessly out of date."
That's why I love you, darling!
352. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:09:36 PM
Cal
My "blech" was for myself and myself only.
353. glendajean - 10/4/2000 3:09:53 PM
Jack -- you're not out of date, but hopelessly out of sync. They all do that stuff and have been for sometime. I read where Kennedy in private used to do the equivalent of "blech" everytime Nixon would make some reference to himself and his wife usually related to a story.
Wild Catholic boys (you and that other Jack) never sat through three sermons a week where preachers were always hitting straw men, telling moving made up stories with the attempt to focus on some telling detail as if it stood out as proof of whatever point they were arguing.
354. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:10:20 PM
If a man can't have his blech, he's lost everything.
355. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:11:21 PM
As I recall, Reagan started the prop crap with his State of the Union addresses, by having the now predictable mix of hard luck/inspiring finish, multi-raced and ethniced (sic) souls there to stand (if capable of doing so) and bow (again, if capable) for their 14 seconds of fame.
356. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 3:11:39 PM
JV
You can have mine.
357. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:12:01 PM
glenda
We've come a long way from the minor urp of Pat's cloth coat to the full-scale prostitution of every personal detail in an effort to woo the soft soccer mom contingent. The comparison is "Emmanuelle" to "Poop Shoot Mamas 23."
358. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 3:12:12 PM
"If a man can't have his blech, he's lost everything."
A perfect Table Talk tagline!
359. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:12:59 PM
>Wild Catholic boys (you and that other Jack) never sat through three sermons a week where preachers were always hitting straw men, telling moving made up stories with the attempt to focus on some telling detail as if it stood out as proof of whatever point they were arguing.
My cousins did all that. I just sat and looked at the stained glass while the Latin washed over me. I didn't even have to cope with nuns.
360. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:14:03 PM
lab
You are most kind. But I couldn't possibly take another man's blech.
361. Ronski - 10/4/2000 3:15:40 PM
janjon,
Germond still writes a column for the Baltimore Sun with Jules Witcover.
362. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:16:48 PM
363. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:17:46 PM
Since I don't read the Baltimore Sun, and have seen more than a few columns (or maybe they were articles done free lance or other than on an on-going syndicated basis) I'll have to try to recollect when and where.
At any rate, he's right on in this one.
364. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:18:14 PM
Jack,
I didn't say that it was for any other than you. I just was a tad surprised you didn't rate it on its effectiveness for its intended audience.
365. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:18:48 PM
I have it on good authority that prior to the next debate, instead of the traditional handshake, Gore will tongue-kiss Bush in hopes of another bounce.
366. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:19:07 PM
Jan,
Oh, he is syndicated in some way--maybe through the Sun. I used to read him in the Merc all the time.
367. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:19:12 PM
I count 7 Gore, 9 Bush and 1 Lehrer.
368. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:19:48 PM
Cal
If the intent was to bore the intended audince, I give it an "A."
369. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:20:48 PM
Jack,
But the intended audience disagrees with you.
370. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 3:20:49 PM
I have it on good authority that prior to the next debate, instead of the traditional handshake, Gore will tongue-kiss Bush in hopes of another bounce.
the only way i'd bother to register to vote, that's for sure
371. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 3:21:12 PM
Dusty
Haha. I didn't know, you know, it was said that much.
Well gag me with a spoon dude!
372. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:21:54 PM
Cal
Such is my lot in life. But at least I have my blech.
373. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:22:01 PM
janjon
So now we are blaming Gore's blechness on Reagan?
374. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:22:53 PM
janjon
Is there a general rule: If it's bad, it's Reagan's fault?
375. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:22:59 PM
For example, Jack, snap polls indicate that voters impressions of both candidates improved modestly last night.
While I don't think that has any long term significance, I think it suggests that a majority of people weren't bored.
376. Ronski - 10/4/2000 3:23:11 PM
Germond and Witcover are syndicated, and the Sun is owned by the Chicago Tribune Company, which now owns tons of stuff.
377. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:25:35 PM
It's good to know that our candidates are in the know, you know?
378. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:29:05 PM
Dusty. If Reagan was in fact the one who first introduced this smarmy use of REAL People to show how REAL problems and REAL solutions work out, then, yeah, lets blame both Gore's and W's use of same on the Great Communicator. (I don't recall whether Poppy used the people in the audience shtick in his State of the Union addresses; Clinton obviously milked it for all it was worth and then some.)
379. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:33:43 PM
janjon
Sorry, I prefer to hold people responsible for their own actions. Weird concept, but I'm not buying that Bush and Gore are unable to control what they say.
380. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:40:11 PM
Well, Dusty, let me put it another way. Assume for the moment that this use of real people and their specific stories started with Reagan. Assume that "his people" then decided that such usage worked - either in terms of helping to dramatize programs which had worked or problems which needed solving. Assume that Bush then used the same technique. Clinton sure as hell did. And, here we are. Both camps obviously have concluded that putting real names and faces on issues somehow helps get their points through. It may make me and perhaps you want to puke, but hey, no one is taking my reaction into account.
If you accept the above, even arguendo, then, yes, Reagan is to blame.
But, big deal. You are correct that either W. or Gore could stop it (and this time around, if I recall correctly, it was W. who first started using these real families -almost always of four - in his various stops around the country to emphasize why his tax plan was good and conversely why Gore's wasn't.
Long and short - the polls and other data these boys use must clearly tell them that putting a name and face on it works. Jack's permission or not, bleck.
381. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:52:09 PM
Long and short - the polls and other data these boys use must clearly tell them that putting a name and face on it works. Jack's permission or not, bleck.
Fer shure, ya know? The New York Times has an entire page of vox populi responses to the debate. The newsies and the pols will do anything they can to avoid talking about issues and the implications of the positions taken by the candidates.
Has anyone noticed that in "person on the street" interviews, Joe Sixpack and Sally Sockermom have begun to talk in sound bites?
Feh!
382. Wombat - 10/4/2000 3:54:13 PM
That's "Soccermom" unless she beats her mother.
383. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 3:56:14 PM
And the Telegensia are no better...when the Beltway boys or Will&Cokie say things, their eyes glitter in anticipation to the upcoming quotes they may generate.
384. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:59:11 PM
>That's "Soccermom" unless she beats her mother.
Even chicks like that tawk soundbite now.
385. Dusty - 10/4/2000 4:27:53 PM
janjon
Assume for the moment that this use of real people and their specific stories started with Reagan.
I'm not arguing against the use of real people and specific stories per se. It is an effective technique. Not my natural style, but effective enough that I would try to incorporate it if I were crazy enough (I'm not) to run for office.
But there is a difference between using a specific family situation to illustrate the impact of a tax change, and the pandering, tear jerk use of the can lady. Both create powerful imagery, but one uses real people to make a valid point more powerfully, and the other uses a real situation purely to create emotion; more intended to deceive than explain. (A reasonable question would be for some clear way of distinguishing the two. If this subject has legs, I'll try.)
Even worse is when someone uses a real person (Gore's moth-in-law) to evoke how close to home the situation is, and it turns out to be a flat lie.
Please tell me what policy point was emphasized by telling us that someone drove the can lady from Iowa to Boston? NONE. It was pure pandering. Anyone who doesn't retch at that story probably thinks with their emotions rather than their brain.
386. janjon - 10/4/2000 4:28:07 PM
All Things Considered has a piece on right now dissecting last night's debate in terms of factual accuracy. Surprising to anyone to learn that you can find nits (and some nuggets) of not-totally-correct-if-not-just-outright-wrong with respect to some of the "facts" (talking about their programs, not about things like who went to which disaster with whom) thrown out by both of them.
They also report that W. today is out in Pennsylvania telling all who will listen that they shouldn't pay any attention to all those facts and figures that Gore was throwing out (among other reasons, because he isn't trustworthy re same), and that every one should just pay attention to the PRINCIPLES involved. Big and broad and American as Apple Pie.
387. janjon - 10/4/2000 4:31:31 PM
dusty. you are walking a fine line indeed if you attempt to distinguish between use of the families of four and how W.'s tax plan will leave them with more in their pocket (they, of course, then being urged to tell those reporters around just how much that will mean to them and why) and the tin can lady (being ferried here or there via Winnebago notwithstanding).
388. janjon - 10/4/2000 4:59:51 PM
All Things Considering is now doing a satire on the use of real names and stories by politicians. They are taking off on things like the Gettysburg Address, with Lincoln interjecting details about Wilbur who was shot in the leg during the battle by a confederate story, etc.
Funny.
Apt.
They are now talking about FDR and a State of Union speach which gives attention to a family with a brave little turtle that survived the dust bowl.
And so it goes.
389. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:14:30 PM
Is anyone surprised to learn that W.'s campaign stop talks today in Pennsylvania honed in on: "fuzzy math" (with at least "one well prepared" crowd chanting "no more fuzzy math" at the right moment in Bush's comments) and his repeating the inanity that about Gore inventing both the internet and the calculator (which of course doesn't spew out real numbers, just political ones.)
So much for sticking to issues.
390. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:15:21 PM
I want to know why that guy from Carthage who didn't have to go to Vietnam wasn't in the audience.
Ingrate!
391. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:19:41 PM
Gallup: Gore 49 - Bush 41
Zogby: Gore 46 - Bush 41
Rasmussen/POS: Bush 44 - Gore 40
I can't believe this stiff is going to be our next President.
Oh, well. He gets the recession.
392. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:20:50 PM
And the Supreme Court nominations. They will endure beyond Gore's one or two terms.
393. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:21:57 PM
He will if he spends like a sailor.
394. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 5:25:44 PM
repeating the inanity that about Gore inventing both the internet and the calculator
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. D-U-M dum.
Attacking fuzzy math is fine if you can articulate the sharp math, otherwise it's just evasive. "The rich will pay a higher proportion of the total tax collected than they do today. People earning less than "x" will pay no tax and all, and everyone will get a cut in rates. That's real math for real people. Mr Gore's fuzzy numbers don't add up unless you are the one family out of (25? 50?) who can jump through all his bureaucratic hoops."
I'll be old and gray before Bush can say that, and sell it like he understands it. Never mind being able to defend it from tangential angles of attack.
Correction: Older, grayer.
395. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:27:38 PM
It may take two terms to replace the next batch of SC retirees. Gore may be a one-termer, if Ace is correct.
396. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:28:22 PM
Mele:
He said most of that. The "bureaucratic hoops" thing he did not say during the debate-- but he's said it before.
You're getting this from Bush himself.
So it's wrong to say he "can't" say it. He's said all of it.
Did he say it all, as forcefully as you would have liked, last night?
No, but then he's simply not a terribly good debater.
I imagine he will be sharper at the next debate. Having done what he wanted to do at the first debate -- i.e., survive -- he will be more willing to take chances and say what's on his mind.
397. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:30:10 PM
Those new poll numbers simply mean that W.'s handlers will now take another tack - out the window with issues, and here comes "character flaws = negative ads and stealth whisper campaigns, etc.
They are running out of time and that means go for broke.
398. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:33:20 PM
ronski. I dunno. I've heard that Rehnquist had to be convinced to hang on the last year or so (its not so much his age but his back and health generally). Stevens is 80. O'Connor is getting up there and isn't in the best of health.
399. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:34:09 PM
Ace - he may have said it, but he's never been able to make it stick.
400. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:40:43 PM
I think Stevens would happily retire in a Gore first term. But I could see Rehnquist and O'Connor sticking it out for another four years.
401. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:43:48 PM
They will certainly be encouraged to do so. By the same people who've been doing so the last few years.
At some point, they will say enough is enough.
402. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 5:43:50 PM
Scalia is also reported to be antsy. If Rehnquist walks and Bush elevates Scalia to Chief (Rehnquist was also a lone dissenter when he was elevated, so don't laugh) then Scalia will stay. If Gore wins, I think Scalia will also walk. He's not old, or rich, and fifteen more years in the minority sounds pretty dull, he's been there a long time, it's not like there are any surprising new challenges coming up (after fifteen or so years on the court, he's probably seen it all several times.) He might as well go make some money.
403. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:46:57 PM
Scalia might indeed call it a day if he sees the 5-4 going his way much of the time becoming after Gore's first appointment a 5-4 going the other way much of the time. Let alone the prospects of that then becoming 6-3. As I recall, he had a lot of kids and it must be very tempting for him to be able to go out and make a lot of money speaking, writing, and maybe even practicing law.
404. glendajean - 10/4/2000 5:52:06 PM
I read somewhere that Ginsburg and O'Connor both have cancer.
Even if Gore is elected president, the Senate will also have some great affect on the next justices.
I miss Jack's updates on key Senate and House races.
405. janjon - 10/4/2000 6:33:02 PM
O'Connor had breast cancer some years ago. Ginsberg has been treated during the past year or so for cancer (prostate, as I recall, strange as that may seem). No indications that either of them continue to be ill, but with Ginsberg it may be too soon to say that with any degree of comfort.
406. janjon - 10/4/2000 6:34:44 PM
glenda - today's Times had a relatively fulsome article about six or so of the key Senatorial races, leaving the impression that it indeed could end up a 50-50 tie, making Lieberman's decision to continue to run for the Senate an even more crucial one.
407. CalGal - 10/4/2000 6:41:35 PM
Scalia is broke, and Congress apparently passed a law to ease the restrictions on the earnings SC justices can make outside their salary pretty much with him in mind.
408. Dusty - 10/4/2000 6:47:51 PM
janjon
Maybe he should run for both jobs. Then, if there is a tie vote in the Senate, he could break the tie. Just for fun, he could vote one way as a Senator, then the other way as VP. Then he could honestly tell all constitutents that he voted in their interests.
(PS, where in the Constitution is this prohibited?)
409. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 6:58:02 PM
314 Cygnus
When you write "community", I read "government."
Sure, you can go buy an island and set up a state that has any rules you want, and share it with whatever friends you want to share it with. But if you wanna live in the US, which, IME, is what conservatives all wanna do, you've gotta abide by the rules of the US "community," which include respect of individual rights.
410. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 7:03:50 PM
Dusty,
It's not illegal, just really self-serving and not in the interest of the nation or CT.
Speaking of illegal, why hasn't anyone written about the bald violation by Bush/Cheney of the constitution's ban on Pres/Vp from the same state.
411. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 7:08:25 PM
It's probably against Senate Rules though.
I'm fairly certain the constitution says that each house shall make it's own rules of procedure.
412. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 7:35:18 PM
Jay: It's not illegal, but could theoretically bite them. What the Constitution says is that the electors must vote for either a president or a vice president who is not from their state. Assuming Bush and Cheney win in an electoral squeaker, Texas electors could be forced into voting for someone other than Cheney as VP...in which case no one would have the 270 votes to be Vice President.
413. CalGal - 10/4/2000 8:01:06 PM
Jay, Indy:
???
Cheney reregistered. That was the first hint he'd been selected.
414. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 8:03:02 PM
Cal: Yes, he did. But I read elsewhere that it's something that could still be challenged in court. That's why I said "theoretically."
415. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 8:32:41 PM
This has become another "Political Thread"....RIP?
416. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 8:50:05 PM
So far the discussion has stayed on the debates themselves fairly well. However, there is a drift into the general political theme. STOP THIS INSTANT! This is the 'inside baseball' view of the campaign. So far the thread has trumped the talking heads hands down. Keep up the good work. Once we have completed dissection of the first debate, we can speculate as to the next, or the course of the debates. Please, if you want to continue a discussion that comes up on a more general issue, suggest a transfer to the Politics Today thread.
Thank you for your support.
417. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 9:22:53 PM
Janjon, #405:
"Ginsberg has been treated during the past year or so for cancer (prostate, as I recall, strange as that may seem)."
That sounds not merely strange, but anatomically impossible.
(Shades of that joke about the woman who mistakenly got prescribed a huge dose of male-hormone injections. A few days later, she goes back to the doctor, complaining about unwanted hair growth. "Where is it growing?" "On my balls.")
418. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 9:33:34 PM
J@L
don't believe you gave us your thoughts, have you?
419. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 9:38:59 PM
jonesey
You have my support SIR!
420. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 9:45:12 PM
At ease labwabbit-
knew you'd shape up. That's a good chap.
421. lemwalker - 10/4/2000 9:45:22 PM
Listened to some of the debate on radio. Had to wait till dark to get a station. So only got the verbal. No body language. Gore seemed kinda pushy. Bush seemed to have trouble putting thoughts into words, or remembering his coaching.
Neither seems to accept that they are counting their chickens based on number of eggs regarding the surplus. Neither will accomplish anything without congressional pork added to bills.
I am going to get screwed, it is just a choice of Dicks.
422. joezan - 10/4/2000 10:00:30 PM
336. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/00 2:56:33 PM
I have only one thing to say about the debate.
What was up with Al's rosy cheeks?
He looked like a "find" at a Holiday Inn oil painting sale.
Jack:
I have it on good authority that Gore now uses Christopher Reeve's make-up girl - whose last gig was at a funeral home in Pasadena.
423. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:06:17 PM
Well, it seems that the last debate was well hashed out here by the usual suspects.
Since someone actually asked for my take, I'll mention anything that hasn't been covered....(thinks, scrolls back and thinks some more)
Okay, so I'll just tell you what I think.
424. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:06:44 PM
Gore appeared to know his plan well. No surprise there. He also knew Bush's proposals better than Bush. Not good for Bush. He couldn't come up with a response that indicated that he had his own proposals down cold. That would have put the lightweight issue to bed for good. A missed opportunity for Bush. In classic debate, Gore wins. He managed to get his points out, while dissecting Bush's. He had specifics, while Bush painted with the broad brush, and was bloodied on the few exchanges where they seemed to get down to specifics of plans. The exchanges were shaped by Gore, and on terms favorable to him.
In the real world, it was a much closer debate. Bush sounded his themes well and often. He appealed to issues that will ignite his base of support, and those leaning towards it. His invocation of smaller government and "its your money" were on target. He didn't say anything patently stupid, and for the most part avoided the stiffness he showed in his convention speach. He looked earnest for the most part, and avoided the smirk without looking pained. His best work was done before the debate. The media swallowed the Gore as debating machine spin hook line and sinker. The mere fact that Bush was not on the canvas crying "no mas, no mas" allows him to claim a victory.
Gore hit most of his hot buttons, and scored some minor points with the "wealthiest 1%" repetition.
Both candidates did the wink and nod job on appointments to the Supreme Court. Gore challenging Bush on "code words" and a litmus test came very very close to blowing up in his face. A more able Republican would have shoved them back down his throat.
In short, Bush is down, but not out. To Gore by points on a split decision.
425. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:13:18 PM
I will open the next can of worms- what should Bush or Gore do differently in the next round? Style as well as substance are in play here.
A thought to get you started, ala Mike Meyers in Coffeetalk-
"Neither candidate articulated a position on abortion and RU-486 that reflects the position of the majority of the electorate- reasonable restrictions on abortion, coupled with an effort to minimize abortions, while protecting the right to early abortions at the discretion of the mother."
Discuss amoungst yourselves....
426. Al D - 10/4/2000 10:22:46 PM
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that Gore had made a comment that he would have a litmus test for Department of Defense when it came to a position on homosexuals. Bush should use this. I also think Bush should bring up the issue of BSA being booed at Democratic convention. He should also bring up Gore's acceptance of the joke told by the Hollywood mogul about Christians Bush barely touched on parental notification for minors having an abortion. Perhaps he could ask Gore who would be a better advisor for his children?
427. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 10:33:39 PM
"He also knew Bush's proposals better than Bush."
Not really. Gore's signature "Bush spends more for the top 1%" blah blah blah is provably false.
In fact, Bush spends *TWICE* as much in new spending over ten years as he spends on "tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%" over ten years.
You see -- it's easy to sound authoritative when you simply make bullshit up out of your ass.
Trust me, I know.
428. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 10:39:54 PM
Unlikely that any of our beloved candidates will take a stand on any issue(s) where major battle lines are drawn. Look for more voodoo economic-based banter/exchanges in subsequent "debates" prior to election day. Come to think of it, the sidestepping-softshoe show only changes after the election as all lights become directed to one ring within the perpetual-circus tent.
I predict more finger-pointing, tongue-thrusting, how-much-have-you-cried-recently, did too-did not antics. These displays of "showmanship" will also increase with the intensity of effort each candidate feels is needed to continue side-stepping major, divisive issues.
But just my opinion SIR!
429. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:53:27 PM
Lab- okay, message received. I'm new at hearding rabbits, and will try not to shout anymore.
430. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:55:30 PM
Ace- did you see Bush's face while Gore was "correcting him" on his prescription proposal? He flashed an expression like he was thinking "holy shit, did we really say that?"
431. RustlerPike - 10/4/2000 10:57:50 PM
Gore may be a sigher, he is somewhat boring and annoying, but Bush is a doofus. Please don't elect him, and I swear I would say the same thing if Gore didn't have a gene-mate of mine as running partner. Really, George-Dubbya is better than Billy Carter, but he is such a doofus. Doesn't everybody see that? And what was that bit where he forgot what the question was? He looks so silly when he goofs up like that! Can this guy be put in charge of a superpower? Can he be put in charge of any ship larger than a yacht?
432. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 11:12:32 PM
"Ace- did you see Bush's face while Gore was "correcting him" on his prescription proposal? He flashed an expression like he was thinking "holy shit, did we really say that?""
Because Bush never *did* say that. Once again, Gore simply fabricated.
Bush promised "immediate help" to poor seniors, then a full program for other seniors.
Gore, out of thin air, suggested that it would take 4-5 years for this new plan. Bush *never* suggested waiting this long. This is merely Gore's bullshit assumption-- that it will take a while to get a big program up and running.
If Gore wants to make that assumption, fine -- but then, of course, he must assume his own program will take 4-5 years to get started.
In fact, Gore's own program, by its own terms, won't be fully phased in for 8 (eight!) years. Gore was tactically smart to charge Bush's plan with his own plan's defects, but he's lying.
It's sort of easy to "win" a debate by outright lying.
433. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 11:15:01 PM
This is similar to Gore's charge that Bush would let children founder in failing schools for three years before the voucher kicked in.
Gore, OTOH, would "immediately" close the school and reopen it under better management.
One problem-- Gore's own plan gives schools classified as "failing" three years to straighten themselves out before he'd shut them down.
Thus, Gore lied when he claimed he would "immediately" fix failing school. And he lied when he claimed there was a difference between himself and Bush on the "three year" rule as well.
Your candidate is brazen fucking liar. You know he is, and there's no point pretending otherwise.
434. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:31:12 PM
Ace- Bush's official website "setting the record straight" on the prescription issue-
"Under Al Gore’s plan, seniors will be required to purchase their prescription drugs through one government entity. This would restrict choice because each region of the country would only use one government entity that would contract with drug manufacturers to buy the drugs seniors need. (Dan Crippen, “A CBO Analysis Of The Administration’s Prescription Drug Proposal,” Congressional Budget Office, May 11, 2000; Executive Summary, “Regulatory Requirements In The Clinton Administration’s Medicare...
Who's zooming who?
435. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:44:44 PM
Bush's position paper-
May 15, 2000
“Saving Social Security and Medicare”
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Governor Bush believes that the nation has a vital interest – a moral interest – in ensuring that retirement is a time of security and health for America’s seniors. That is why his new agenda for older Americans begins with preserving – and modernizing –Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security is a defining American promise that Governor Bush is determined to keep. But it can be saved for future generations only if it is reformed. Because the system taxes younger workers to pay the benefits of retired workers, it will generate huge deficits as the Baby Boom generation swells the ranks of retirees over the next three decades, eventually becoming insolvent in 2037. Under the Clinton-Gore administration, which has avoided Social Security reform, the present value of these deficits has risen from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, or $28,000 per household.
In contrast, Governor Bush will build a bipartisan consensus to save Social Security on the basis of six key principles:
Ø Modernization must not change existing benefits for retirees or near-retirees.
Ø The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security.
Ø Social Security payroll taxes must not be increased.
Ø The government must not invest Social Security funds in the stock market.
Ø Modernization must preserve the disability and survivors components.
Ø Modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal
retirement accounts, which will augment the Social Security safety net. These
accounts will earn higher rates of return, have parameters of safety and
soundness, and help workers build wealth that can be passed on to their children.
436. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:45:51 PM
Governor Bush will also reform and strengthen Medicare on a bipartisan basis.
Medicare is a 1965 health care delivery system that has not kept pace with 21 st century
medicine. Moreover, it faces insolvency in 2025, due to the same demographic changes
that are threatening Social Security. Thus, as President, Governor Bush will build on
recent bipartisan efforts and seek Medicare reform based on these principles:
Ø Medicare’s current guarantee of access to seniors must be preserved.
Ø Every Medicare recipient must have a choice of health plans, including the option of purchasing a plan that covers prescription drugs.
Ø Medicare must cover expenses for low-income seniors.
Ø Reform must provide streamlined access to the latest medical technologies.
Ø Medicare payroll taxes must not be increased.
Ø Reform must establish an accurate measure of the solvency of Medicare.
437. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:46:36 PM
So far, I haven't found reference to the Helping Hand relied on by Bush.
438. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:49:58 PM
RATS! TOYS
439. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:51:24 PM
From the Gore campaign-
Rhetoric: Bush will say his prescription drug plan offers an immediate helping hand and Provide Help Sooner than the Gore Plan.
Reality: Bush's Plan Would Not Provide Immediate Coverage - that Claim is "a Fantasy."
Despite the fact that Bush says his plan gives funding in 2001, it would not help seniors sooner than the Gore plan.
Bush's plan is voluntary for states, so there is no guarantee of a benefit for millions of seniors. Currently 27 states have no plan in place. For states that do choose to participate, the steps necessary before the plan covered any seniors are time-consuming. "First, Congress would have to approve the plan and appropriate the money. Then state legislatures would have to give their OK. And then those 27 states that don't have drug benefit plans, they need to create them." According to Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, "It's really a fantasy to say [Bush's plan] is going to happen immediately." When Texas implemented a similar program in which federal money is allocated for states to expand coverage -- the Children's Health Insurance Program -- it took 2 1/2 years from when the money was first made available to when Texas began actually covering children. [CNN, "Inside Politics," 9/11/00; Wall Street Journal, 9/15/00; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 9/26/00]
440. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 11:52:10 PM
What should Gore do in the next debate? How about tell the truth for once. It would be a refreshing change for him. He can even pick the subject. You can't get fairer than that.
441. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:52:10 PM
Gore Campaign continued-
The Bush "Immediate Helping Hand" Explicitly Leaves Out Middle Class Seniors, Leaves 95% Out, According to One Study.
Bush's program provides basic coverage for seniors up to 175% of poverty -about $14,600 for a single person. That means a widow making $16,000 a year with $4000 in drug costs would get no basic coverage from Bush in the first Presidential term. 49% of seniors without drug coverage are above 175% of poverty. The short-term Bush plan would only reach approximately 625,000 of the currently 13 million uninsured seniors nationwide - leaving 95% of currently uninsured seniors without coverage, according to one study. Even making generous assumptions about participation in state plans, the Bush Immediate Helping Hand, once fully implemented in all 50 states, would only cover 5% seniors who currently lack a drug benefit. [www.sph.emory.gov; "State Pharmacy Programs," GAO, 9/00; "Low-Income Prescription Drug Plans," National Economic Council, 9/00; www.georgewbush.com]
442. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:00:55 AM
A search for Helping Hand produced this speech text from Bush-
"Heat or medicine. Food or pills. In a wealthy nation, this is a scandal. In a compassionate nation, it is a call to action.
Because there is no prescription drug benefit in Medicare, 23 states have now established state drug assistance programs – programs that pay drug costs for low-income seniors. Here in Pennsylvania, that widow in Johnstown was helped by just this kind of program. Without it, she says, she would have “lost her dignity and her life.” Her story had a happy ending. And we can multiply it by millions.
We will modernize Medicare. But we will not wait to help seniors afford prescription drugs. We will give them direct aid now, by expanding state assistance programs. Today I am announcing an initiative called “An Immediate Helping Hand.”
For four years – during the transition to better Medicare coverage – we will provide $12 billion a year in direct aid to low-income seniors in all 50 states.
Every senior with an income less than $11,300 – $15,200 for a couple – will have the entire cost of their prescription drugs covered. For seniors with incomes less than $14,600 – $19,700 for couples – there will be a partial subsidy. With these large buying pools, states will be able to negotiate for significant discounts on drugs. In addition, we will set a cap, a maximum limit, on out-of-pocket drug costs of $6,000 a year for all seniors – the same limit we will set for all Medicare costs in broader Medicare modernization.
My plan sets aside $158 billion additional dollars for Medicare over the next ten years.
Four years to provide “An Immediate Helping Hand,” and an additional $110 billion for Medicare modernization."
443. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:05:59 AM
Compare Bush's reliance on state's pooled buying power to lower drug costs with his criticism of Gore's plan for a similar buying pool in post #434.
Also compare Gore's claim that there would be no assistance under the Bush plan until 2002 to Bush's statement in post 442. This is partially true because there would be the lag of instituting the state programs as the Gore campaign mentioned, but not because Bush has built in any delay.
444. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 1:09:57 AM
Dusty: 445. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 1:42:37 AM Dusty: 446. Stumbo - 10/5/2000 1:52:55 AM And, while we're at it: 447. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 2:08:39 AM Does anyone want to hear that 65% of old people (enough with the "seniors" dodge) already have prescription drug coverage. The urgency is to get help to those who aren't currently covered. Just as the urgency in the larger healthcare debate is those who aren't covered. 448. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 8:48:16 AM J@L 449. Dusty - 10/5/2000 9:26:58 AM IrvingSnodgrass 450. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 9:40:23 AM rubberducky- Thank you. I thought that I should reign in my partisanship a bit, to help insure evenhanded treatment in the thread. 451. JayAckroyd - 10/5/2000 9:44:13 AM Janjon quotes an article paraphrasing Bush: 452. JayAckroyd - 10/5/2000 9:55:34 AM What should each guy do? 453. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:22:51 AM Jay: 454. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:23:18 AM I assume no one is interested in the VP debates? 455. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:23:38 AM Make that "debate." 456. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:29:05 AM who do you think will win IJ? 457. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 10:34:53 AM I have to take exception to the notion that HMO's were developed on Clinton/Gore's watch. I first belonged to an HMO in 1985 and they were well-established and touted as a means of controlling insurance costs well before 1993. 458. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:43:17 AM Ducky: Your prediction is likely accurate, though I think Cheney won't be "endless" (seems to be a man of few words) nor as abrasive as Gore. Cheney won't be as overwhelming as Gore, and Lieberman won't be as lost as Bush. I don't expect either VP candidate will be abrasive toward the other and that both will keep the debate on the up and up. 459. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:50:13 AM i'd agree IJ 460. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 11:03:07 AM interesting.... Nader is up to 7 points after the debate 461. labwabbit - 10/5/2000 11:50:29 AM Message # 429 462. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 11:52:19 AM Dusty: 463. janjon - 10/5/2000 11:53:19 AM I predict that Lieberman will clean Cheney's clock tonight - with a smile and wit. The smile and wit are, of course, major reasons why he will do so. Joe clearly is a master at hurling zingers in a way that seem positive, not negative. He's also no slouch when it comes to knowing his policy. As best I can tell after having watched and read about Cheney since the nomination, he simply is incapable of demonstrating enthusiasm or not being boring. Mind you, I think that a so-called debate format where the attention is focused on just the two of them will do a lot to minimize Cheney's problems when it comes to campaigning in a crowd, but...he really is Mr. Bland and Joe is anything but. 464. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 11:55:46 AM I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Some of the most memorable debates I've seen have been the VP debates in previous elections. 465. labwabbit - 10/5/2000 12:02:23 PM interesting.... Nader is up to 7 points after the debate 466. OhioSTOPAS - 10/5/2000 12:31:49 PM For your information, here is the newspaper story on which Al Gore based his anecdote of Kaylie Ellis, the deskless student. And here is an update appearing today, describing the still-crowded conditions at Ms. Ellis's high school. 467. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 12:37:28 PM I have a friend from highschool who now lives in Florida and is sending her kids to schools there. She curses the greedy geezers who are all for any benefits for seniors but who continuously vote down school bond referenda because "they" don't have any kids in school. I expect its the same in certain regions of Texas and in Arizona. 468. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:37:34 PM So, because the girl had access to a lab stool, if not a desk, at least for a while, Gore is now to be characterized as a liar. 469. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 12:40:05 PM But I note that both Gore and Bush continue to pander heavily to seniors. Their rhetoric about schools is just that -- rhetoric because the feds spend so little on K-12. 470. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:41:54 PM I predict that Lieberman will clean Chenney's clock. Lieberman's weaknesses in appealing to the demo political base is the Hollywood censorship stuff. Chenney can't get any leverage on this- Lieberman will smile and cite Bill Bennett if Chenney brings it up. Besides, Chenney is hardly in opposition to Lieberman's morality in media shtick. Chenney's strength is in the military area, but the GOP has been so rah rah about the military for so long, they have no means of attacking it without sounding as if they are attacking the military itself. 471. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:43:08 PM They pander to seniors because they vote so heavily and discernibly on one/two issues AND because there indeed are any number of Federal programs that have direct impact on/for them. 472. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:45:20 PM jones. I hope Cheney has more than one clock because I deigned that Lieberman would clean it for him somewhere not too far up there today. 473. Wombat - 10/5/2000 12:45:48 PM After reading the article and the follow-up, I don't see Gore can be acccused of mis-speaking on this one. Because the classroom has too many students and no room for desks, some students must stand every day. In the other classroom, the students were lucky. Some could sit on the floor! 474. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 12:46:55 PM Just wait, Janjon. When the boomers start to retire and take an ever-greater portion of resources, then we might see someone with the intestinal fortitude to stand up. 475. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 2:26:11 PM On Gore's newest additions to his bid to be Joe Biden. 476. robertjayb - 10/5/2000 2:40:29 PM . 477. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:01:11 PM Criticism of Gore's minor mis-statements in the debate would be dismissed as pettyfogging if not for Gore's current reputation as an embellisher/liar. Regardless of the validity of this reputation, Gore should know enough to be damned careful when telling any anecdote. 478. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 3:04:06 PM Rask 479. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:07:51 PM Ya got me. 480. Wombat - 10/5/2000 3:14:33 PM Gore's uncle was so gassy that they used him as an observation balloon. 481. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:54:44 PM I concur that this instantaneous and more than thorough dissection of each and every factoid that either of them utter has reached the stage of being more than just dumbfounding, it is now ludicrously pathetic. 482. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:55:36 PM oops. 483. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:56:15 PM I may need a bit of help getting out of this. Did that work? 484. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:56:50 PM Help. 485. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:57:22 PM self-help, as it turns out. 486. Al D - 10/5/2000 4:15:05 PM 487. janjon - 10/5/2000 4:19:34 PM Lieberman is the only one of the four candidates whom I canlisten to for any sustained period of time. Especially on the radio. Cheney's monotone and soft voice are soporific. Gore tends to roam quickly from unctuous to unduly mellifluous. And, W's is just too whiney and shrill most of the time -especially when he, as he frequently does, ends up his sentences with an emphatic word or two - as in "it isn't the gubmint's money, its the PEOPULS!" 488. JJBiener - 10/5/2000 4:20:25 PM Al - That was funny. 489. Ronski - 10/5/2000 5:07:47 PM 490. Dusty - 10/5/2000 5:35:43 PM janjon 491. angel-five - 10/5/2000 5:42:00 PM I propose that the next debate be much simpler. An online audience judges the candidates through a HTMLed console. The console comes complete with several buttons ranging from 'gong', 'open trapdoor', 'hit with cream pie' to 'beat with a rubber mallet' and whenever a critical number of people have pressed the same button for the same candidate within a one second window, judgment is carried out. Really, this is the way things are headed anyway. We might as well embrace it now. 492. JJBiener - 10/5/2000 5:45:39 PM A-5 - Maybe we can get Chuck Baris to host. 493. angel-five - 10/5/2000 5:52:30 PM Let's put our heads together I don't know what it is about this last election that makes me feel it's nearly too much of a farce to stomach. Probably the same thing that makes me quote Michael Stipe in relation to the media circus that's our current election coverage. It's just kind of pathetic that this is the best our public can manage to demand. 494. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:04:10 PM Tomorrow, no doubt, I'll be back to my normal cynical self and see this not as an obstacle to overcome but a necessary facet of democratic culture to be manipulated for the public good. But for the moment it all irks me so. 495. JJBiener - 10/5/2000 6:11:40 PM A-5 - I think I understand what you are feeling. It is kind of like the feeling I get when I sit in the audience and watch Colin Powell speak and I realize he won't run for office because the media will tear his family to shreds. I respect his decision and I certainly understand it. It just doesn't bode well for our country. 496. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:23:34 PM Well, I'm not a huge Powell fan per se. I was, at one time, until I started reading a bit into his actions in the Gulf War. Anyone heading the JCS in this day and age has to have a well-developed sense of politics. We lambasted the Warsaw Pact military model for its inclusion of 'political officers' and its appointment of 'politically reliable' generals to positions of military power, but really, our model isn't so terribly different. I don't fault Powell for weighing political considerations when he was making decisions about the ground war in Kuwait and Iraq -- I just sincerely believe that he gave them far too much weight. The military is supposed to carry out policy, not shape it for its own gain. I really do believe that the reason Colin Powell is so well liked in our country is precisely BECAUSE he's gone so far out of his way to avoid giving the media an interest into digging into his conduct. It's not, of course, that they'd find a Watergate or a Chappaquiddick if they did, but American perceptions about the Gulf War -- what happened, what could have happened, what should have happened, and what Powell's part in everything was -- would change to a fair degree. What he has right now is charisma and appeal. I don't know that he'd be a bad President. Not at all. But I do think that the traits he'd be banking on to be elected -- that he's a bright, stern warrior of resolve who knows how to win battles for America -- would likely suffer some under closer scrutiny. And I think that's likely why he hasn't tossed his hat in the ring, more so than subjecting his family to the full-court media press, although no good man wants his family to undergo one of those. 497. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:25:26 PM Still, it's a fact that there are plenty of good men who *won't* run for President, no matter how excellently they'd do the job, precisely because they don't want to play the money game and the media game you have to play in order to be a serious national contender in American politics. 498. janjon - 10/5/2000 6:26:09 PM I think it is more accurate to say that he won't run because his wife is absolutely convinced and terrified that there are a number of "them" out there who would absolutely do anything and everything needed to insure that a black man is not elected President. 499. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:36:18 PM Janjon: Perhaps, perhaps. But appearances can be deceiving, you know. 500. cmboyce - 10/5/2000 6:39:24 PM She's right, too. He'd be DOA. This country is, as a whole, ready (as they say) for a black president. He could get the votes. But somebody or -bodies with a long gun and some smarts could assassinate almost anyone in American politics—serious Kremlin-style security is politically out of the question—and I daresay there are at least some Aryan Nation types out there who already have their plans laid for a Powell-offing, should he appear on the brink of election. Maybe even just nomination. Maybe just announcing. 501. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:42:55 PM We're about to have an Orthodox Jew as veep. He doesn't seem concerned about snipers. 502. janjon - 10/5/2000 6:51:23 PM Angel. Alas, color still counts. For "them". 503. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:56:27 PM The point being that there's people out there -- American citizens living within a moral subculture that'd support voting with bullets -- who are as rabidly anti-Semitic as some people are rabidly anti-African-American. I don't recall anyone ever penning an Africanized Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 504. JayAckroyd - 10/5/2000 7:01:13 PM 457 505. JayAckroyd - 10/5/2000 7:03:12 PM 460 506. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:08:38 PM To put it another way: There are people out there who'd love to kill Clinton, and Gore when he gets elected. And they probably lay plans to that end. And somehow these two gents are still drawing air. I'm not saying that Mrs. Powell doesn't have these concerns, nor am I saying that these concerns never occur to Powell himself. I'm just noting that they're not entirely as credible as you're making them look. They DO, however, give Powell a good out. To be honest with you, I think there's a whole host of reasons the man doesn't want to be president, and they're probably reasons I'd share with him. Nevertheless, Powell is a man who showed a great deal of skill in political awareness and politial chessplaying in his tenure as chair of the JCS. And there ARE aspects of the Gulf War, specifically, the internal military politics of the war and the way good media spin trumped good military sense, that wouldn't bear much of the sort of close media scrutiny that'd assuredly result if Powell ever tossed his hat into the ring. It's really obvious when you put the two of them together where a majority of Powell's concerns must lie. To put this in another light, Powell, as a black man, became the first African-American overall head of the American military (of course under the CINC, so far as that matters to military-think). IOW, he surrounded himself with a certain population where ready access to powerful weapons, and constant training to kill one's enemies is the overall rule, and fierce racial bigotry is quite common. He didn't seem concerned then. 507. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:15:49 PM I think you radically overstate his risk of joining the military, and I don't think there's much point in comparing the two. 508. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:16:39 PM Whoops--missed a word, there. JCS Chairman. 509. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:18:09 PM You're not really acquainted with the military, are you. 510. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:18:54 PM How about black officers getting fragged because they were black officers? 511. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:24:30 PM Now. Is Colin Powell the President-elect at a higher risk of assassination than Colin Powell the chair of the JCS? Sure, and no one's saying otherwise. The risk is still there. And when you look back at Powell's career you don't see much in the way of him turning down rank because he's worried about white supremacists. You certainly don't see him refusing the spotlight because he's worried about some bigoted redneck with a long rifle after Desert Storm. It would be Colin Powell the hero of Desert Storm that would run for office, not Colin Powell, soul brother. So upon closer examination you don't see much ground for assuming a priori that fear of the Aryan Nations is what keeps the man from tossing his hat in the ring. That much is obvious. 512. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:30:48 PM Angel, 513. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:32:50 PM Mark my words. Within ten years the overall American point of view WRT Desert Shield and Desert Storm is going to change a good bit. We're still largely at the point of thinking it was 'a good war', but it will be fashionable in the future to tear apart what happened behind the scenes. And while we won't exactly think of it as a Vietnam we'll definitely not think of it in such a rosy light. 514. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:34:35 PM 515. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:37:00 PM We're still largely at the point of thinking it was 'a good war', but it will be fashionable in the future to tear apart what happened behind the scenes. 516. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:37:27 PM But the military, for all its faults, was known then as an excellent place for an ambitious black man to get ahead, given that it solved a lot (but not all) of its racial issues early on. The military was known for having solved its racial issues early on? Do tell. Once again, you don't know a whole lot about the military, do you. So I don't buy that going into the military was more risky than other careers because of the chance of an assassination. Where and when was this said? By who? Who's talking about other careers? Who's saying that the military is better or worse than them in terms of racial hatred? I'll wait. 517. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:38:35 PM Actually, no one has made any such assumption. Yes, they have. Do you read? 518. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:39:50 PM 498. janjon - 10/5/00 11:26:09 PM 519. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:42:02 PM Re: concerns about the Gulf War: These are still not widely held concerns, and, no, I'm not just talking about our policy WRT rebelling minorities in Iraq. 520. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 7:44:44 PM Take General Powell...... 521. angel-five - 10/5/2000 7:50:25 PM Tcha, any more in the Poli thread, to be sure. Though I doubt there's more coming, and IAC it'll probably have to wait a bit. The sorbet I bought is calling me and I think American Beauty is on. 522. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 9:14:53 PM anyhow 523. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 9:17:30 PM First impression of the Chenney-Lieberman debate. My God, this is where the grown ups have been. 524. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:22:56 PM Remember when no one could figure out why Dukakis had picked Bentsen and not the other way around? 525. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 9:23:09 PM i agree 526. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 9:24:19 PM i meant to agree with J@L, but A-5 horned in! 527. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:25:39 PM Oh, you would have agreed with the sentiment anyway. Admit it 528. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:28:43 PM Life would be much simpler for you people if you'd just bow to the inevitable and agree with me. 529. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 9:29:18 PM 530. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 9:30:06 PM dammit 531. ArtVandelay - 10/5/2000 9:39:46 PM These debates are OK, so far. While I'm used to paying women to lie to me, I still get uncomfortable having to pay these guys to do so.... 532. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 9:45:48 PM Art 533. RosettaStone - 10/5/2000 9:52:46 PM Relaxing debate. These two are really the grownups. But you really have to a policy wonk to enjoy it. 534. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 9:57:06 PM First rule of television: look at the camera. Cheney is making a mistake by looking at Shaw instead of the camera. The few times I've been on TV talk shows, I've had that rule drilled into me. Why is only Lieberman looking at the camera? 535. mgleason - 10/5/2000 10:03:29 PM Cheney's a political operative - in his world it's not comme il faut to look anyone in the eye. (He's actually looking over Bernie's head when he's not looking down.) 536. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:12:40 PM wow 537. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 10:14:35 PM I was wondering about that, Maria. It's a big mistake for him to do it on TV, in a debate watched by people who are used to their politicians looking them in the eye. I'm not complaining, mind you... I far prefer Lieberman as a candidiate and as a person, personally. 538. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:16:00 PM I'd have more confidence in Bush if he could absorb some of Cheneys ease, wit, and wits by osmosis...I am impressed even though the guy gives me the creeps. 539. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 10:16:09 PM I'm watching the debate on BBC, which keeps breaking away for updates on Yugoslavia, so I've missed the last 10 minutes of the debate... what was the funny exchange, rubberducky? 540. joezan - 10/5/2000 10:16:15 PM 541. joezan - 10/5/2000 10:19:20 PM 542. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:21:27 PM The sound keeps dropping out of the CNN broadcast.... 543. joezan - 10/5/2000 10:21:37 PM 544. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:22:11 PM Either that, or these guys are cussing up a storm! 545. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:22:45 PM Snod: 546. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 10:23:15 PM Ticket reversal anyone? 547. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:23:54 PM yes please 548. mgleason - 10/5/2000 10:24:08 PM I agree with you, Irv; it is unnerving. 549. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 10:26:20 PM Bernie asks for blood on the floor with 'have you seen evidence of shifting or hypocracy' by Lieberman? 550. mgleason - 10/5/2000 10:30:31 PM This is a debate. No fireworks, no histrionics. Scrap the other two amateur hours and let these guys take over. 551. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:32:22 PM well 552. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:33:33 PM Each time a Vice President runs for office, his opposition tries to play down the effect the VP has had on the administration...whoever wins this race, here's hoping the VP has a LOT of influence. 553. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 10:33:45 PM Two guys who know what they are talking about, and have consistent views --meaning they can pick up the conversation from any entry point -- is a really refreshing evening for a political junkie. 554. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:34:23 PM I think the winners are the viewing audience. 555. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 10:36:13 PM Cheney's answer on gay issues was fascinating. Looked like a father who has a gay daughter, and has thought a lot about the bind he's in as father vs politician. 556. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:36:42 PM true J@H 557. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 10:38:18 PM I am tempted to start an impeach the winner movement. I would ask that good republicans and democrats join together in a sacred pact to impeach the next elected president, whoever that may be so that we could get one of these two. Chenney's past record scares me, but I have the overall impression that he can be reasoned with. 558. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 10:41:02 PM Cheney had the better closing statement. But jeez, I still wish he'd been looking at the camera. 559. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:41:35 PM I can't wait til the next debate; Bush and Gore at the table are going to look soooo much different. I'm sure they will suffer in comparison. Heck, they already are.... 560. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 10:41:45 PM Btw, thanks joe and ducky for the recap of the funny exchange... I'm sorry I missed it. 561. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 10:47:34 PM Things are upside down, the hatchet men are on the tops of the tickets. Weird year. 562. Toenails - 10/5/2000 10:49:28 PM 563. RosettaStone - 10/5/2000 10:49:41 PM No draw as far as NBC independent voters are concerned. Nine for Cheney. One for Liberman. 564. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 10:52:15 PM Now that's weird. 565. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:52:25 PM what's funny is that watching the NBC coverage, Brockaw said the ticket couldn't be flipped! haha 566. RosettaStone - 10/5/2000 10:55:51 PM It was a focus group that NBC had immediately after the debate ended. 567. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:58:08 PM I think people voted Cheney as a winner because Lieberman has a weaker voice and Cheney seemed more decisive; Liebermans delivery is weak even though what he says is very well thought out and makes sense. 568. RosettaStone - 10/5/2000 10:58:57 PM God, I wish I could go over to TT and start a provocative headline thread in TT's White House folder. 569. Al D - 10/5/2000 10:59:47 PM They both did well. I actually enjoyed Lieberman. He's a good man. Bush was highly criticised for picking Chenney because he would not help politically. Bush took a risk and picked him for the qualities he possessed. 570. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 11:00:13 PM The ABC poll asked about the ticket...Bush/Cheney went up 1% and Gore/Lieberman went down by the same percentage. 571. RosettaStone - 10/5/2000 11:02:26 PM The news media have been constantly making fun of Dick Cheney the last few weeks. Watch that change now. 572. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 11:14:44 PM Stone -- 573. MsIvoryTower - 10/5/2000 11:30:43 PM I see I'm late in adding my voice to the hurrahs for tonights debate. What a great event to watch. I caught the commentary on the Leherer Hour afterwards and the republican partisan pollster was lamenting the lost opportunities Cheney let pass to hammer his opponents. 574. Al D - 10/5/2000 11:41:22 PM It does puzzle me that some of the major concerns of the '92 election seem to be off the table. Have aids and the homeless problems really gone away? Or does the media set the agenda for what the questions will be? 575. Al D - 10/5/2000 11:42:25 PM Mele 576. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 11:47:41 PM Gee Al -- 577. Al D - 10/5/2000 11:49:30 PM Mele 578. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 11:53:05 PM That's alright Al -- 579. mgleason - 10/6/2000 12:00:39 AM I have to agree with one of the first things that Paul Gigot said after the debate: 'The real winner is the status quo.' 580. CalGal - 10/6/2000 12:40:57 AM Actually, AIDS and the homeless were big issues in 88, weren't they? 92 was the economy, stupid. 581. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 12:47:33 AM You mean there isn't any screaming and yelling in here? Did someone cut Ace's tongue out? 582. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 12:50:38 AM "The news media have been constantly making fun of Dick Cheney the last few weeks." 583. Stumbo - 10/6/2000 12:54:28 AM Screw ticket reversal; how about Cheney/Lieberman? (I'd even settle for Lieberman/Cheney.) 584. vonKreedon - 10/6/2000 1:19:33 AM 585. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 1:22:18 AM 586. vonKreedon - 10/6/2000 1:24:57 AM 587. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 1:28:19 AM 588. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 1:29:22 AM 589. EricCartman - 10/6/2000 3:47:36 AM I wasn't sure if I was watching the Presidential Debate or Robin Byrd's Men 4 Men. 590. jonesatlaw - 10/6/2000 6:05:38 AM I am amazed that Dick Chenney even admitted to contemplating some form of equalizing property rights and spousal type rights for ill partners for gay couples. I am mildly surprised to see Lieberman do the same, given his social conservatism on issues of morality. 591. jonesatlaw - 10/6/2000 6:11:16 AM I am also surprized at how off limits the impeachment has been. Neither side wants to claim the issue. Bush mentioned scandal only in regard to the Buddist temple and the Lincoln Bedroom. 592. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 8:14:55 AM It is embarrassing to think that a predator chief executive, accused of sexual harassment by a government worker in another case, would take advantage of an young, over-sexed intern in the White House's Oval Office. Over and over again. 593. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 8:26:20 AM And this has what to do with the debates? 594. theDiva - 10/6/2000 8:29:02 AM Watched about 20 minutes of last night's debate. I was pleasantly surprised at how civilized and gentlemanly both candidates were. Either one of them would make a much more dignified president than the yapping Pekingeses they're running with. 595. Thoughtful - 10/6/2000 8:44:00 AM I woke up in a cold sweat last night from a terrible nightmare -- it was all about blood-sucking vampires. Then I realized I fell asleep listening to the debate when they were talking about tax policy. 596. Jonesatlaw - 10/6/2000 10:06:10 AM Stone-yellow card. 597. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 10:16:49 AM Re 584-587: IMO the danger for Bush is that Cheney showed Gore exactly how he should be comporting himself vis-a-vis the governor. If "Cheney" Gore had debated Bush in the first debate, it might have been a snoozer, but it certainly would have been a one-sided ass-whupping that likely would have ended the Bush candidacy. Moreover, the second presidential debate will be in this format (I think), meaning Gore gets a second chance. 598. glendajean - 10/6/2000 10:17:48 AM I, too, was surprised at Cheny's comments on gay marriage, and assume that having a lesbian daughter may have made him re-think his party's strong anti-gay rhetoric. 599. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 10:25:52 AM FWIW, two more bloopers from Gore's Tuesday night performance: 600. rubberducky - 10/6/2000 10:30:00 AM choosey voters choose Dick: 601. glendajean - 10/6/2000 10:35:47 AM The NBC undecided group in Orlando thought Cheney won, too. 602. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 10:39:18 AM IJ: 603. rubberducky - 10/6/2000 10:46:09 AM yeah, so what? 604. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 11:00:48 AM Judith: I just don't see them as the same thing and believe that if you parse any politician's language you'll find items like what you describe. For example, imagine a discussion about who is "responsible" for today's economy if Bill Clinton and Al Gore had to use the kind of circumspection you're asking of George Bush. 605. Jack Vincennes - 10/6/2000 11:08:33 AM Cheney did win. He was natural, comfortable, nonplussed, and a consumate professional. Lieberman was natural, comfortable, nonplussed, but a little too obsequious. 606. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 11:15:44 AM Isn't being obsequious a GOOD trait in a VP? 607. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 11:18:42 AM Jack: I concur. 608. RustlerPike - 10/6/2000 11:19:06 AM 609. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 11:19:26 AM IJ: 610. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 11:20:39 AM I agree on natural, comfortable, and nonplussed, and would add knowledgeable and articulate to both of them. You considered Lieberman obsequious, and I would consider Cheney's voice a soporific. Each won a few different discussions. I thought it was draw, but thought that while Cheney did a lot to help his image, and he may have put himself in position to be a potential nominee in 2004 if Bush loses, he did little to help Bush's electoral chances. The pundits like to say that a tie goes to the challenger, but I think it is more common that a tie goes to the status quo. You have to give people a *reason* to want change. 611. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 11:22:43 AM Oh please, please, please do not start with that Bore and Gush crap. It wasn't funny the first 14,000 times Bill Maher tried to get a laugh with it and it still isn't. 612. Jonesatlaw - 10/6/2000 11:25:39 AM I don't think that Chenney won as handily as the panels seem to suggest. I agree with Jack that Chenney did a fine job. I think that Lieberman needed to hit the Bush tax cut issue harder- that's money going out at the front end and it is certain, while the future surpluses are speculative. 613. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 11:34:55 AM Judith: 614. DanDillon - 10/6/2000 11:39:36 AM The VP debate was surely worth watching, thanks solely to the humanity and the humor these two candidates were willing to exhibit. If there was a winner, though, it was Dick. His wit far outsparkled Joe's. His line about helping the Senator get into the private sector was a perfect zinger. Otherwise, the discussion, more a Sunday morning news show than a debate, was scarcely worth paying any mind. 615. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 11:43:11 AM IJ: 616. glendajean - 10/6/2000 11:52:15 AM One of the chattering folk last night on tv talked about the difference between first debates and second debates. 617. Jack Vincennes - 10/6/2000 11:54:05 AM Jones 618. CalGal - 10/6/2000 11:58:05 AM I thought Lieberman was talking about that silly equal pay for equal work notion. 619. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 12:03:01 PM What's silly about equal pay for equal work? 620. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 12:04:27 PM Jack - as if Gore was a big pussy who neede Lieberman to stroke him publicly. 621. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 12:07:39 PM Bubbaette - What's silly about equal pay for equal work? 622. CalGal - 10/6/2000 12:09:54 PM Bubba, 623. CalGal - 10/6/2000 12:10:37 PM Ack. I mean "If you still wonder why that's silly", of course. 624. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 12:17:04 PM You forget bubbaette -- in J.J.'s world all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. 625. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 12:17:45 PM Yeah, that equal pay question did come out of left field. Since I had no idea whether or not an Equal Pay act had been passed in 1963, I thought he handled it well. It slightly annoyed me that Lieberman had to answer the two "left field" questions (equal pay and racial profiling) first. It further annoyed me that after Shaw mistakenly went to Lieberman first, inadvertantly, his correction was to have Cheney first answer a question about whether *he wanted to attack Lieberman*. 626. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 12:22:03 PM Cellar - Confess. You are really Orwell's love child, aren't you? 627. Toenails - 10/6/2000 12:23:40 PM 628. Orca - 10/6/2000 12:33:36 PM Can anyone tell me why Republicans are so ecstatic about the fact that their vice-presidential candidate looked so much better than their presidential candidate? 629. Jack Vincennes - 10/6/2000 12:39:57 PM 25 millions watched Lieberman and Cheney. As for Bush and Gore: 630. Jack Vincennes - 10/6/2000 12:40:26 PM A spokesman for the commission based in Washington, D.C., said Thursday that its members were in Danville, Ky., for the vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. Calls to the Danville offices of the commission were not returned Thursday. 631. Jack Vincennes - 10/6/2000 12:40:34 PM 632. Jack Vincennes - 10/6/2000 12:41:32 PM Orca 633. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 12:48:08 PM Or Dana Carvey's "Ahhnold" suit from SNL. 634. CalGal - 10/6/2000 12:49:16 PM That's interesting; I read preliminaries that said much higher numbers. They were that night, though, so and probably from the Commission. 635. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 1:11:27 PM What's silly about equal pay for equal work? 636. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 1:21:29 PM Bubbaette - To my mind "equal pay for equal work" means that two people doing the same job should be paid the same. 637. CalGal - 10/6/2000 1:24:53 PM Exactly. I don't see how Bernie could have been referring to anything but the secretary/plumber sort of equal pay. He's not an idiot. 638. Orca - 10/6/2000 1:27:36 PM Jack: Does not compute. Lieberman was not more impressive than Gore. Cheney was far more impressive than Bush. It escapes me how this is considered a plus for the ticket. Rather, it underscores the weakness of the man at the top, something you probably don't want to impress upon the voters. 639. Dusty - 10/6/2000 1:33:15 PM Orca 640. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 1:47:26 PM JJ 641. janjon - 10/6/2000 2:10:23 PM A very good evening. Cheney impressed me more because I had lower expectations of him. Lieberman's "folksiness" came close to being cloying from time to time, but he didn't go over the line. The questions were better than for the Gore/W. to-do. 642. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 2:19:39 PM Bubbaette - comparable worth refers to a spate of proposed legislation back in the 80's that would try to establish that "comparable" jobs -- those involving equivalent amounts of effort and traiing -- should be paid the same. 643. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 2:23:04 PM janjon - We've come a long way from "restoring honor and dignity in the White House," boys and girls. 644. rubberducky - 10/6/2000 2:27:15 PM And if Gore is elected, we will be even farther. But then, I guess there are people who don't see honor and dignity in the White House as a good thing. 645. jonesatlaw - 10/6/2000 3:21:31 PM It seems that if the GOP was sure of itself, it would be all over Gore for standing by Clinton's immoral behavior and the partisan block vote by democrats who prevented conviction. I think that they are afraid to continue the politics of "personal destruction" or to "restore honor to the White House" because of their experience with Speaker for a Day in the house. 646. CalGal - 10/6/2000 3:25:06 PM I'm not sure we ever had honor and dignity in the White House, so why start now? 647. janjon - 10/6/2000 3:33:26 PM It is just that the warts and even the pimples get known so much more quickly these days. 648. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 3:38:34 PM janjon - I think it is funny that J. Edgar's crossing dressing has become a part of the conventional wisdom. AFAIK, there is only one source for that claim and no corroboration. I guess the claim is just too scandalous and juicy to be ignored, especially since he isn't here to deny it. 649. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 4:02:44 PM JJ -- 650. CalGal - 10/6/2000 4:06:52 PM The $500 credit comes to you as long as you have a kid and make less than 90 something a year single parent, 150 or something a year two parents. (That they have a lower income threshold for singleparents is unbelievably annoying. Like it's not twice as much fucking work?) 651. CalGal - 10/6/2000 4:07:53 PM The daycare tax credit maxes out at $480/year 652. theDiva - 10/6/2000 4:17:59 PM Michael 653. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 4:44:07 PM $75 week × 50 weeks × 15% = $555 654. theDiva - 10/6/2000 4:55:00 PM well, factor in that school is 39 weeks. Full time care for school age kids is around $125/week. 655. Dusty - 10/6/2000 4:55:14 PM Michael Mele 656. CalGal - 10/6/2000 5:02:24 PM Well, that's what I'm saying. I could only figure he was talking about comparable worth because anything else is absurd. If he was really asking about the income discrepancy, then he was an idiot, and Lieberman took the easy way out. 657. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:03:08 PM Actually, I thought that was the dumbest question of the night, that and the question regarding Lieberman's flip-flopping. To be fair, Shaw should have given Lieberman an opportunity to comment on Cheney's track record here. 658. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:06:00 PM Ms: 659. Ronski - 10/6/2000 5:06:07 PM Fifteen years ago, it was generally held by the people who come up with these figures that a woman made about 55 cents to every dollar a man made. 660. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:08:56 PM Spade, 661. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 5:11:43 PM I thought Shaw's dumbest move was saying (paraphrased), "For the purposes of this question you are black and have been the victim of racial profiling. How do you feel?" 662. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 5:12:25 PM Are people that ignorant? 663. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 5:18:15 PM I thought Shaw's dumbest move was saying (paraphrased), "For the purposes of this question you are black and have been the victim of racial profiling. How do you feel?" 664. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 5:20:53 PM MM: Exactly. 665. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:24:11 PM With women, it's not the education gap that's the main problem, IMO: experience and investment in the type of education is the main divider. 666. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:27:11 PM Well, as I think about it, that was a pretty dumb question. However, it doesn't rank at the bottom for me. I thought the answers both gave to that were interesting. 667. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 5:32:58 PM I thought the answers both gave to that were interesting. 668. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 5:35:18 PM MsIT: The phrasing of the question was what I thought was dumb (as MM has elaborated on). 669. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:38:52 PM I'm betting their performance will have an impact on the last B-G debate, even if it doesn't have much of one on political decision making. If so, it could (and unjustified hope springs to life here), it could mean we've reached bottom in the "dirt-dreging" campaign tactics of the last 15 years or so. 670. CalGal - 10/6/2000 5:39:53 PM Many people have said that they'd like to see these guys running for 671. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:40:05 PM dredging, that is.... 672. Toenails - 10/6/2000 5:40:27 PM 673. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:42:23 PM IJ 674. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:44:20 PM Toenails, 675. MsIvoryTower - 10/6/2000 5:46:52 PM Grrrr 676. Toenails - 10/6/2000 5:56:02 PM #674...ITower, 677. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 5:58:30 PM If so, it could (and unjustified hope springs to life here), it could mean we've reached bottom in the "dirt-dreging" campaign tactics of the last 15 years or so. 678. Toenails - 10/6/2000 5:59:19 PM Excuse me, everyone. 'Been doing some back-reading and I now notice my most recent comments have earlier been well-explored. 679. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:06:45 PM 680. JayAckroyd - 10/6/2000 6:11:32 PM 658 Ace 681. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 6:13:25 PM Enunciating. Unless you mean to say Gore announced that Kostunica will give birth to a saviour. 682. JayAckroyd - 10/6/2000 6:14:09 PM MM, 683. CalGal - 10/6/2000 6:14:40 PM Yeah, the real problem with that gap is that women buy it in large numbers. Which is why Cheney didn't say anything. 684. Toenails - 10/6/2000 6:18:15 PM Attention to Bush supporters: 685. CalGal - 10/6/2000 6:18:48 PM MM, 686. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:32:19 PM 687. CalGal - 10/6/2000 6:38:08 PM I don't think he put the onus on the Republicans. He asked why the Republicans don't "embarrass" the Dems with the facts. 688. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:43:17 PM 689. CalGal - 10/6/2000 6:45:44 PM Ace, 690. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:49:25 PM 691. CalGal - 10/6/2000 6:58:18 PM Ace, 692. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:00:33 PM 693. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:03:37 PM 694. CalGal - 10/6/2000 7:03:57 PM Well, now you've just blamed the media--which is fairly absurd. But that means it's not the Dems, either. 695. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:05:21 PM 696. CalGal - 10/6/2000 7:07:09 PM Ace, 697. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:07:32 PM 698. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:08:16 PM 699. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:10:33 PM If the Dem's didn't make hay over the issue, there would be no need to pander, as there would be no real consequence for not pandering. 700. CalGal - 10/6/2000 7:16:40 PM Because the R's wouldn't have to pander on this point if the Dem's didn't club them over the head for doing so. 701. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:23:49 PM ""This is incorrect. It's primarily discrimination and societal expectations that we inadvertently women to follow. Better divorce laws, more maternity leave, more protection for women who work the 'mommy track' will solve these problems." 702. CalGal - 10/6/2000 7:29:30 PM Dems wouldn't say this. They'd say "You don't care about the horrible plight of working women." 703. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 7:30:33 PM New York Post---CNN awarded Vice President Al Gore six percent more of the screen when both he and George Bush were shown on a split screen during Tuesday night's debate, The NYPost's Richard Johnson revealed. The other networks, he added, split their screen into equal halfs. 704. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 7:30:46 PM 705. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 7:40:50 PM Stone -- 706. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 7:42:27 PM (AP) CNN: Gore's Panel Bigger in Debate 707. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 7:58:07 PM You don't have to sound like a paranoid, Lucia. Rosie accomplishes that quite well on his own. 708. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 8:27:12 PM RATS! 709. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 8:42:06 PM You don't have to sound like a paranoid, Lucia. 710. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 9:12:16 PM Hey Rosie -- How many pseuds do you have going over in TT? I've lost count. 711. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 9:26:49 PM I'm down to three, from more than sixty. 712. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 9:33:26 PM I think the reason the VP debate went so well is that is was essentially a "meet the press" format, a show and format that both men have experienced countless times. 713. RosettaStone - 10/6/2000 9:55:02 PM "Oh God, man, listen to you! This is disgraceful," Don Imus upbraiding Newsweek's Jonathan Alter for defending the "grain of truth" in Gore's claim he accompanied FEMA's chief to the Texas fire." 714. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 10:30:41 PM Kneecap the cunt. 715. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 11:04:20 PM I'm glad I have this place, David. It helps me calm down after coping with the TT Dems. 716. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 11:04:49 PM er, I mean Cellar 717. Al D - 10/6/2000 11:20:53 PM Mele 718. CalGal - 10/6/2000 11:27:08 PM Watching Washington Week in Review, some interesting points that I hadn't heard before: 719. Al D - 10/6/2000 11:30:10 PM Who would even bother to listen to that Right Wing bunch on Washingon Week in Review. 720. jonesatlaw - 10/7/2000 12:31:29 AM Given the CalGal, Ace and AlD comments, it seems that democracy is not too popular here. Politicians would be more sensible if they didn't have to pander to voters. 721. CalGal - 10/7/2000 12:45:32 AM Politicians would be more sensible if they didn't have to pander to voters. 722. vonKreedon - 10/7/2000 2:15:17 AM 723. RosettaStone - 10/7/2000 3:05:52 AM I'll notify the media. 724. Al D - 10/7/2000 3:09:18 AM jonesatlaw 725. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2000 3:31:24 AM A pandering expert: 726. marshame - 10/7/2000 12:13:24 PM I was confined all week in an "executive institute" in a remote ranch on the Guadalupe River with no TV!!! Does anyone know when/where/how I can see replays of the debates??? 727. CalGal - 10/7/2000 12:16:15 PM I would check CNN's program guide, but since they ran them three times that night they may not bother. But there are probably transcripts (even if they don't include the sighs). 728. OhioSTOPAS - 10/7/2000 5:10:19 PM C-Span is probably your best bet for a replay, but as Cal says there are transcripts available on the web (www.washingtonpost.com for one). 729. Jenerator - 10/7/2000 5:50:15 PM Is that what they're calling mental hospitals these days, "executive institutes"? Makes 'em less aggressive I guess.;-) 730. marshame - 10/7/2000 5:51:41 PM Jenerator, have you no respect for the sanctity of family secrets??? 731. Orca - 10/7/2000 7:47:08 PM Marshame: 732. Michael Mele - 10/7/2000 9:16:16 PM Debate Videos and Transcrits> at c-cpan.org. 733. Michael Mele - 10/7/2000 9:17:03 PM 734. marshame - 10/7/2000 10:15:55 PM Orca 735. MsIvoryTower - 10/8/2000 4:36:33 PM I watched Washington Week in Review today and talking heads put Cheney as the winner of Thursday's face-off. Personally, I would have a hard time choosing between Liberman and him, I thought both had strengths and weaknesses, mostly strengths. I considered it a tie, but the 'heads' thought that Cheney scored big for his ticket because it gave voters some confidence that Bush wouldn't be a complete doofus in the international arena. 736. Jonesatlaw - 10/8/2000 6:28:25 PM Any predictions on how Gore and Bush will behave in their next debtate? Will Bush go more consistently negative? Will Gore continue the sighs and patronizing style? 737. RustlerPike - 10/9/2000 4:46:59 AM 738. rubberducky - 10/9/2000 9:32:42 AM Re: Message # 736, Jonesatlaw. 739. PelleNilsson - 10/9/2000 9:37:30 AM You have abolished capitalisation. Why not punctuation too? 740. rubberducky - 10/9/2000 9:41:25 AM why indeed 741. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 9:47:31 AM "As has been pointed out earlier, extreme partisanship has been a part of US political history, but it was not the standard 30-40 years ago." 742. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 9:47:39 AM 743. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 10:13:25 AM AlD 744. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 10:30:45 AM The media is every bit as vacuous and ambitious as the candidates. This is why the candidates agree upon the tepid and/or the stupid for debate moderators. They would not dare risk a Kinsley or a Will or a Krugman or Matthews as a questioner or moderator, for these individuals are intuitive and may actually require a response to their questions. And if the candidates don't request them, and the media does not insist upon them, you get joint appearances in front of telegenic boobs like Bernard Shaw. 745. janjon - 10/9/2000 10:43:38 AM Oh, no doubt, Gore will lighten up in the second debate. If he can (to which, my guess is probably.) I doubt there will be any more references to specific people and specific events (unless his staff provides him with affidavits that they have researched every single fact and that truth is present.) 746. janjon - 10/9/2000 10:49:05 AM And, as the outlines of the last four weeks of the campaign become clearer, watch for Gore to start using the phrase "Prosperity itself is on the ticket this year" at the debate. The second prong of the Dems. attack will be to show up W.'s record in Texas (W. can't have it both ways. He takes credit for all the good developments down there despite having little real power; ergo, he's going to get blamed for the smog, etc.) I don't see Gore going after that - smacks of going negative. And, Gore CERTAINLY will not be the one to pick up on W's ever-increasing record of muddleheadedness (that video of his meanderings through the thicket of percentages as he tried to explain his tax program in Florida is both hilarious and frightening.) 747. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 11:08:58 AM Moreover, they take on a knowing insiderism that is understanding of non-answers and misstatements in their effort to get to the "essence" of the candidate (a shorthand that elevates all media types to the level of expert and absolves them of knowing much about policy). 748. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 11:13:19 AM Jack: 749. CalGal - 10/9/2000 11:13:59 AM I disagree that this is why voters don't vote. Hell, all of us know and it doesn't stop us from voting. 750. Cellar Door - 10/9/2000 11:15:49 AM 751. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 11:25:30 AM The composition of the turnout in Minnesota for Ventura indicated that disaffected voters don't vote because it doesn't make a difference--as the debates are proving in this race. We're gonna get a set of stooges for the corporate contributors no matter who wins. 752. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 11:27:28 AM Juditha 753. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 11:28:22 AM J@H 754. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 11:30:38 AM Jay 755. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 11:32:17 AM Hey, guys...I agree with you both; I was just pointing out that we did it here, too. 756. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 11:34:31 AM Juditha 757. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 11:36:45 AM And to think some thought this thread wouldn't be very popular.... 758. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 11:38:24 AM "But your bogeymen are, as Cal correctly notes, a sated and homogenized populace." 759. janjon - 10/9/2000 11:44:11 AM Part of Nader's problem is that, no matter how interesting the message, the messenger is about as turgid as a politician can be. Starting with that deep monotonic voice. 760. OhioSTOPAS - 10/9/2000 11:47:07 AM Jack V. (Message # 752): 761. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 11:47:40 AM Nader was pretty good on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. 762. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 11:47:46 AM Jay 763. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 11:52:12 AM Ohio 764. janjon - 10/9/2000 11:53:38 AM Whatever else he is, Nader is not my idea of fun. Serious lifting there. 765. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:00:14 PM A different perspective on that, Jack. I'll take a little overstatement ("lie" seems a bit harsh and contrived)or confusion over badly remembered facts, like whether he went to Texas with Witt regarding those particular fires over the fact that Gore has made 16 trips with him, to what even you probably would admit - it is abundantly clear that W.'s knowledge about many important policy issues is at best a briefing or so deep. It also is clear that he doesn't read much of anything, let alone, "difficult" works and that he is not a reflective person. I'll take the guy who trys too hard to please any day over one who seems to think that this is just one more great float on the river of life. 766. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:01:23 PM Jack-- 767. CalGal - 10/9/2000 12:01:41 PM Your McCain example only works if a significant percenatge of those who voted for him in the primaries "turn off" and don't vote in the general. 768. OhioSTOPAS - 10/9/2000 12:02:44 PM Jack: Your distinction doesn't hold water. Bush's misstatements were not "debatable facts and figures". Bush said Gore had spent more campaign money than he, demonstrably false. Bush called Gore's accurate statement about the size of Bush's proposed tax cuts "phony numbers". Bush made several other misstatements as well. 769. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:06:21 PM janjon 770. OhioSTOPAS - 10/9/2000 12:12:30 PM As you are well-informed enough to know, Jack, most of Al Gore's "record" of falsehoods is the invention of Jim Nicholson and a lazy, looking-for-an-easy-storyline press. 771. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:13:31 PM Jack - as Mark Shields said the other night, Gore has it within him over the next four weeks to neuter this "exaggeration" business. Mostly just by disciplining himself to stay away from those inane little factoids and his tendency indeed to want to say "me too". But, as Shields said, can W. really stop doing or start doing the types of things that will make people stop believing that he really is a 40 watt bulb? 772. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:19:08 PM janjon-- 773. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:25:13 PM Oh, a lot more came out of that 90 minutes, Jay. Gore really was pushing a bit too hard. But, I would still much prefer to spend an evening at a dinner table with him than with W. 774. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:27:41 PM I agree that Gore can do better. I don't think Bush can. 775. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 12:31:56 PM I think Gore can control his habit of exaggeration but I'm not sure Bush can suddenly become smart. 776. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 12:32:23 PM x-post with Jay... 777. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 12:35:37 PM I want #777. 778. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:36:50 PM But you do agree, Judith, that if Gore can't stop it, it is a serious problem? 779. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:37:24 PM As I said last week, I think the era of "real people and real examples" is over. Thank God, if I am correct. That leaves W. with that pithy little slogan, but they've discarded many a slogan already this campaign, what is one more. (Say, wasn't he the guy who said that HIS campaign would stick to the straight and narrow, wouldn't be poll driven, etc. etc. Poppycock then and poppycock now. 780. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:38:51 PM Ohio 781. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:39:27 PM From the Washington Post, 10/5/00 782. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:40:07 PM Bush and Gore had one of their sharpest exchanges on providing prescription drug coverage to seniors, one of the biggest issues in the campaign. Gore complained that Bush would give tax relief to the wealthy in the "first year," but would force someone making at least $ 25,000 to wait four years for a drug benefit. 783. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:40:29 PM Regarding the federal budget, Bush insisted he devotes one-half of projected federal budget surpluses over the next decade to Social Security, one-quarter to "important priorities" and one-quarter to give back to the people in tax cuts. But he comes up with those figures by ignoring the interest costs that accrue from opting for tax cuts or new spending instead of paying off the national debt. 784. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:40:36 PM 785. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:40:51 PM Jay - even I would agree that if Gore can't stop it now, it is a serious problem. If not in and of itself (most of it relates around absolutely inane stuff), but in terms of how it will affect the outcome of this election. Unless, of course, W. continues to stumble as he tries to bluff his way through the next four weeks. Then, it is a pox on both houses and people will more or less decide on the basis of the "real" issues. 786. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:42:57 PM BTW, I don't know that it's fair to characterize Bush as stupid. I think the issue here is ignorance, and a complete lack of interest in policy. That describes plenty of bright people. 787. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:43:14 PM 788. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:44:47 PM toys toys 789. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:45:54 PM jan 790. rubberducky - 10/9/2000 12:47:00 PM Re: Message # 771, janjon. 791. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:47:39 PM jay - oh, I agree. I don't find W. to be stupid and I would bet heavily he is not. But, as you said, he evidences a virtually complete lack of interest in policy. God knows, we've lived with that before and recently too, but... 792. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:49:08 PM I think it has served Bush exceedingly well that people regularly deride him as stupid. To a person, those people are voting for Gore, and in fact, might vote for a chicken were he the Democratic nominee. But it creates an atmosphere where the eggheads look smarmy and the undecideds, who are undecided but not immune to the constant barrage against Bush and his intellect, see Bush, see that he is not a whiz kid but no idiot either, and they are more disposed to him. 793. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 12:50:16 PM Any campaign that does not go negative within the next three days should have its entire command staff lined up against a wall and shot for professional incompetence. 794. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 12:50:43 PM Well, janjon, I'm on the upper east side, so I have plenty of counter examples, including a guy I met at Elaine's who was in W's college class. 795. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:51:12 PM rubber - clarify please. Your cite is in support of what I had just said the Dems. would be doing. Unless you find that going out after W.'s record and his so-called malaprops is stupid or at least not clever. 796. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:57:17 PM actually, someone here hit the nail on the head a couple of weeks ago when they said that the thing about W. which struck them most negatively was his apparent lack of curiosity (this was in the context of his certainty about the correctness of the process in all those people who have been executed in Texas while he's been governor.) 797. rubberducky - 10/9/2000 12:57:39 PM i don't think it "bad" that the campaign is going "negative". it's about time, honestly. people may not like it (or, rather, say they may not like it) but that is what people look to when deciding the issues, imo. that is - who is worse? vote against that person. 798. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 12:58:37 PM The real difference between Repubs and DemCats. 799. janjon - 10/9/2000 12:58:54 PM jack - as is the case more often than it seems (except that your "whopper" is my "mcnugget"), we are in total agreement - they gotta go negative. Both of them. 800. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:04:09 PM janjon-- 801. janjon - 10/9/2000 1:10:22 PM Depends on how you define tougher. To me, it isn't so much questions like the one slung at Hillary again yesterday (along the lines of how could you stay with him), but the ones that are compound or ask for some type of comparative analysis and reaction. I think that W. would have a lot of trouble with these. He really has a strong track record of responding when in doubt with excerpts (relevant or not) from his stump speech(es). These, of course, he can recite without error and therefore in the quickness of these so-called debates (question, answer, rebuttal, on to the next question, etc.) the fact that they may not be very relevant if at all might not be caught. 802. OhioSTOPAS - 10/9/2000 1:11:36 PM I said: "Bush said Gore had spent more campaign money than he, 803. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:14:41 PM I think Jack is quite right about Gore and his exaggeration problem. To expect Gore to straighten out once he's elected is very unrealistic, and quite akin to expecting Clinton to keep it zipped once we gave him what he wanted (the Presidency). 804. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:16:01 PM Jay 805. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:16:30 PM I don't mean a personal or mean spirited question. 806. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:18:13 PM So Governor, you believe that Governor Thompson behaved in appropriately in suspending executions in Illinois? And you continue to believe that there have been no errors committed on Death Row in Texas? 807. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:20:05 PM BTW, I think Bush stops with the first paragraph of your answer. He's aiming for the center, remember. 808. janjon - 10/9/2000 1:20:49 PM CalGal. I don't disagree with what you said, actually. Irritating though it may be, I'll gladly put up with Gore's missed or overstated factoids and of aspects of his personality or manner that I for one find much more irritating, like his tendency towards unctuosness, as opposed to what W. doesn't bring to the party in terms of interest or depth. (Not to say that W. also doesn't have a lot of traits that tend to drive me up the wall, like listening to him especially on the radio.) 809. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 1:22:35 PM Jay - So Governor, you believe that Governor Thompson behaved in appropriately in suspending executions in Illinois? 810. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 1:24:19 PM Jay: 811. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 1:25:10 PM Okay Jack, lets do the math on the Bush claim that he's been outspent. 812. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:25:35 PM Jay 813. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:26:23 PM Oh, I forgot. 814. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:26:53 PM Thanks JJB. I was afraid I had the guy wrong. 815. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:28:04 PM jones 816. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:28:11 PM That's a pretty good answer Jack. Do you think Bush could present it? 817. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:28:27 PM Jack, 818. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:31:06 PM Jay 819. janjon - 10/9/2000 1:31:26 PM We know our Jack, and he's no W. 820. janjon - 10/9/2000 1:33:06 PM I doubt very much W. would ever use a word like "ethos". Sound unmanly somehow, eh? Foreign. High-falutin. Even if it is only two syllables. 821. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:33:22 PM Jay 822. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 1:34:50 PM We could keep going with this--you've gotta now navigate the taking of life vs murder problem, the doctor is the premeditated murderer problem, the lack of support for an ethos for preventing pregnancy. 823. janjon - 10/9/2000 1:36:15 PM He does not articulate well. It is a true fact. 824. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:36:56 PM It's not only a matter of articulation, it's a matter of actual opinion held. I doubt he thinks of it that way. That's how you think of it, but I see nothing to convince me that he shares your view. 825. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:38:20 PM Jay 826. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:40:56 PM jan 827. vonKreedon - 10/9/2000 1:41:06 PM 828. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:42:03 PM Ha, ha, ha. 829. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 1:42:57 PM And if we assume that Bush spent the most on the primary, the expenditures are close. The above doesn't take into account the 67.5 million available to both candidates from federal funding, as it is a wash. 830. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 1:45:04 PM Since the Conventions Gore has outspent Bush. In August the numbers are $2,213,786 for Bush to $3,964,069 for Gore (numbers for September will be available Oct 20). The majority of Bush's money was spent during the primaries. 831. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 1:46:13 PM Jack: 832. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:48:25 PM Cal 833. janjon - 10/9/2000 1:50:49 PM Gore's answer on the judicial nominees was refreshingly honest. W.'s was, as Gore pointed out, just code words, intended to reassure his core base and not scare those so-called undecideds. 834. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:51:31 PM Juditha 835. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:51:50 PM Jack, 836. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:52:27 PM Cal 837. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:53:32 PM Jack, 838. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:54:33 PM Cal 839. CalGal - 10/9/2000 1:55:27 PM Jack, 840. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:56:06 PM jones 841. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 1:56:16 PM Well, Jack, Bush is almost too comfortable with himself for my taste. Smugly comfortable, and has been all his little charmed life... 842. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:56:59 PM Cal 843. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:57:41 PM Juditha 844. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 1:58:58 PM too=two 845. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 1:59:14 PM First, Bush's claim is "This man has outspent me." Past tense, no differentiation between primary and after nomination expenditure. Second since McCain was out well before the primaries were over, we can't assume that Bush wasted all his funds on "McCain doesn't want to fund breast cancer research" and didn't run ads for Bush as a great president. 846. CalGal - 10/9/2000 2:01:37 PM Jack, 847. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 2:01:44 PM jones 848. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 2:02:12 PM Jack: 849. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 2:04:02 PM Cal 850. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 2:04:25 PM Jack- you and JJB are retreating to splitting hairs. Bush has outspent everyone. Most of the primary season involved only two candidates- Gore and Bush. We are supposed to accept that Bush was running ads only against the Republicans after he had wrapped up the nomination, and that August is what matters? 851. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 2:04:31 PM On that note. 852. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 2:08:54 PM A good time to leave, Jack. 853. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 2:10:49 PM Jones - I thought the accusation was that Bush had his facts wrong. If he was referring to the post convention spending by both candidates, then he was accurate. You can assume he meant something else, but you have no way to prove it. 854. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 2:11:52 PM jones 855. CalGal - 10/9/2000 2:13:47 PM Jack, 856. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 2:18:12 PM JJB- would your answer be acceptable to you as an explanation from a Gore supporter for one of his statements? You can't prove what he was referring to? 857. OhioSTOPAS - 10/9/2000 2:20:44 PM jonesatlaw finished my Message # 802 better than I would have. 858. Jack Vincennes - 10/9/2000 2:21:57 PM jones 859. CalGal - 10/9/2000 2:33:15 PM Jack, 860. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 2:36:47 PM Jones - would your answer be acceptable to you as an explanation from a Gore supporter for one of his statements? 861. janjon - 10/9/2000 3:18:26 PM Therein lies one of the rubs. "Everyone" seems to agree that one of W.'s handlers boo-boos was not spending much money between the two conventions, leaving a lot of effective ads by Gore unanswered. 862. janjon - 10/9/2000 3:41:15 PM Speaking of code words, the Boston Globe has an interesting article today about W.'s use of the phrase "culture of life" in the debate last week, when responding to the abortion pill question. According to the article, this phrase comes straight from the Pope and is intended to send out a signal to conservative Catholics that W. is with them when it comes to abortion. Here's the article: We All Need a Decoder Ring For the Next Month 863. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 3:58:51 PM janjon - I have trouble believing that "culture of life" is a code phrase to catholics. I think it is a positive version of the "culture of death" phrase that has been popular in certain circles to describe the availability and frequency of abortion in this country. 864. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:11:00 PM I am not Catholic and for that reason alone the little code message just floated over me. So, I have no idea whether it was really code or not. The article says so, and it is from the leading paper in what is probably the most Catholic (well, nominally at least) metropolitan area in the country. 865. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 4:21:10 PM janjon - The article says so, and it is from the leading paper in what is probably the most Catholic (well, nominally at least) metropolitan area in the country. 866. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:24:11 PM Biener. Don't be daft. Have you even read the article? If so, do you find it particularly argumentative? Slanted? Ax to grind? If so, you read it differently than I. 867. JJBiener - 10/9/2000 4:32:34 PM janjon - I am just making fun of you. You will accept any accusation against Bush uncritically. You are so consistent about it, I had to razz you about. 868. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:34:04 PM If constitutionally able, you should call your shots with more acuity, Biener. 869. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:35:39 PM Also, you really , and I mean really don't want to get into a comparative game when it comes to political predictability. You have so many knee jerks that your knickname should be Centipede. 870. Orca - 10/9/2000 4:36:54 PM Mebbe it's just Biener who doesn't notice the code phrases. The rest of us do. Indeed, they are about the only thing that could be said to comprise Bush's reponses: 871. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:40:17 PM Say, orca, I like the cut of your jib. Welcome and stay around. There is usually one or more of a motley crew (Ace, Biener, JackV, concerned, Rosetta) around to ensure some comic relief. 872. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:41:15 PM I forgot Al D, but his role is limited to being the occasional cheerleader for that gang or the spitwad shooter. 873. rubberducky - 10/9/2000 4:47:23 PM so, only right leaning people are "comic relief" 874. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:48:58 PM Not odd at all. It is all a matter of one's perspective. And, I call them the way I see them. 875. rubberducky - 10/9/2000 4:49:34 PM yes, janjon, you can jex do that, i admit 876. janjon - 10/9/2000 4:51:03 PM If that was a play on words, rather clever. If... 877. jonesatlaw - 10/9/2000 5:30:42 PM JJB- "Culture of Life" is indeed familiar to Catholics, and usually associated with the following: 878. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 5:49:58 PM I guess Gore knew that... 879. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 6:47:13 PM 862 880. JayAckroyd - 10/9/2000 6:49:50 PM 863 JJB 881. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 8:47:33 PM Polls show public's preferred way to review candidate debates: 882. joezan - 10/9/2000 10:28:13 PM 883. Al D - 10/9/2000 11:12:10 PM How can something that went right over someones head be recognized it as a positive twist? And this dude thinks others provide comic refief! Nobody on the Mote is as predictable as concerned and his alter ego janjon. 884. Orca - 10/10/2000 12:26:16 AM Yo, Al. I bet Joezan really hates being mistaken for Janjon. 885. jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 12:45:00 AM Joezan- "culture of life" is definitely lifted from Catholic pro-life propaganda. Catholics understandably would think of the Church's teaching of respect for life from conception to natural death. 886. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 12:47:17 AM 887. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 12:57:22 AM Earlier today Ohio compared Bush's policy misstatements with Gore's embellishments. Here's the distinction I draw: 888. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 1:06:50 AM I don't have any new predictions for the next debate. I would hope Bush is not totally complacent, because he really sucked last time and has been extremely lucky to get away with it. I think some people OTOH are looking at that the wrong way: they say it's easier to fake charm than to fake intelligence, so Gore can adjust but Bush can't. I agree with that, but you also have to consider whether Bush can possibly do worse (and "bad" having resulted in about a 10 to 15 point swing in his favor). 889. CalGal - 10/10/2000 1:08:16 AM But even if it is, so what? Does it affect his ability to meet his professional responsibilities? 890. CalGal - 10/10/2000 1:09:33 AM Whoops, you snuck a post in between. My so what? was to 887. 891. Stumbo - 10/10/2000 1:14:44 AM CG: 892. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 1:14:52 AM Cal: Hmmm...I don't know. Lots of people exaggerate their accomplishments, but Gore's tendency seems a bit..."mental" (because he seems not able to stop, no matter what the consequences). 893. jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 1:15:17 AM VonK- good strategies both, but I doubt either will try your track. Too bad. 894. CalGal - 10/10/2000 1:22:47 AM Stumbo, 895. AceofSpades - 10/10/2000 1:25:32 AM "My lord, we just had a president who regularly unzipped his pants as a means of requesting a blowjob, and I don't recall it affecting his ability one way or another to work out a settlement between Palestine and Israel." 896. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 1:26:05 AM 897. AceofSpades - 10/10/2000 1:27:01 AM 898. CalGal - 10/10/2000 1:30:18 AM Ace, 899. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 1:30:33 AM You'd defend him if he were a Republican, in other words. 900. CalGal - 10/10/2000 1:33:13 AM BTW, to forestall Jones, all this bitching about Clinton can go into Politics. 901. AceofSpades - 10/10/2000 1:34:36 AM 902. Stumbo - 10/10/2000 1:39:02 AM CG: 903. AceofSpades - 10/10/2000 1:39:46 AM Prediction: 904. CalGal - 10/10/2000 1:44:57 AM Stumbo, 905. AceofSpades - 10/10/2000 1:51:03 AM "his ability to work with Mitchell and the PMs of both countries was not marred by their knowledge that he fucked an intern with a cigar." 906. Stumbo - 10/10/2000 2:26:18 AM CG: 907. CalGal - 10/10/2000 2:37:08 AM be it about the ability to work out the settlement itself, nor about that settlement's permanence 908. Stumbo - 10/10/2000 2:51:47 AM CG: 909. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 8:59:33 AM Culture of Life 910. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 9:48:23 AM Michael Kinsley in a place we don't mention here notes that amid all this talk of lies, the media routinely accepts obvious lies, such as Dick Cheney being "saddened" by Gore's addiction to embellishment. Or when he says: "They like tax credits. We like tax reform and tax cuts." The Bush plan is full of tax credits. Or when he made the funny crack about the government not having anything to do with his wealth. He got the job because of his government contacts. Haliburton has large government contracts. 911. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:15:26 AM Jay 912. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:16:58 AM One can take what they want from his pathology. Some take it as a trifle and they are confident he can be Martin Sheen in "The West Wing." 913. OhioSTOPAS - 10/10/2000 10:17:03 AM It's an easy-to-construct storyline for reporters and pundits. Gore is the liar, Bush is the dunce. 914. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:21:29 AM Ohio 915. janjon - 10/10/2000 10:24:16 AM Thomas Friedman hit several nails squarely on their heads in his column in today's Times. Here it is: This Emperor In Waiting Truly Has No Clothes 916. Jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 10:27:51 AM Gore's next strategy? 917. OhioSTOPAS - 10/10/2000 10:29:12 AM I love this line from Friedman! 918. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:30:57 AM From Friedman 919. janjon - 10/10/2000 10:31:22 AM A few excerpts: 920. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:31:40 AM Ohio 921. janjon - 10/10/2000 10:31:50 AM And, a couple of more: 922. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:34:05 AM As for Bush's foreign policy answer on Yugoslavia in the first debate, it appears he was correct. 923. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 10:35:23 AM At the risk of thread drift, I think that's a rather disingenuous characterization by Friedman. Since the Persian Gulf War (which a Republican administration carried out pretty successfully using post Cold War realities), the Republicans have been the legislative branch. Traditionally, the executive branch controls the foreign policy agenda, or the foreign policy agenda suffers. It's almost always considered bad form for the party not in power to advocate a separate approach. 924. CalGal - 10/10/2000 10:37:07 AM It is this stubborn eggheadedness that represents Bush's best shot at winning. 925. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:37:35 AM Indy is correct. Indeed, whenever Congress bucks an opposite party in the White House, that White House pulls out the well-worn stick of "not supporting the troops" and Congress (be it Democratic or Republican) meekly defers. 926. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:38:36 AM Cal 927. adrianne - 10/10/2000 10:39:02 AM 928. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:39:31 AM Cal 929. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 10:40:06 AM Jay, 930. Jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 10:40:10 AM Gore tried to goad Bush into pronouncing some tough names? Doesn't this mean we assume that Bush hasn't had any practice in any other setting? For example, calling Colin Powell and saying- "What does the change in government in mean for our foreign policy? Senator So and So, what's your take on this Kostinuco fellow?" And if he flubs in one of these calls- a friend will help him out. 931. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:41:17 AM jones 932. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 10:43:11 AM "It doesn't matter that a rich businessman may have taken risks, put up his own capital, came up with creative ways to manufacture products, etc. " 933. CalGal - 10/10/2000 10:44:22 AM Ad, 934. CalGal - 10/10/2000 10:45:57 AM Jack, 935. adrianne - 10/10/2000 10:48:49 AM 936. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:50:33 AM Cal 937. PelleNilsson - 10/10/2000 10:52:31 AM Is it true that Jay is a communist? 938. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:53:16 AM Pelle 939. janjon - 10/10/2000 10:53:41 AM Pelle - to put it in terms that you will most appreciate, I would be sure that that charge is a red herring. 940. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 10:54:48 AM I don't know how to pronounce "Kostinuco" correctly, but one of the shows I saw said Gore didn't pronounce it correctly either. But you can bet that a bigger deal would be made of Bush mispronouncing it. 941. CalGal - 10/10/2000 10:55:00 AM Jack, 942. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 10:55:06 AM "It has big government in it and he doesn't like that, but he realizes it's a necessity for the moment." 943. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 10:55:39 AM Cal 944. CalGal - 10/10/2000 10:56:02 AM I thought Jay was anarcho-capitalist or something like that. 945. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 10:56:18 AM Pelle, 946. PelleNilsson - 10/10/2000 10:58:47 AM The logical follow-up is to ask who this Cygnus fellow is, but I'm not sure I want to know. 947. PelleNilsson - 10/10/2000 10:59:45 AM janjon 948. CalGal - 10/10/2000 10:59:49 AM Oh, I didn't realize that Pelle was asking a question based on that post (because I hadn't bothered reading it). Sorry. 949. Indiana Jones - 10/10/2000 11:00:19 AM Cal: I got it too. We conservatives laugh mostly on the inside. 950. Jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 11:00:36 AM Non verbal communications- edge to Bush- 951. janjon - 10/10/2000 11:00:42 AM Incidentally, Pelle, you of all people should be acutely sensitive to the fact that you indeed have introduced a red herring in this thread. Topicality and consistency - those are usually your mottoes. 952. rubberducky - 10/10/2000 11:01:43 AM Jay 953. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 11:03:19 AM But if you must know, I don't fit any of the categories. I guess I'm some kind of glorified utilitarian. Independent? I was registered democrat so I could vote in primaries in my mostly democratic district, but they don't have primaries anymore, except for president. 954. Jack Vincennes - 10/10/2000 11:05:14 AM I think ducky had a rough row to hoe following my glittering administration, and he is performing as well as any man could given similar circumstances and precedents. 955. PelleNilsson - 10/10/2000 11:06:22 AM janjon 956. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 11:07:15 AM The logical follow-up is to ask who this Cygnus fellow is, but I'm not sure I want to know. 957. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:07:52 AM Jay, Re Message #932: 958. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:10:58 AM Jay, 959. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 11:12:52 AM The only way to acquire the kinds of connections Cheney had is through government. Why do you think Tom Downey is a lobbyist? 960. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:13:48 AM bubbaette, slow your roll. Don't get all indignant just because you enjoy the feeling of it. The "you communists" I was referring to was not Jay per se, but anyone reading the thread who is in fact a communist at heart. In other words, anyone who supports Al Gore. 961. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 11:13:52 AM I don't think either of them will come close. But Gore doesn't say that he's opposed to doing so. 962. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:15:10 AM btw, bubbaette, do you know what fascism is? 963. janjon - 10/10/2000 11:15:32 AM Oh, Pelle. I hope the sting was but a moment. Actually, I am one of those who believes that threads should be expected and allowed to meander here and there within rather flexible limits. Life that is too compartmentalized is dull. 964. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 11:15:37 AM CX, are you saying that Bush really is gonna take the coherent course I outlined, but just can't say so? 965. Jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 11:19:52 AM Please, we have a perfectly good politics thread here. I don't want to steal its material. While we have some latitude to divert temporarily on issues that relate to the debates, if your post is a "hooray for our guy and raspberries for the other guy" take it to politics. If it is raspberries for debate responses, or strategies for the same etc, then it is most welcome here. 966. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:20:01 AM Jay, then what Cheney owes his success to is not government per se, but the politics of pull, graft and corruption, misuse of power, etc. Now, you can argue that this is government because that's what our government has turned into and that is fostered by Al Gore's big government policies, but it's not the government that was intended for this country. 967. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 11:22:09 AM Cygnus 968. Jonesatlaw - 10/10/2000 11:25:31 AM Funny- I always thought Cygnus was supposed to be a bright star... 969. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:26:55 AM The truth hurts, eh bubbaette? 970. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:28:58 AM Actually... 971. Wombat - 10/10/2000 11:29:52 AM Anyone who is not a right-wing conservative clothed in psuedo-libertarian rhetoric is--by a process of elimination--a Communist. Real deep. 972. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 11:31:35 AM Halliburton at the trough 973. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:33:34 AM Jay, 974. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 11:34:43 AM "Jay, then what Cheney owes his success to is not government per se, but the politics of pull, graft and corruption, misuse of power, etc." 975. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 11:40:41 AM Now, despite the source of the autism link, it is mostly tongue-in-cheek. But, as all truth is said in jest (or whatever), it does make you think. 976. ycmeehan - 10/10/2000 11:58:57 AM Well, in respect to the Communist label placed on Gore supporters, I guess I might be a Communist if I resided in Texas and were subjected to the "class warfare" being waged upon the poor and powerless by the rich: for example, the $3.35 per hour minimun wage--the huge tax-cut to Texas millionnaires while the poor communities have sewage running down their streets and walk half a mile for drinking water. 977. Cygnus X-1 - 10/10/2000 12:04:00 PM ycmeehan, I believe this is what you seek. 978. ycmeehan - 10/10/2000 12:17:26 PM Cygnus, How would you describe yourself? 979. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 12:32:54 PM 980. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:52:52 PM could it be? 981. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:53:23 PM How come Lab's picture doesn't come up for me? Is it just me? 982. JudithAtHome - 10/10/2000 12:54:13 PM No, it didn't for me, either... 983. janjon - 10/10/2000 12:54:42 PM no, I draw blanks on his pictures (here and in Sports) today, too. 984. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:54:51 PM The second round of debates is tonight? 985. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 12:55:22 PM 986. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 12:55:45 PM 987. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:56:11 PM The last ones were so boring, I'm tempted to skip the next. 988. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:56:45 PM You know, we're dangerously close to a millennial here. 989. rubberducky - 10/10/2000 12:57:45 PM what's going on? 990. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 12:57:47 PM 991. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:58:05 PM who will it be? 992. JayAckroyd - 10/10/2000 12:58:33 PM We're out of things to say, with over 24 hours to wait for new source material. 993. rubberducky - 10/10/2000 12:58:44 PM you mean just a lousy 1000? 994. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:59:04 PM I hope that the next round covers more territory. 995. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 12:59:07 PM That happened yesterday as well.... 996. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 12:59:19 PM 997. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 12:59:34 PM Now? 998. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 12:59:38 PM Aye...what a time... 999. bubbaette - 10/10/2000 12:59:39 PM I just have to roll my eyes when candidate for national office talk about k-12. They both have bought in, heavily, to the idea that you gotta keep it simple and you gotta repeat and repeat the simple. As I indicated above, with the very large number of voters who even now apparently don't have a clue as to what either of them stands for, I see the logic in doing so. Broadly stated, same principle as most political advertising. Simple little statements of for/against positions, repeated ad naseum. 267. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:42:38 PM Apropos of my comments above about what the undecideds who are looking at issues would have seen last night, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, Tom Oliphant, wrote a concise little column in today's Boston Globe about the abortion issue. Here it is: W. Really Would Prefer For Good Reason That The Abortion Issue Would Just Stay Quietly In The Back Room 268. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 12:44:39 PM Anyone else see Bush snorting and sniffing last night? Wonder if he has nasal problems. 269. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:47:31 PM Not that we will ever know, but anyone want to speculate just how many man/woman hours went into determining just what put down phrase (like in fuzzy matn ) W. would use and when. 270. Dusty - 10/4/2000 12:49:39 PM JJBiener 271. Al D - 10/4/2000 12:55:58 PM janjon 272. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:56:09 PM Gore won (or lost) the toss re who got the first question. 273. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:57:04 PM Al D - and exactly who are you to tell me what to say and when? Bug off. 274. Al D - 10/4/2000 1:02:34 PM janjon 275. bubbaette - 10/4/2000 1:03:28 PM I fault Lehrer for not taking more control. The most obvious area was failure to control time, but I think a good moderator would have noted when the speaker did not respond to the question. Both were guilty of this, and I think it should be pointed out more. 276. vonKreedon - 10/4/2000 1:03:46 PM 277. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:04:30 PM AlD kisses janjon's boo-boo. 278. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:05:41 PM Al D. Helpful? Gratuitous and pointless. Bug off. 279. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 1:12:02 PM My take: 280. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 1:16:15 PM Janjon: Take my advice. Silence is a great peacemaker. 281. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:17:50 PM Rask 282. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:18:26 PM Stone. Not particularly interested in peace. Granted, he's harmless. But, irritating nonetheless. 283. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:21:46 PM I don't disagree about the condescension concerns re Gore. But, in today's political climate, what drives people up the wall much more (understandably considering the barrage we all get) is going negative or being perceived as doing so. 284. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 1:22:08 PM Jay, Re Message #240: 285. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 1:23:48 PM Yeah, I noticed that G.W. sniffed a little. I also noticed that Al Gore droned on like stoned imbecile. 286. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:26:24 PM 287. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:26:38 PM Gore = Little Eddie (Munsters) all grown up? 288. Dusty - 10/4/2000 1:34:41 PM labwabbit 289. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:35:29 PM 290. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:36:55 PM 291. CalGal - 10/4/2000 1:37:08 PM Gore said lockbox twice, I thought. Once about SocSec, once about Medicare. 292. Dusty - 10/4/2000 1:40:43 PM Gore used the term "lockbox" four times. It seemed like more, probably becuase it irritates the hell out of me, but it was more than twice. 293. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 1:41:35 PM Ace: I also wonder about Gore's statement re his uncle who was gassed in the Balkans. 294. Dusty - 10/4/2000 1:44:14 PM 295. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:46:50 PM "To my knowledge Americans served almost exclusively on the Western Front during WWI. Now it's also true that Gore could simply have slipped up and meant France, but in that case, bringing in his uncle was totally irrelevant to the point he was making, which was about Kosovo." 296. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:50:11 PM It was definately more than twice. He used the term in both subjects, but uttered the term repetitively as metaphorical reference. 297. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 1:51:32 PM Cyg- 298. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 1:55:00 PM 299. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 1:56:39 PM Did Gore say his uncle was gassed in the Balkans? I don't remember perfectly, but I recall his saying that Europe fought World War I began in the Balkans, and that his uncle was gassed there (there meaning Europe). 300. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 1:57:31 PM I think that both candidates did stray from the rules they negotiated before the debates. Gore did so first, and probably most. Bush then followed suit. Leher did not control the debators effectively, and seemed to invite them to break the rules in addressing each other with questions. Again, I think Gore was the first express offender, and Leher called him on it. 301. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 1:58:46 PM #298 302. Wombat - 10/4/2000 1:59:25 PM American troops were also stationed in Italy in WWI, and I am sure there were liaison staff with the Army of the Orient in Salonika. 303. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 2:00:35 PM Indy, Rask: 304. Wombat - 10/4/2000 2:01:46 PM Perhaps Clinton should have kept li'l willie in a lock box. 305. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:04:09 PM labwabbit 306. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:04:33 PM I think he did...just not his own. 307. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 2:05:01 PM Rask: Here's the quote... 308. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 2:07:41 PM (Previous was cross-posted with Ohio.) BTW, Ohio, I agreed with a post you made upthread and was pleased to see you actually offer some criticism of Gore. 309. Wombat - 10/4/2000 2:08:07 PM Oh come on, Indy. He meant in World War I. I daresay someone will comb the records to find out whether his uncle was actually in the Army, and whether or not he got gassed. 310. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:10:59 PM And though Gore firmly believed the war was wrong, presumably he felt it unnecessary to express that view by say, refusing to participate in an action he considered immoral, or by risking a prison sentence instead, or by seeking conscientious objector status if his view was based on an overriding religious principle, or by leaving the country and campaigning against the war in another nation. 311. msgreer - 10/4/2000 2:11:53 PM 800-973-2211. Curious? Go to Health Thread. 312. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:14:23 PM OhioSTOPAS 313. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 2:15:05 PM Wombat: Sure someone will. And I didn't intend to make too much of this point. But even giving Gore the benefit of the doubt, read the entire statement above and see what you think of that detail's rather kitchen-sink inclusion. 314. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/2000 2:15:53 PM Jay, 315. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:19:14 PM I don't know enough about how the draft worked. (I got a high number, and didn't bother to learn details). For someone who does know, is the following accurate:? 316. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:19:29 PM 317. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:20:37 PM Dusty 318. Al D - 10/4/2000 2:21:41 PM saying "umm" 319. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:22:19 PM Here we are parsing Al Gore's words again. Why? Because Gore has a weakness for family tales that put heart breaking fizz into his brand of snake oil. 320. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:24:00 PM labwabbit 321. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:24:24 PM ...ummm, I give up. 322. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 2:25:34 PM umm, no idea Al. who are you thinking of? 323. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:26:28 PM Ronski. All I get is the lead-in page. If that is as it should be, a little guidance as to where to go please. 324. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:28:27 PM Some Florida Republicans Come to Their Senses 325. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:28:54 PM Sorry, that should have gone into Politics. 326. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 2:29:03 PM Dusty 327. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 2:29:43 PM Dusty -- 328. Dusty - 10/4/2000 2:30:22 PM labwabbit 329. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:31:12 PM janjon, 330. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:38:32 PM ronski. Having not read the article, I really can't say I agree with it, but I certainly agree with your summary. For the reasons I gave above - Gore by far has the advantage with respect to the issues that will count with these great undecideds. 331. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:42:29 PM BTW - and, FWIW, the Iowa Electronics Market graphs now show that the narrowing of the margin between Gore and Bush has not only stopped, but there is a trend of several days now of Gore (who has been in the lead for some time now) steadily increasing the margin between him and W. The prices are now .6 for Gore and .4 for W. 332. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 2:45:31 PM Strictly on a linguistic level, the "umms" and "uhs" from both candidates did not distract me as much as Bush's use of "you lnow" at least two times that I noticed. 333. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:49:26 PM In W.'s defense, I don't recall a single "you lnow". 334. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:49:40 PM Ronski, 335. Ronski - 10/4/2000 2:53:18 PM 336. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 2:56:33 PM I have only one thing to say about the debate. 337. janjon - 10/4/2000 2:59:53 PM Finally got the article to print, ronski. 338. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/4/2000 3:00:04 PM janjon: 339. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:00:36 PM I thought Germond was Baltimore Sun, or did he leave that years ago and I missed it? 340. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:00:59 PM Jack - no comment, not even a little one, about W.'s story about crying with some disaster victims because that is what governors do? 341. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:01:35 PM but I also thought he was syndicated. 342. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:02:41 PM irving. forgive me, since it was small of me to have done so, but I was just having a bit of fun with your typo as in "you lnow". 343. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:02:47 PM Do governors go to disasters and cry? I thought governors appointed judges. They do a lot, you know. 344. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:03:05 PM janjon 345. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:06:21 PM no. I'll blech to all of that too. And, as you know, I most certainly am not out of date. 346. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:07:01 PM Oh, the props were stupid. Used a great deal by both of them. Idiotic. 347. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 3:08:37 PM How is lnow pronounced? 348. RosettaStone - 10/4/2000 3:08:38 PM The prop that keeps on giving. 349. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:09:18 PM just wait till the town hall debate occurs. Junkie that I am, even I am tempted to find something different to do that evening. 350. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:09:29 PM If we were their targets, we wouldn't be saying "blech", we'd be saying, "Oy!" 351. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 3:09:34 PM "But I am hopelessly out of date." 352. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:09:36 PM Cal 353. glendajean - 10/4/2000 3:09:53 PM Jack -- you're not out of date, but hopelessly out of sync. They all do that stuff and have been for sometime. I read where Kennedy in private used to do the equivalent of "blech" everytime Nixon would make some reference to himself and his wife usually related to a story. 354. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:10:20 PM If a man can't have his blech, he's lost everything. 355. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:11:21 PM As I recall, Reagan started the prop crap with his State of the Union addresses, by having the now predictable mix of hard luck/inspiring finish, multi-raced and ethniced (sic) souls there to stand (if capable of doing so) and bow (again, if capable) for their 14 seconds of fame. 356. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 3:11:39 PM JV 357. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:12:01 PM glenda 358. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 3:12:12 PM "If a man can't have his blech, he's lost everything." 359. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:12:59 PM >Wild Catholic boys (you and that other Jack) never sat through three sermons a week where preachers were always hitting straw men, telling moving made up stories with the attempt to focus on some telling detail as if it stood out as proof of whatever point they were arguing. 360. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:14:03 PM lab 361. Ronski - 10/4/2000 3:15:40 PM janjon, 362. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:16:48 PM 363. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:17:46 PM Since I don't read the Baltimore Sun, and have seen more than a few columns (or maybe they were articles done free lance or other than on an on-going syndicated basis) I'll have to try to recollect when and where. 364. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:18:14 PM Jack, 365. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:18:48 PM I have it on good authority that prior to the next debate, instead of the traditional handshake, Gore will tongue-kiss Bush in hopes of another bounce. 366. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:19:07 PM Jan, 367. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:19:12 PM I count 7 Gore, 9 Bush and 1 Lehrer. 368. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:19:48 PM Cal 369. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:20:48 PM Jack, 370. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 3:20:49 PM I have it on good authority that prior to the next debate, instead of the traditional handshake, Gore will tongue-kiss Bush in hopes of another bounce. 371. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 3:21:12 PM Dusty 372. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:21:54 PM Cal 373. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:22:01 PM janjon 374. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:22:53 PM janjon 375. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:22:59 PM For example, Jack, snap polls indicate that voters impressions of both candidates improved modestly last night. 376. Ronski - 10/4/2000 3:23:11 PM Germond and Witcover are syndicated, and the Sun is owned by the Chicago Tribune Company, which now owns tons of stuff. 377. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:25:35 PM It's good to know that our candidates are in the know, you know? 378. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:29:05 PM Dusty. If Reagan was in fact the one who first introduced this smarmy use of REAL People to show how REAL problems and REAL solutions work out, then, yeah, lets blame both Gore's and W's use of same on the Great Communicator. (I don't recall whether Poppy used the people in the audience shtick in his State of the Union addresses; Clinton obviously milked it for all it was worth and then some.) 379. Dusty - 10/4/2000 3:33:43 PM janjon 380. janjon - 10/4/2000 3:40:11 PM Well, Dusty, let me put it another way. Assume for the moment that this use of real people and their specific stories started with Reagan. Assume that "his people" then decided that such usage worked - either in terms of helping to dramatize programs which had worked or problems which needed solving. Assume that Bush then used the same technique. Clinton sure as hell did. And, here we are. Both camps obviously have concluded that putting real names and faces on issues somehow helps get their points through. It may make me and perhaps you want to puke, but hey, no one is taking my reaction into account. 381. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:52:09 PM Long and short - the polls and other data these boys use must clearly tell them that putting a name and face on it works. Jack's permission or not, bleck. 382. Wombat - 10/4/2000 3:54:13 PM That's "Soccermom" unless she beats her mother. 383. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 3:56:14 PM And the Telegensia are no better...when the Beltway boys or Will&Cokie say things, their eyes glitter in anticipation to the upcoming quotes they may generate. 384. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 3:59:11 PM >That's "Soccermom" unless she beats her mother. 385. Dusty - 10/4/2000 4:27:53 PM janjon 386. janjon - 10/4/2000 4:28:07 PM All Things Considered has a piece on right now dissecting last night's debate in terms of factual accuracy. Surprising to anyone to learn that you can find nits (and some nuggets) of not-totally-correct-if-not-just-outright-wrong with respect to some of the "facts" (talking about their programs, not about things like who went to which disaster with whom) thrown out by both of them. 387. janjon - 10/4/2000 4:31:31 PM dusty. you are walking a fine line indeed if you attempt to distinguish between use of the families of four and how W.'s tax plan will leave them with more in their pocket (they, of course, then being urged to tell those reporters around just how much that will mean to them and why) and the tin can lady (being ferried here or there via Winnebago notwithstanding). 388. janjon - 10/4/2000 4:59:51 PM All Things Considering is now doing a satire on the use of real names and stories by politicians. They are taking off on things like the Gettysburg Address, with Lincoln interjecting details about Wilbur who was shot in the leg during the battle by a confederate story, etc. 389. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:14:30 PM Is anyone surprised to learn that W.'s campaign stop talks today in Pennsylvania honed in on: "fuzzy math" (with at least "one well prepared" crowd chanting "no more fuzzy math" at the right moment in Bush's comments) and his repeating the inanity that about Gore inventing both the internet and the calculator (which of course doesn't spew out real numbers, just political ones.) 390. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:15:21 PM I want to know why that guy from Carthage who didn't have to go to Vietnam wasn't in the audience. 391. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:19:41 PM 392. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:20:50 PM And the Supreme Court nominations. They will endure beyond Gore's one or two terms. 393. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:21:57 PM He will if he spends like a sailor. 394. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 5:25:44 PM repeating the inanity that about Gore inventing both the internet and the calculator 395. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:27:38 PM It may take two terms to replace the next batch of SC retirees. Gore may be a one-termer, if Ace is correct. 396. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:28:22 PM 397. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:30:10 PM Those new poll numbers simply mean that W.'s handlers will now take another tack - out the window with issues, and here comes "character flaws = negative ads and stealth whisper campaigns, etc. 398. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:33:20 PM ronski. I dunno. I've heard that Rehnquist had to be convinced to hang on the last year or so (its not so much his age but his back and health generally). Stevens is 80. O'Connor is getting up there and isn't in the best of health. 399. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:34:09 PM Ace - he may have said it, but he's never been able to make it stick. 400. Ronski - 10/4/2000 5:40:43 PM I think Stevens would happily retire in a Gore first term. But I could see Rehnquist and O'Connor sticking it out for another four years. 401. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:43:48 PM They will certainly be encouraged to do so. By the same people who've been doing so the last few years. 402. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 5:43:50 PM Scalia is also reported to be antsy. If Rehnquist walks and Bush elevates Scalia to Chief (Rehnquist was also a lone dissenter when he was elevated, so don't laugh) then Scalia will stay. If Gore wins, I think Scalia will also walk. He's not old, or rich, and fifteen more years in the minority sounds pretty dull, he's been there a long time, it's not like there are any surprising new challenges coming up (after fifteen or so years on the court, he's probably seen it all several times.) He might as well go make some money. 403. janjon - 10/4/2000 5:46:57 PM Scalia might indeed call it a day if he sees the 5-4 going his way much of the time becoming after Gore's first appointment a 5-4 going the other way much of the time. Let alone the prospects of that then becoming 6-3. As I recall, he had a lot of kids and it must be very tempting for him to be able to go out and make a lot of money speaking, writing, and maybe even practicing law. 404. glendajean - 10/4/2000 5:52:06 PM I read somewhere that Ginsburg and O'Connor both have cancer. 405. janjon - 10/4/2000 6:33:02 PM O'Connor had breast cancer some years ago. Ginsberg has been treated during the past year or so for cancer (prostate, as I recall, strange as that may seem). No indications that either of them continue to be ill, but with Ginsberg it may be too soon to say that with any degree of comfort. 406. janjon - 10/4/2000 6:34:44 PM glenda - today's Times had a relatively fulsome article about six or so of the key Senatorial races, leaving the impression that it indeed could end up a 50-50 tie, making Lieberman's decision to continue to run for the Senate an even more crucial one. 407. CalGal - 10/4/2000 6:41:35 PM Scalia is broke, and Congress apparently passed a law to ease the restrictions on the earnings SC justices can make outside their salary pretty much with him in mind. 408. Dusty - 10/4/2000 6:47:51 PM janjon 409. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 6:58:02 PM 314 Cygnus 410. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 7:03:50 PM Dusty, 411. Michael Mele - 10/4/2000 7:08:25 PM It's probably against Senate Rules though. 412. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 7:35:18 PM Jay: It's not illegal, but could theoretically bite them. What the Constitution says is that the electors must vote for either a president or a vice president who is not from their state. Assuming Bush and Cheney win in an electoral squeaker, Texas electors could be forced into voting for someone other than Cheney as VP...in which case no one would have the 270 votes to be Vice President. 413. CalGal - 10/4/2000 8:01:06 PM Jay, Indy: 414. Indiana Jones - 10/4/2000 8:03:02 PM Cal: Yes, he did. But I read elsewhere that it's something that could still be challenged in court. That's why I said "theoretically." 415. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 8:32:41 PM This has become another "Political Thread"....RIP? 416. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 8:50:05 PM So far the discussion has stayed on the debates themselves fairly well. However, there is a drift into the general political theme. STOP THIS INSTANT! This is the 'inside baseball' view of the campaign. So far the thread has trumped the talking heads hands down. Keep up the good work. Once we have completed dissection of the first debate, we can speculate as to the next, or the course of the debates. Please, if you want to continue a discussion that comes up on a more general issue, suggest a transfer to the Politics Today thread. 417. Stumbo - 10/4/2000 9:22:53 PM Janjon, #405: 418. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 9:33:34 PM J@L 419. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 9:38:59 PM jonesey 420. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 9:45:12 PM At ease labwabbit- 421. lemwalker - 10/4/2000 9:45:22 PM Listened to some of the debate on radio. Had to wait till dark to get a station. So only got the verbal. No body language. Gore seemed kinda pushy. Bush seemed to have trouble putting thoughts into words, or remembering his coaching. 422. joezan - 10/4/2000 10:00:30 PM 423. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:06:17 PM Well, it seems that the last debate was well hashed out here by the usual suspects. 424. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:06:44 PM Gore appeared to know his plan well. No surprise there. He also knew Bush's proposals better than Bush. Not good for Bush. He couldn't come up with a response that indicated that he had his own proposals down cold. That would have put the lightweight issue to bed for good. A missed opportunity for Bush. In classic debate, Gore wins. He managed to get his points out, while dissecting Bush's. He had specifics, while Bush painted with the broad brush, and was bloodied on the few exchanges where they seemed to get down to specifics of plans. The exchanges were shaped by Gore, and on terms favorable to him. 425. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:13:18 PM I will open the next can of worms- what should Bush or Gore do differently in the next round? Style as well as substance are in play here. 426. Al D - 10/4/2000 10:22:46 PM I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that Gore had made a comment that he would have a litmus test for Department of Defense when it came to a position on homosexuals. Bush should use this. I also think Bush should bring up the issue of BSA being booed at Democratic convention. He should also bring up Gore's acceptance of the joke told by the Hollywood mogul about Christians Bush barely touched on parental notification for minors having an abortion. Perhaps he could ask Gore who would be a better advisor for his children? 427. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 10:33:39 PM 428. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 10:39:54 PM Unlikely that any of our beloved candidates will take a stand on any issue(s) where major battle lines are drawn. Look for more voodoo economic-based banter/exchanges in subsequent "debates" prior to election day. Come to think of it, the sidestepping-softshoe show only changes after the election as all lights become directed to one ring within the perpetual-circus tent. 429. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:53:27 PM Lab- okay, message received. I'm new at hearding rabbits, and will try not to shout anymore. 430. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 10:55:30 PM Ace- did you see Bush's face while Gore was "correcting him" on his prescription proposal? He flashed an expression like he was thinking "holy shit, did we really say that?" 431. RustlerPike - 10/4/2000 10:57:50 PM 432. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 11:12:32 PM "Ace- did you see Bush's face while Gore was "correcting him" on his prescription proposal? He flashed an expression like he was thinking "holy shit, did we really say that?"" 433. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 11:15:01 PM 434. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:31:12 PM Ace- Bush's official website "setting the record straight" on the prescription issue- 435. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:44:44 PM Bush's position paper- 436. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:45:51 PM Governor Bush will also reform and strengthen Medicare on a bipartisan basis. 437. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:46:36 PM So far, I haven't found reference to the Helping Hand relied on by Bush. 438. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:49:58 PM RATS! TOYS 439. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:51:24 PM From the Gore campaign- 440. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 11:52:10 PM What should Gore do in the next debate? How about tell the truth for once. It would be a refreshing change for him. He can even pick the subject. You can't get fairer than that. 441. jonesatlaw - 10/4/2000 11:52:10 PM Gore Campaign continued- 442. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:00:55 AM A search for Helping Hand produced this speech text from Bush- 443. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:05:59 AM Compare Bush's reliance on state's pooled buying power to lower drug costs with his criticism of Gore's plan for a similar buying pool in post #434. 444. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 1:09:57 AM Dusty: 445. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 1:42:37 AM Dusty: 446. Stumbo - 10/5/2000 1:52:55 AM And, while we're at it: 447. Michael Mele - 10/5/2000 2:08:39 AM Does anyone want to hear that 65% of old people (enough with the "seniors" dodge) already have prescription drug coverage. The urgency is to get help to those who aren't currently covered. Just as the urgency in the larger healthcare debate is those who aren't covered. 448. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 8:48:16 AM J@L 449. Dusty - 10/5/2000 9:26:58 AM IrvingSnodgrass 450. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 9:40:23 AM rubberducky- Thank you. I thought that I should reign in my partisanship a bit, to help insure evenhanded treatment in the thread. 451. JayAckroyd - 10/5/2000 9:44:13 AM Janjon quotes an article paraphrasing Bush: 452. JayAckroyd - 10/5/2000 9:55:34 AM What should each guy do? 453. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:22:51 AM Jay: 454. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:23:18 AM I assume no one is interested in the VP debates? 455. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:23:38 AM Make that "debate." 456. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:29:05 AM who do you think will win IJ? 457. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 10:34:53 AM I have to take exception to the notion that HMO's were developed on Clinton/Gore's watch. I first belonged to an HMO in 1985 and they were well-established and touted as a means of controlling insurance costs well before 1993. 458. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:43:17 AM Ducky: Your prediction is likely accurate, though I think Cheney won't be "endless" (seems to be a man of few words) nor as abrasive as Gore. Cheney won't be as overwhelming as Gore, and Lieberman won't be as lost as Bush. I don't expect either VP candidate will be abrasive toward the other and that both will keep the debate on the up and up. 459. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:50:13 AM i'd agree IJ 460. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 11:03:07 AM interesting.... Nader is up to 7 points after the debate 461. labwabbit - 10/5/2000 11:50:29 AM Message # 429 462. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 11:52:19 AM Dusty: 463. janjon - 10/5/2000 11:53:19 AM I predict that Lieberman will clean Cheney's clock tonight - with a smile and wit. The smile and wit are, of course, major reasons why he will do so. Joe clearly is a master at hurling zingers in a way that seem positive, not negative. He's also no slouch when it comes to knowing his policy. As best I can tell after having watched and read about Cheney since the nomination, he simply is incapable of demonstrating enthusiasm or not being boring. Mind you, I think that a so-called debate format where the attention is focused on just the two of them will do a lot to minimize Cheney's problems when it comes to campaigning in a crowd, but...he really is Mr. Bland and Joe is anything but. 464. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/5/2000 11:55:46 AM I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Some of the most memorable debates I've seen have been the VP debates in previous elections. 465. labwabbit - 10/5/2000 12:02:23 PM interesting.... Nader is up to 7 points after the debate 466. OhioSTOPAS - 10/5/2000 12:31:49 PM For your information, here is the newspaper story on which Al Gore based his anecdote of Kaylie Ellis, the deskless student. And here is an update appearing today, describing the still-crowded conditions at Ms. Ellis's high school. 467. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 12:37:28 PM I have a friend from highschool who now lives in Florida and is sending her kids to schools there. She curses the greedy geezers who are all for any benefits for seniors but who continuously vote down school bond referenda because "they" don't have any kids in school. I expect its the same in certain regions of Texas and in Arizona. 468. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:37:34 PM So, because the girl had access to a lab stool, if not a desk, at least for a while, Gore is now to be characterized as a liar. 469. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 12:40:05 PM But I note that both Gore and Bush continue to pander heavily to seniors. Their rhetoric about schools is just that -- rhetoric because the feds spend so little on K-12. 470. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:41:54 PM I predict that Lieberman will clean Chenney's clock. Lieberman's weaknesses in appealing to the demo political base is the Hollywood censorship stuff. Chenney can't get any leverage on this- Lieberman will smile and cite Bill Bennett if Chenney brings it up. Besides, Chenney is hardly in opposition to Lieberman's morality in media shtick. Chenney's strength is in the military area, but the GOP has been so rah rah about the military for so long, they have no means of attacking it without sounding as if they are attacking the military itself. 471. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:43:08 PM They pander to seniors because they vote so heavily and discernibly on one/two issues AND because there indeed are any number of Federal programs that have direct impact on/for them. 472. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:45:20 PM jones. I hope Cheney has more than one clock because I deigned that Lieberman would clean it for him somewhere not too far up there today. 473. Wombat - 10/5/2000 12:45:48 PM After reading the article and the follow-up, I don't see Gore can be acccused of mis-speaking on this one. Because the classroom has too many students and no room for desks, some students must stand every day. In the other classroom, the students were lucky. Some could sit on the floor! 474. bubbaette - 10/5/2000 12:46:55 PM Just wait, Janjon. When the boomers start to retire and take an ever-greater portion of resources, then we might see someone with the intestinal fortitude to stand up. 475. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 2:26:11 PM On Gore's newest additions to his bid to be Joe Biden. 476. robertjayb - 10/5/2000 2:40:29 PM . 477. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:01:11 PM Criticism of Gore's minor mis-statements in the debate would be dismissed as pettyfogging if not for Gore's current reputation as an embellisher/liar. Regardless of the validity of this reputation, Gore should know enough to be damned careful when telling any anecdote. 478. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 3:04:06 PM Rask 479. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:07:51 PM Ya got me. 480. Wombat - 10/5/2000 3:14:33 PM Gore's uncle was so gassy that they used him as an observation balloon. 481. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:54:44 PM I concur that this instantaneous and more than thorough dissection of each and every factoid that either of them utter has reached the stage of being more than just dumbfounding, it is now ludicrously pathetic. 482. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:55:36 PM oops. 483. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:56:15 PM I may need a bit of help getting out of this. Did that work? 484. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:56:50 PM Help. 485. janjon - 10/5/2000 3:57:22 PM self-help, as it turns out. 486. Al D - 10/5/2000 4:15:05 PM 487. janjon - 10/5/2000 4:19:34 PM Lieberman is the only one of the four candidates whom I canlisten to for any sustained period of time. Especially on the radio. Cheney's monotone and soft voice are soporific. Gore tends to roam quickly from unctuous to unduly mellifluous. And, W's is just too whiney and shrill most of the time -especially when he, as he frequently does, ends up his sentences with an emphatic word or two - as in "it isn't the gubmint's money, its the PEOPULS!" 488. JJBiener - 10/5/2000 4:20:25 PM Al - That was funny. 489. Ronski - 10/5/2000 5:07:47 PM 490. Dusty - 10/5/2000 5:35:43 PM janjon 491. angel-five - 10/5/2000 5:42:00 PM I propose that the next debate be much simpler. An online audience judges the candidates through a HTMLed console. The console comes complete with several buttons ranging from 'gong', 'open trapdoor', 'hit with cream pie' to 'beat with a rubber mallet' and whenever a critical number of people have pressed the same button for the same candidate within a one second window, judgment is carried out. Really, this is the way things are headed anyway. We might as well embrace it now. 492. JJBiener - 10/5/2000 5:45:39 PM A-5 - Maybe we can get Chuck Baris to host. 493. angel-five - 10/5/2000 5:52:30 PM Let's put our heads together I don't know what it is about this last election that makes me feel it's nearly too much of a farce to stomach. Probably the same thing that makes me quote Michael Stipe in relation to the media circus that's our current election coverage. It's just kind of pathetic that this is the best our public can manage to demand. 494. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:04:10 PM Tomorrow, no doubt, I'll be back to my normal cynical self and see this not as an obstacle to overcome but a necessary facet of democratic culture to be manipulated for the public good. But for the moment it all irks me so. 495. JJBiener - 10/5/2000 6:11:40 PM A-5 - I think I understand what you are feeling. It is kind of like the feeling I get when I sit in the audience and watch Colin Powell speak and I realize he won't run for office because the media will tear his family to shreds. I respect his decision and I certainly understand it. It just doesn't bode well for our country. 496. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:23:34 PM Well, I'm not a huge Powell fan per se. I was, at one time, until I started reading a bit into his actions in the Gulf War. Anyone heading the JCS in this day and age has to have a well-developed sense of politics. We lambasted the Warsaw Pact military model for its inclusion of 'political officers' and its appointment of 'politically reliable' generals to positions of military power, but really, our model isn't so terribly different. I don't fault Powell for weighing political considerations when he was making decisions about the ground war in Kuwait and Iraq -- I just sincerely believe that he gave them far too much weight. The military is supposed to carry out policy, not shape it for its own gain. I really do believe that the reason Colin Powell is so well liked in our country is precisely BECAUSE he's gone so far out of his way to avoid giving the media an interest into digging into his conduct. It's not, of course, that they'd find a Watergate or a Chappaquiddick if they did, but American perceptions about the Gulf War -- what happened, what could have happened, what should have happened, and what Powell's part in everything was -- would change to a fair degree. What he has right now is charisma and appeal. I don't know that he'd be a bad President. Not at all. But I do think that the traits he'd be banking on to be elected -- that he's a bright, stern warrior of resolve who knows how to win battles for America -- would likely suffer some under closer scrutiny. And I think that's likely why he hasn't tossed his hat in the ring, more so than subjecting his family to the full-court media press, although no good man wants his family to undergo one of those. 497. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:25:26 PM Still, it's a fact that there are plenty of good men who *won't* run for President, no matter how excellently they'd do the job, precisely because they don't want to play the money game and the media game you have to play in order to be a serious national contender in American politics. 498. janjon - 10/5/2000 6:26:09 PM I think it is more accurate to say that he won't run because his wife is absolutely convinced and terrified that there are a number of "them" out there who would absolutely do anything and everything needed to insure that a black man is not elected President. 499. angel-five - 10/5/2000 6:36:18 PM Janjon: Perhaps, perhaps. But appearances can be deceiving, you know. 500. cmboyce - 10/5/2000 6:39:24 PM She's right, too. He'd be DOA. This country is, as a whole, ready (as they say) for a black president. He could get the votes. But somebody or -bodies with a long gun and some sm
Thanks for your
That should read: Thanks for your Message # 362.
"In your heart, you know he's less wrong." --what GWB's campaign slogan should be
Gore will charge fifty bucks a month, for 50% coverage. Old people currently spending less than fifty would be much better off as they are, for people paying a hundred a month for scrips it's a wash (although I think there is also an annual deductible.) Does anyone know if Gore allows old people to opt out of his plans for them?
it is your thread - you can chime in with your opinion without being asked; but that is why i asked ...
:)
However, you are confusing legitimate uses of "you know" with the verbal pause form of "you know" (for example, Bush's "You know how I know?" is completely legitimate).
Actually, I'm not confusing them. I saw the example you mentioned, and at least one other. I contemplated excluding them, but decided I would create more of a shitstorm by excluding them, if someone caught it and concluded that I was being misleading. (Partly because I wasn't certain enough of my language skills to identify all legitimate uses, and I didn't have the terminology to describe the differences.)
I also considered listing all the occurrences, then providing a count of just the pauses, but I was concerned this would look more like partisan spin than legitimate analysis.
I may have missed a citation. I used the NYT source, which was broken up into 5 separate files. Moreover, I was trying to do it while conducting a meeting, so I didn't have my full attention on it.
Finally, it wasn't my intention to simply "prove" you wrong. I was more intrigued by the general concept that our impressions aren't always mirrored by the transcript. It happened to me. In the same way that I reacted to the term "lockbox", and had the impression that it had been uttered many times, while CG only thought twice (we were both wrong), you probably heard the term from Bush, it grated on you, then each subsequent time reinforced that impression. Gore may have said it with less of an emphasis, or perhaps you like him more. (Not meaning that you consciously heard it and decided not to mention it, but that the phrase honestly didn't register.)
"every one should just pay attention to the PRINCIPLES involved. Big and broad and American as Apple Pie."
Bush's fundamental problem is that his principles and programs are in opposition. He favors smaller government in principle, but grows it in practice. He's right to life, but doesn't have the power to reverse the FDA's RU-486 decision. He's against using the military for "nation-building" but do you think he's ready to pull out of Korea? He wants to reduce the role of Social Security and medicaid, but without reducing benefits.
This is a really fundamental problem for him. The minute you get specific, you discover 1) he doesn't have a good grasp of what his campaign proposes and 2) his proposals are in opposition to his principles. He can't coherently do the Clintonesque turn to the center on policies and maintain the conservative rhetoric.
This is a problem for Gore as well, which Bush did an okay job of pointing out. The administration has a horrible record in serving its base. This has been the most pro-business administration since Reagan, and is to the right of Nixon on most policies. While Gore talks about including everybody in the nation's prosperity, you gotta remember that equity of household income has declined during this administration. He has the gall to talk about campaign finance reform while breaking current laws. (Bush brought that up, but he's breaking the law too, and some journalist is gonna start remarking on that if he continues that line of attack.) Health care? The HMOs were created on Clinton/Gore's watch? TV smut? FCC licensing gutting public service requirements and regulating pretty much nothing was their administration's policies. The environment? just about nada.
Gore's gotta rein in his smarmy tics, and stop with the anecdotes already. If he did that, he could go more on the attack in his rhetoric. The consensus in the press seems to be a draw, as does the thread traffic here. Given how much more knowledgable and presidential Gore looked than Bush, he really has a problem here. Nobody can stand him.
I don't think Bush can play his hand any better than he played it. He could look a little less scared and out of his depth, but he's gotta keep the discussion broad, and he's gotta let Gore be a bully.
This keeps reminding me of 1988, a well-versed, but unlikable policy wonk using the VP slot as a stepping stone to nomination otherwise unimaginable against a governor clearly out of his depth in a national campaign. An editorial cartoonist in the at campaign (Herblock?) labeled it "the wimp versus the shrimp."
Anyone got a label for this one?
Given how much more knowledgable and presidential Gore looked than Bush, he really has a problem here. Nobody can stand him.
In retrospect, Gore helped Bush much more than the other way around. One example is that by hogging the "time of possession" Gore obscured the fact that Bush could do little with the ball when he had it.
I don't think Bush can play his hand any better than he played it.
I agree, though because the format will be different in the next two debates, they won't be playing the exact same card game.
I stick to my previous prediction before debate #1 as to debate #2: Bush will be like the student who slipped through without studying for the first exam and will not feel any need to improve on the second. Gore OTOH will retool...no more sighing, paper crumpling, etc. My only revision is that the looser format may allow Bush's likely increased laxness to play better than if they re-did debate #1.
My understanding is that the two candidates will be seated side-by-side across from the moderator at a table. If so, I expect Gore to try to physically intimidate Bush (even after the negative reactions of debate #1) because that's his track record in such a format.
My short advice to Gore is to be very circumspect about any statement that describes his personal accomplishments. For Bush, quit fearing the smirk and respond specifically when your opponent leaves an opening. (Gore leaves plenty, but I seriously doubt Bush is capable of exploiting them.)
i think we'll see a reverse of the POTUS debates here.
Cheney will come across as the policy wonk with endless minutiae and Lieberman will be more likeable if less effective of the two.
comments?
Cheney just isn't, from what i've seen, able to spew endless chatter like Gore, this is true. i meant "endless minutiae" wrt who will claim ownership of the details of the respective plans and put them forth.
and no, Lieberman won't be as "lost" as Bush - such isn't possible -haha.
wonder if that's because Gore was mealy-mouthed about the environmental stances Prez Gore would take?
Haha. Can't herd wabbits...and very few things to maintain our attentions.
I certainly didn't think you were trying to prove me wrong. In fact, I mentioned that my glance at the transcripts showed both candidates using "you know" as a mental pause. I hadn't noticed Gore doing it when I watched the debate, probably because he was less obvious about it... when Bush did it, it was a clearly enunciated pause. Gore is smoother (in a smarmy way) and it didn't stand out to me. It wasn't because of a more positive attitude, since I don't like Gore's style at all (though I like Bush as a candidate even less). The negatives outweigh my positives for both candidates, for me.
Jay and Indy:
Good comments, and I agree with what both of you say.
Jay:
Anyone got a label for this one?
I saw someone on-line label it as "the bore vs. the dolt," or something to that effect.
Perhaps the news, (as broadcast over national TV), that taxpayer-monies are allocated to support Buch's and Ralph's campaigns and yet they are "shut-out" of the debates because of minority status? Shouldn't all publicly funded voices be heard? Where's the democracy in that?
Sigh.
I suggest that at the next debate both candidates be asked if they use one or two ply toilet paper and that research then be done to see if either (or both) are LIARS!!!
I predict that Chenney will try to hit Lieberman on his "flip flop" on social security privatization, and will have his head handed back to him.
Parents vote too, of course, but in a much more diffuse way.
It should or at least could be a very interesting evening.
The fires and Witt: an unfair charge. He was down there, you can't remember any and every time you're going to some disaster, and any factual inaccuracies are both undertsandable and of no moment.
The desk. Gore said she "has" to stand in class. It is a minor point, but when you have a history of embellishing that has dogged you, you better be damn careful stretching the facts. Moreover, Gore and Bush want to use that real person, real name, real place strategy, and it bit Gore, because real people, names, and places are around to offer rebuttal.
The uncle being gassed: It turns out, he merely had gas. This is really over the line.
The uncle being gassed: It turns out, he merely had gas. This is really over the line.
Hoot! Good shot!
Jack: Is there really some new information on Gore's uncle, or was that just a joke?
A joke. Though, the fact that you asked underscores your point.
However, I also agree that by deciding to use real names and situations, with premeditation, each of them had better be damned sure of what they utter at the risk of being held up to at least some ridicule if they turn out to be wrong. (I don't put "has to" stand as compared to "had to" stand into that category. Nor the gassed uncle. He meant Europe for Christ's sake. Why he mentioned the poor soul is beyond me.)
Whew.
I love Lieberman, but I can't stand listening to him. He sounds as if he swollowed a peach pit and is about to void it.
Well-said
start a new country up
our father's father's father tried
erased the parts he didn't like
let's try to fill it in
bank the quarry, river swim
we knee-skinned it, you and me
we knee-skinned that river red
this is where they walked
this is where they swam
so take a picture here
take a souvenir
Cuyahoga
gone.
Yeah, HMOs existed long before the Clinton-Gore administration. Kaiser Permanente goes back to the 70s. But they became the primary form of health delivery services for most Americans during the Clinton administration, following Hillary's disastrous committee formulation.
I spoke with two people today who said the debates pushed them over to Nader, because they were both so awful. I suggested that Nader should run an ad with 10 seconds clips of Bush and Gore from the debate, and then end saying. "Don't waste your vote. Vote Nader.
Wackos don't get their thrills out of killing some black colonel in the military--or even the JCS. But given a black President, there are plenty of nutjobs who would view it as an excellent reason to go right on over the edge.
Also, even while he might not fear it, he might realize that he doesn't have much chance if his wife refuses to support it.
I don't think Powell is much of a leader. He's a player. He might realize that and not even want the job.
Black people get "fragged" for being black all the time, in all sorts of careers. It's unfortunately part of being black. And it was worse when Powell began his military career.
But the military, for all its faults, was known then as an excellent place for an ambitious black man to get ahead, given that it solved a lot (but not all) of its racial issues early on. So I don't buy that going into the military was more risky than other careers because of the chance of an assassination.
I certainly don't think it equates to the risk that he might face in choosing to run for President. Far too many wackos out there could conceivably decide to save America from itself and take him out before we could put him in office.
And when you look back at Powell's career you don't see much in the way of him turning down rank because he's worried about white supremacists. You certainly don't see him refusing the spotlight because he's worried about some bigoted redneck with a long rifle after Desert Storm.
I don't think that white supremacists or bigoted red neck snipers represent even a tenth of a percentage point risk to black soldiers, much less an increasing risk as they go up the ladder.
So upon closer examination you don't see much ground for assuming a priori that fear of the Aryan Nations is what keeps the man from tossing his hat in the ring.
Actually, no one has made any such assumption. It has been said, accurately, that his wife resists the notion of him running for President because of that fear. The rest of the discussion revolved around whether it was a reasonable fear or not.
There have been questions for a long time. McCaffrey left the military because of his behavior there--it killed his career. And there was a fair amount of print devoted to Seymour Hirsch's book earlier this year.
In fact, the movie Three Kings couldn't have been made had there not already been an environment of doubt about DS.
I don't think we need to wait ten years.
Incidentally, this conversation should probably be moved elsewhere. Sorry, Jones.
I think it is more accurate to say that he won't run because his wife is absolutely convinced and terrified that there are a number of "them" out there who would absolutely do anything and everything needed to insure that a black man is not elected President.
Please, to the Politics today thread. Thank you for your support.
i'm sitting here watching the VP debates
Lib kinda pissed me off blabbing for a minute and a half (of 2 min) about who he wants to thank and whatnot as if i care and then Cheney jumped right into the question after <30 seconds
gawd
i hope the entire debate isn't like this. if it does, Cheney wins hands down
why aren't these 2 running?
eh, i guess
even though you know how much i like agreeing with you......
you did it again
i most certainly don't agree with Message # 529!
i'm sure if you slip either one enough of a contribution, they'll tell you how good you are ...
a genuinely funny exchange
how refreshing
Big time.
Strange that BBC is the only channel showing the debate here... I wonder why CNN isn't?
ducky:
Agreed - what a difference in class and intelligence between these two and their bosses.
Irv:
JL: Most people, if you asked them, would say that they are better off now than 8 yars ago - from what I read, you're doing pretty well, Dick.
DC: (laughing) Well, I can assure you, the Gov't had nothing to dop with it..."
JL: "I'm looking at my wife, and she's thinking we should've gone into the private sector.."
DC: "Well, Joe -I'm here to help you do that..,"
"...had nothing to do with it."
Lib makes a crack about how good Cheney has done in the "private" sector and a glance at his wife says that she wishes he had gone into the "private sector". Cheney immediately shoots off "i'm trying to help you do just that."
Lib shoots right back, "just like i'm trying to help you stay there"
or, you know, something to that affect
Joe:
i say again, why aren't these two running?
Lieberman/Gore vs Cheney/Bush?
Chenney practically shames him for it, and manages a glove soft delivery concerning "the old Joe Lieberman"
i don't envy the people who have to call a clear winner
i don't see one
both did a very good job, imo
btw, it was nice to see some gay issues finally brought up and discussed in a mature fashion
Wasn't this what the Senate used to be? Can we have it back, soon please?
I'm impressed with both these guys. Add me to the list wanting a ticket reversal on both sides.
Good debate. A draw, in my book.... so good that it shouldn't be a case of keeping score.
I came on to ask for a ticket reversal, but I see I'm VERY late.
'Been a long time since I've seen two pols carry on a 90-minute intelligent, civil, constructive conversation.
Female reporter asked who thought Liberawho won. At first no one raised their hand.
Then one woman.
Reported asked who thought Cheney won. Almost everyone else raised their hands. Later, some said that both had done a good job.
But one must learn to control his/her impulses.
There wouldn't be much fun in a TT thread, the Debates thread has all the usual suspects saying all the usual stuff.
Personally, I think Cheney came out looking better for not having done so, and I'm a fan of Lieberman's anyway. It looks like either of these guys would be better presidential candidates than their principals, and isn't that an interesting twist to this less-than-captivating campaign.
I am surprised by your take on things. I don't agree at all.
Interesting comment, but it lacks a topic.
Are we talking about TT? or saying that Cheney and Lieberman are much more appealing than Bush and Gore? or?
Excuse me all to hell. I thought you were talking about the Mote, and now seems you were talking about TT.
Yeah, I was consoling RosettaStone about his inability to start a TT thread.
One of the reasons I'm here is because the screaming and yelling quotient is so much lower than TT.
Al D is correct; some of the big issues in '92 are completely off the table, now. The big issue is sustaining the South Sea Bubble.
There really aren't any driving social issues when you're competing for the swing voter.
Yes life can be beautiful when you look at it through Rosie-colored glasses.
There's enough information available for the media to clean Cheney's clock. Will they? Will the Academy announce a mistake in the voting and award Judy Garland Best Actress for "A Star is Born" posthumously?
The best televised debate I've seen, though, remains Mulroney vs. Turner vs. Broadbent (Canada, '89), esp. the Mulroney vs. Turner segment. They talked directly to each other, with only token input from the moderators; and, at times, it almost looked as if they were trying to actually convince each other, right then and there. (It helped that the election was being fought on essentially just one issue.)
I found it odd that CNN cut away from their own man Bernie's closing remarks, while Fox News stayed with it until he was done.
My take on the VP debates: A civilized discourse between Jimmy Stewart and Daddy Warbucks. In terms of impact it seemed to make everyone feel proud to be part of the American political system, but didn't have an impact on the race....unless of course Cheney looking so adult makes Bush look immature in the next debate.
unless of course Cheney looking so adult makes Bush look immature in the next debate
makes Bush look immature? Hee, hee, hee.
Ok, right, to rephrase, makes Bush look even more immature. Thanks for pointing that out.
Ummm, Von Kreedon, there was only candidate acting like a hyperactive, attention-starved fourteen-year-old, and his nickname is "Bertie."
Plus, he wore more makeup than a three-tooth Singaporean whore.
I wasn't sure if I was watching the Presidential Debate or Robin Byrd's Men 4 Men.
Either way, the outcome's the same for you, Ace -- you're sleepy, and you've splattered your TV with ambiguous goo.
That is not to say that I don't think that social acceptance of gays has not changed as of late. I mentioned earlier this year that my mother and some of her bridge playing friends had voiced support for some equality for gay couples. Given that the youngest player is my 66 year old mother, that the ladies are all religious white middle class midwesterners, I think that the essential claim to fairness made by gays has hit home in America's conscious. I think that the culture wars are over and Patrick Buchannan is as much history as James.
Even when the issue was directly addressed by Shaw in a question concerning partisanship and the public's distaste for the vitriol of the last 8 years, neither Chenney nor Lieberman would bring it up. Its becoming the elephant in the living room.
And as his aide Dick Morris recently said, "Clinton has had hundreds of women since he became president."
But I'm still voting for Father Steve.
Of course I doubt Gore has that kind of matter-of-fact style in him.
Cheney did exactly what he needed to do and pretty much all he could do for his ticket under the circumstances. In efficiency problems, however, maximizing the 1 percent of the process cannot substantially improve the situation.
Lieberman is one of three lead co-sponsors of ENDA in the Senate. The other two are Kennedy and Jeffords of Vermont.
At another point, Mr. Gore said he "took a risk" in asking the former Prime Minister of Russia, Viktor S. Chernomyrdin, to become personally involved in negotiating an end to the conflict in Kosovo. In fact, President Boris Yeltsin of Russia had two weeks early designated Mr. Chernomyrdin as a special envoy to the Balkans and the diplomatic mission that Mr. Gore described had been initiated by other top officials n Russia, Europe and the United States.
In an interview last weekend, Mr. Gore volunteered that PBS had never invited him to be appear on a documentary about presidential debates. But officials at PBS said he had been invited personally, and the vice president's own spokesman said the campaign had rejected the offer.
The second I consider irrelevant, likely a simple mistake. The first is another example of the pattern I find troubling in these embellishments: the man exaggerates his own accomplishments, facts of which he has personal knowledge, and that says something about him. I also fear that, like Clinton and scandals, Gore and dishonesty will eventually become old news. But what is the point of even having debates if one person is free to invent or embellish a personal history without regard for actual events?
Among a random national sample of 539 registered voters who watched the debate, 43 percent called Cheney the victor, compared to 24 percent for Democrat Joe Lieberman — a 19-point Cheney win. Twenty-seven percent called it a tie.
i'm surprised it wasn't closer tie-wise.
I know yesterday you pooh-poohed Molly Ivins remarks about Bush living in a state where Supreme Court judges are elected and yet he claims "that's what governors do" when referring to the 4 he appointed. Since he really did that, it isn't technically a LIE but the fact he didn't clairify that he only does so when they retire or die was aggravating to me. What was to prevent him from slipping in the phrase, "although Supreme Court judge is an elected office in my state, over the course of the last few years, I have actually been called upon to appoint 4 to office and these are good men, blahblahblah."
He didn't do that because it made him sound more powerful to say "that's what Governors do". It made him sound as though he can handle the job of overseeing appointments to the Supreme Court easily.
i can't believe this is actually an issue for you J@H
"Although we've fortunately had an energy glut, Alan Greenspan has managed monetary policy extremely well, computer technology has enhanced American productivity, and divided government has mostly kept us from screwing around too much, I think the administration deserves a lot of the credit for the economy because blah-blah-blah."
"What governors do" is ambigious enough to cover the generality (governors do appoint judges), and the specifics Bush stated were accurate. IMO it's no way comparable to saying you accompanied a person on a trip when you didn't and claiming credit for taking a risk that you clearly did not take. To be comparable, I think Bush would have had to say he appointed a judge whom he didn't appoint.
BTW, Bush missed yet another opportunity to rebut Gore more effectively by, in addition to his own record as governor, pointing to Gore-Lieberman's on justices. Gore criticized "Scalia" (not even referring to him as "Justice Scalia"), even though Gore himself voted for Scalia's confirmation. And before the Anita Hill scandal, Lieberman was on the record as gushing about Thomas.
Nevermind Gore's tripping himself up on his own litmus test demagoguery.
Since everyone pretty much agrees that the debate last night was far superior to the embarrassment on Tuesday, why is it that current American political discourse much more resembles Gore-Bush than Lieberman-Cheney?
I don't think the lessening of the stakes in the VP debate is the sole reason, because frequently the candidates who have little chance to win also become the most outlandish and reckless in their statements. (And in the converse, why would it be more effective for "significant" candidates to give voters a style they allegedly don't like?)
I think Gush will win, with Bore a close second.
Look, I live in Texas and think GW would make an excellent baseball commissioner...I'm not defending Gore when I rag on Bush; why can't you see that? I just don't think GW is all that hot. In fact, I think he's a doofus and not that great a governor but I see he has persuaded half the country into believing he IS so pardon me if I'm a bit testy.
Gore is doing everything in his power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and if he loses, I will just have to be content with what I get. I never wanted Gore to win, anyhow....I just hate to alleged "choice" we have.
My posts should all be taken as the ravings of a sore loser...I was for Bradley, if you recall.
I'm not defending Gore when I rag on Bush; why can't you see that?
What I was trying to say is why I don't see what Bush said as damning (nor comparable to Gore's fabrications, which do influence my likelihood of voting for him).
FWIW, I think Bush, though perhaps not a doofus, is clearly not of exceptional intellect. But we don't in general elect engineers, doctors, or scientists to run the country, even though most voters would agree that in terms of sheer intelligence these folks have more than your average politician.
As far as Bush's record as governor, I hear various claims but his margin of victory in the last election tells me that many Texans think he has done a good job. My perception of his attitude toward the environment is not an agreeable one.
I am not happy with the choice we have either and supported McCain. For a long time, I would say my likely vote went about 1/3 Bush, 1/4 Gore, 1/4 some other, 1/6 stay home. The Gore fraction continues to decline with each lie and demonstration of his general personality. If OTOH someone like Bob Kerrey were the Demo nominee, Bush would have no chance for my vote.
I like the other Kerry.
I don't know what percentage of Texans even voted in the last election but given our reputation for ignorance, I can't imagine it was very high, certainly no higher than the national average of what, one third of all registered voters? I know Bush won handily and think maybe an armadillo could've beaten the Democratic opponent.
Their examples: Ford did well in first, claimed Poland in the second. Reagan did poorly in his first debate in '84 with Mondale, and bounced back in the second one; Dukakis did well in his first, and appeared bloodless in the second.
Substance wasn't really the issue. They were both adept and knowledgeable. Cheney just seemed like a guy who said what he thought in an intelligent, calm and non-phony manner, nor did he stroke the electorate or his running mate.
Lieberman is a funny guy and a comfortable speaker. He too came off well. What separates them was that Lieberman's mushy, dewy valentines to the electorate and to Gore. He also was clearly instructed to say "Al Gore and I" and he said it 25 times, once in almost every exchange, many times twice. That made him sound robotic, almost as if he were chanting. Indeed, Shaw had to cut him off on his 23rd "Unfortunately, I'm running out of time, but let me just say that Al Gore and I..." Then Shaw said, "Oh, you have 10 seconds" and Lieberman started off by saying "All right. Al Gore and I agree on most everything."
FYI, when someone says "Well, it's a good and important question" that means they weren't prepared for it, as Lieberman as unprepared for the equal pay question. Lieberman stated "the first way we will do that is by supporting the Equal Pay Act, which has been proposed in Congress, which gives women the right to file legal actions against employers who are not treating them fairly and not paying them equally". The Equal Pay Act has been law since 1963.
Then, his valentines to Gore - how "effective" he was, how "proud" he was of him, how much "respect" he has for him - were kind of icky, as if Gore was a big pussy who neede Lieberman to stroke him publicly.
And this - "I have not changed a single position since Al Gore nominated me to be his vice president" is a big, gloppy lie.
This is not the kind of image I need right before lunch. Gag!
You can't equate apples and oranges. No two types of work are equal and the value of the work varies from one employer to the next.
Paying secretaries the same as plumbers is what I was referring to. And if you still think that's silly, then we can discuss it in Politics.
Damned conservative media bias.
Judith (re #609): Amen, per curiam and yes! (Although I don't want Bush for baseball commissioner, either.)
The Dallas Morning News
October 6, 2000
Nielsen Media Research didn't invent the calculator, but it is the
undisputed, longstanding official chronicler of television ratings. Which is why Nielsen is so upset with some of the numbers being distributed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. So much so that Nielsen senior vice president of communications Jack Loftus said Thursday that he is sending a "cease and desist" letter to the commission. At issue are the commission's inflated figures for the 1992 debates, which turn out to be wildly at odds with Nielsen's. The differences are not inconsequential. Many news outlets used the commission's 1992 numbers in reporting that the three-way 1992 presidential debates (President George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot) easily had drawn the largest audiences ever. The third and final encounter, on Oct. 19, 1992, supposedly was seen by a whopping
97 million viewers. The commission says the first and second debates
respectively drew 85 million and 89 million viewers.
Not so, says Nielsen. In fact, not even close. Nielsen reports the viewership as 66.9 million for that year's third debate. The two other debates in 1992 had 62.4 million and 69.9 million viewers, says Nielsen. Those figures are all well below the record 80.6 million viewers for the lone 1980 debate between President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Mr. Loftus, who was unaware of the 1992 discrepancy until informed Thursday, said flatly: "Their numbers are wrong. Our numbers are correct."
Besides issuing the "cease and desist" letter, Nielsen will "put out a news advisory alerting the media" to ignore the commission's 1992 figures, Loftus said.
Other than in 1992, the commission's audience measurements are identical to Nielsen's. But Nielsen is not credited in the commission's materials, which is another bone of contention, Loftus said.
By any measurement, Tuesday's heavily covered debate in Boston proved to be a borderline ratings bomb. Despite the closeness of the race, George W. Bush and Al Gore drew a far less-than-predicted 46.6 million viewers for their first of three debates. Some estimates had the audience reaching 75 million or more for a debate that was telecast nationally on seven networks and also was shown by 58 of NBC's 222 affiliate stations.
Only the two 1996 presidential debates drew smaller crowds than Tuesday's Bush-Gore faceoff. President Clinton and Bob Dole had 46.1 million viewers for their first encounter. The audience then dipped to 36.3 million viewers for the second debate.
August's climactic two-hour episode of CBS' "Survivor" drew 51.7 million viewers on just one network.
Here are the five most-watched presidential debates, according to Nielsen:
Oct. 28, 1980 (Carter-Reagan) _ 80.6 million.
Oct. 15, 1992 (President Bush, Clinton, Perot) _ 69.9 million.
Sept. 23, 1976 (President Ford-Carter) _ 69.7 million.
Oct. 21, 1984 (President Reagan-Walter Mondale) and Oct. 13, 1988 (George Bush-Michael Dukakis) _ 67.3 million each
Oct. 19, 1992 (President Bush, Clinton, Perot) _ 66.9 million.
Note: The watershed first 1960 debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon had a 59.5 household rating, still the highest ever. But that equals only 28.1 million households in times when they were far fewer homes with TVs. Nielsen did not compute total viewer numbers in 1960. The Commission on Presidential Debates somehow came up with a figure of 66.4 million viewers for that historic debate.
Don't ask Nielsen how. And the commission wasn't talking Thursday.
The same reason that Democrats are happy for Lieberman's performance, even though Lieberman didn't have to wear Phyllis Diller's makeup.
You can't equate apples and oranges. No two types of work are equal and the value of the work varies from one employer to the next.
To my mind "equal pay for equal work" means that two people doing the same job should be paid the same. I think Cal's talking about "comparable worth" which is another thing altogether since it's highly subjective.
I think that is already the law. I don't know of anyone who argues against it.
I think Cal's talking about "comparable worth" which is another thing altogether since it's highly subjective.
I think this is what most people are referring to with "equal pay for equal worth." Recent studies have shown that men and women already receive comparable salaries for the same job with similar experience and education.
Can anyone tell me why Republicans are so ecstatic about the fact that their vice-presidential candidate looked so much better than their presidential candidate?
Consider the alternative.
comparable worth refers to a spate of proposed legislation back in the 80's that would try to establish that "comparable" jobs -- those involving equivalent amounts of effort and traiing -- should be paid the same.
Having said this, I do agree with Mark Shields' comments on PBS - what is the W. strategy. As Paul Gigot then agreed (and, you know that it had to be a grudging agreement), a draw or a perceived draw means that the winner is the status quo. W. has to be able to articulate the reasons why a change is in our interests. Although it helps W.'s cause a bit, I somehow don't think that honing in on Gore's propensity to put his foot in his mouth on these little factoids is going to do the trick.
So, as was started last night, there will be increasing commentary that all that these two debates have pointed up is that it is still up to W. to "do the job" during these next two.
We'll see, but I personally would be stunned to see W. metamorphize into somebody new. He's still got at best a surface hold on his knowledge level and this alone makes it very difficult for him to follow-through in what either clearly are perceived at the time or in hindsight are deemed to be situations where he really could make effective comments about why change is needed.
And, lastly, but to me most fascinatingly, just how many times was Clinton's name mentioned during those two debates? The Big 800 Pound Gorilla and virtually not a reference, either way.
We've come a long way from "restoring honor and dignity in the White House," boys and girls.
I know. I believe that is what was being referred to. Since it is already illegal to pay a woman less based on her gender, I don't see what else they could be referring to.
And if Gore is elected, we will be even farther. But then, I guess there are people who don't see honor and dignity in the White House as a good thing.
nah
they just forgot what it's like to not be embarrassed by a guy in the white house who had "honor".
If we restore honor to the White House, why not the Capitol?
And Jones makes a good point--it's not like the Capitol is a shining beacon of integrity.
If today's media scrutiny had been the same then, think how much the country would have benefited by having J. Edgar Hoover scrutinized carefully. (I'm not commenting on his cross-dressing and tutus, but on his corrosive, vindictive and, I guess, illegal, use of the FBI for his ulterior purposes.)
I know. I believe [comparable worth] is what was being referred to. Since it is already illegal to pay a woman less based on her gender, I don't see what else they could be referring to.
You reckon without considering the comtemporary addiction to smarminess.
Shaws question: Gentlemen, this is the 21st century, yet on average, an American working woman in our great nation earns 75 cents for each dollar earned by a working male. What do you males propose to do about it? (Laughter.) C-Span Transcript
Translation: Say something nice to the ladies.
The answers were good though. Cheney was very clear about keeping on message that only if you do certain things, will Gore's tax plan help you out.
In comparable worth terms, how does the $500 credit compare to Day Care Tax Deductibility? I don't have kids, don't know anyone who pays for day care, how much does daily day care cost?
The daycare tax credit maxes out at $480/year, which is about three weeks of infant/toddler daycare in my area--but it is based on how much you pay, so if your daycare is a lot cheaper you'll get less. I believe that is still in effect, and I think you can take both.
Well, if the issue was really that women make 75 cents on the dollar, then neither equal pay for equal work or comparable worth is the problem. What a silly answer.
Caveat--I stopped taking this about four years ago, so the amount may have changed. But it has been a constant for a long time.
In this area (Northern Virginia) infant care is about $175-225 a week; school age care is about $75 a week. For toddlers and preschoolers it is somewhere in between. The cost drops the older the child mainly because the caregiver-child ratio becomes higher.
$75 week × 50 weeks × 28% = $1,036
So staying home with your spawn is about comparable ($500 credit vs either a tax cut or deductibility) for poor folks, but if you're married and in the 28% bracket the stay at home penalty is another $536.
Shaws question: Gentlemen, this is the 21st century, yet on average, an American working woman in our great nation earns 75 cents for each dollar earned by a working male. What do you males propose to do about it? (Laughter.)
I'm puzzled that he would actually ask this. If someone made the following statement:
Gentlemen, in the 20th century [we could start by getting the century correct], a person with 10 years of experience earns more than a person with no work skills. What do you propose to do about it?
can we assume that it would be viewed as a stupid question? If so, why isn't Bernie's question viewed the same way? Are people that ignorant?
These two incidents were low spots of the debate, IMO. The equal pay question was the silliest, however. The permutations on this old time theme have been so thoroughly discussed by the mainstream media that hardly anyone takes those numbers at face value anymore (well, maybe a Paula Jones type brain would).
And yet the candidates are forced to pretend there is a big pay gap.
Isn't that sad? The lip service people are forced to give to nonsense, simply because of all the uninformed, emotional shrieking which will occur if they don't?
A suitable answer for the debaters would have been "to keep doing what we've been doing for the last fifteen years" (which I suspect has something to do with growing the economy).
I don't know, I think this was a flaw in Shaw's question list. He shouldn't have even asked the question, or if he did, he should have asked it in a different form, like"
"Women still earn less, on average, then men in today's economy. What, gentlemen, do either of you propose to do to help increase the incentives for women to remain in the labor market? Or to invest in skills with a higher ROR?"
Something like that would have been more interesting at least.
Cheney: "Damn glad Colin Powell didn't want to be the Republican vice presidential nominee."
Lieberman: "Like Sammy Davis Jr."
I wouldn't bet my money against it. Heck, I wouldn't bet anyone's money against it.
A free floating datum in my skull (probably from National Review or Reason or some other enthusiastic righties) is that among college graduates in similar age cohorts, with the same jobs, the compensation gap doesn't exist (until you get into glass ceiling issues.) With women now out-numbering men among newly minted college grads, perhaps we'll be coping with a lace ceiling in thity years.
The stats are pretty phony in anycase, comparing "all women" and "all men" you get Bill Gates and a hundred other really rich guys being compared to 101 women working as McDonalds clerks or Marketing VPs.
You can't get at the facts without looking at age and education and years of experience.
I do like Bush/Cheney for pointing at the horrific effects of the education gap. Hell I'm voting for Gore for a couple of specific reasons, but it's no secret I'd rather vote for Bush/Cheney. Gore/Lieberman should be the ones screaming to "tear down that wall" -- but they are beholden to the educrats.
You want dumber? In TT they screamed all night about Cheney's inability to know how that feels. It's awful the things a liberal thinks he or she "knows" once he's looked in the mirror and heard the news that she is a really good person.
Dan Quayle got it right, "It's a terrible thing to lose your mind."
Even controling for education level, a large portion of the pay gap can be explained by differences in field of education, and then once you control for that, even more can be explained by differences in years of continuous labor market experience.
Agreed. They're smart guys, they can take an issue apart, hold the pieces up to the light, and put it back together without ever munching on their ties, or each other's ankles.
I don't suppose there's a chance in hell that their debate will have any long-range impact on political decision making, but the half dead idealist in the bottom drawer would like it a lot.
It also echoed Shaw's Kitty Dukakis question in implying that a politician must put himself in a victim's place before being able to understand the position and thus react to it properly.
President.
But is that really true? Cheney thought of running for President, but gave it up. Lieberman didn't even get that far. And if either of them seriously ran for President, I don't think they'd get elected. If they did, I suppose we'd start ripping them apart, too.
I can't figure out what it says about us, that our process gives us two people that no one is happy with. It happened to the Republicans in 96, and to the Dems in 88 as well.
Re "equal pay" and "comparable worth". I think all that Bernie was talking about was the fact that, statistically, women still lag behind men in average income in the same lines of work.
It's impossible to believe that Lieberman isn't aware of the old Equal Pay Act, so unless he's talking about some esoteric pending amendment to that statute, it's hard to say what he was talking about last night.
Yes, the "had to be one to know the issues" stance is a bit tiring, and well worn over the last 20 years in a host of contexts.
But it's a falacy to argue this is purely related to some large scale discriminatory behavior in the economy. There is a portion of that gap that can be attributed to discrimination, but not a whole lot, less than 10% at the most generous estimate, IMO.
fallacy
yes, much of the disparity can be explained away by relatively
neutral factors, but you're never going to see anybody running for national office who pauses to suggest such a thing. He'd immediately be branded the worst kind of sexist pig.
Wouldn't that be cool. I got tired of hassling with righties (I used to post in a righty forum) about the stupidity of trying to "win on the cheap" with scandal mongering, instead of building a case based on policy and basic assumptions. Even after Gingrich managed to grap the House with the super-dry "Contract With America" they failed to make the connection that a program for change will get you further, especially against a genius like Clinton.
This election should actually be interesting -- even though it's a ruling class election (St Alban's, Exeter, Yale, Harvard, Ford Administration, nearly 100 years of heavy experience, etc) it is an important election about competing world views -- Nanny State vs Opportunity State.
Instead we're waiting to see if Bush will ever say "Kostunica" and if Gore will over-state his importance on something else that happened twenty+ years ago.
Damn pols, mutter mutter mutter...
"Instead we're waiting to see if Bush will ever say "Kostunica""
Gore mispronounced that, by the way, after making such a school-marmish show of annunciating it.
"And yet the candidates are forced to pretend there is a big pay gap.
Isn't that sad? The lip service people are forced to give to nonsense, simply because of all the uninformed, emotional shrieking which will occur if they don't?"
So why don't they tell the truth? Why doesn't Bush, or I guess, on performance, Cheney trot out the documentation debunking this myth?
Why don't the republicans embarrass the democrats with the facts?
(I don't do word slams much, but it was too irresistible. Mea culpa.)
658 and beyond. We've discussed the pay gap in the slow thread in the past, and it's an interesting and complex discussion, involving cultural influences on gender career choices, child rearing issues, ambition, and the glass ceiling. You might want to bring it up there in this context. But I expect Jonesy is gonna feel that you're off topic.
Most of us who are planning to vote for Gore already know that he's a jerk, so it's unnecessary for you to keep pointing it out.
But of course, the G.O.P. had to serve up an alternative jerk so that it becomes less difficult to hold one's nose and vote Democratic.
I suspect John McCain would have been ahead by 20 points in the polls by now. Maybe you ought to call it the D. (for dumb) O.P.
If you're interested, the pay gap converesation starts at 908 in the Slow thread. At the beginning, there are a few other conversations winding up.
"Why don't the republicans embarrass the democrats with the facts?"
Idiotic. Why don't Democrats confront their own partisans in activist groups & the media and just take the moronic issue off the table altogether?
Answer: Because they know it's a helpful issue, even if it's a bogus issue. And they know that by giving it lip-service, they will force Republicans to give it lip-service as well.
Jay, you're really an idiot. I can think of no rational reason why the onus would be on the Republicans to expose this sham, and that the Democrats (who fan the flames of irrational victim-shrieking) are somehow absolved.
I said it's sad that "both parties" must pay lip-service to this nonsense. With typical dopiness, you assert -- for no good reason -- that the Republicans, who are clubbed on the head with such issues, have the responsibility of disproving them, rather than the Democrats, who wield the club.
A rather ass-backwards way of viewing the situation, but I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
But it's silly to think that the Republicans are "forced" into this pandering by the Dems. They want the chick vote this time round. It's that simple.
Frankly, this isn't a major Dem issue lately at all. They keep the feminist hacks on the backburners these days.
"But it's silly to think that the Republicans are "forced" into this pandering by the Dems. They want the chick vote this time round. It's that simple."
You're right, Cal-- they're not "forced" to pay lip-service, if they wish to lose. They have the option of losing. You are right on that score. They have free will. They have the option of chosing to lose.
But the fact is, if they want to WIN, they are "forced." *IF* they want to win, that is.
Both parties are, to various extents, bound by the stupidity of the voters. If most voters think that gay marriage is dangerous (which I do, personally), then politicians are bound by that belief. If it would take three and a half hours of statistics and analysis to prove that femisist-shrieking about "unequal pay" is total bullshit-- well, no one has three and half hours of TV time, and the only remaining option is to smile & nod politely & and say, in a grave voice, that "this is a terrible situation and we should do something about it."
My point wasn't that they weren't forced. My point was that they aren't forced by the Dems. They are forced by the stupidity of voters, as you then acknowledge.
Other than that, I agree with your post.
Cal,
The stupidity of the voters means that were Cheney to dispute the point, Lieberman would pounce (cynically-- knowing Cheney was right, but also knowing he could win the point) and Bush/Cheney's numbers would plunge.
R's have issues like this, too-- like, arguably, the flag-burning issue. It is ludicrous for you to claim that an R wouldn't jump on a Dem who didn't at least pay lip-service to the vague need of protecting the flag.
And it is even more ludicrous for you to assert that this nonsense cult of victimology isn't a club Dems regularly beat Republicans with, if those Republicans are so candid/brave/stupid to dispute the nonsense.
But in both cases the club is the voters, not the fact that they use the voters' preference to their own advantage.
Cheney says: "There is no significant differnce in men's and women's pay, once all significant factors (education, experience, type of skill/job, and time taken off, or not taken off, from work) are taken into account.
Lieberman says: "You don't care about the hard-working American woman."
The New York Times says: "Dick Cheney admits he hates women and wishes to consign them to abject poverty and forced prostitution."
The voters say: Bush/Cheney 38%, Al "Fightin' for the Females" Gore 57%.
"But in both cases the club is the voters, not the fact that they use the voters' preference to their own advantage."
Huh?
What?
You are attempting to make some slender metaphysical distinction which is entirely lost on me.
Dem's use voter idiocy, on this point, to club R's over the head. Or at least they'd *like* to use voter idiocy against R's --if R's are so stupid as to dispute the point.
But R's aren't, in fact, that stupid. Oh, they can be from time to time; but generally they are not stupid enough to say something dangerously truthful like "N.O.W. is a bunch of dishonest lying hausfraus that really ought to get out of silly activism and either have babies or find real work."
Still, it's the voters. They like being pandered to. So it's hard to blame either party for doing so.
"Well, now you've just blamed the media--which is fairly absurd. But that means it's not the Dems, either."
Sigh.
Yeah, the NYT isn't "the Dems."
I'm not making a metaphysical distinction. Your original post implied that the Dems forced the Republicans into this position. Your subsequent posts have acknowledged that it is the voter idiocy that causes the pander. So we're in agreement.
I don't see, then, why you are mocking Jay for asking that question, given how often you complain about what panderers the Dems are. The obvious answer, of course, is that the Republicans pander as much as the Dems do. Since you later acknowledge this, what's the problem?
How about this bit of honesty:
"The Democrats and leftist-activist groups ought to stop infantilizing inner-city blacks and telling them pretty fairy-tales and instead start treating them like real human beings capable of dealing with reality and taking responsibility for their own behaviors."
Yeahp. I can really see the advantages of such "honesty."
Cal,
Because the R's wouldn't have to pander on this point if the Dem's didn't club them over the head for doing so.
Oh, I see. They could just say, "Frankly, the reason women make so much less than money than men has everything to do with their own choices. To the extent that it's a problem, we should be encouraging women to make sensible choices in education and employment, and not take off time to have babies, cutting back on hours, easing back on career advancement."
And suppose the Dems say, "This is incorrect. It's primarily discrimination and societal expectations that we inadvertently women to follow. Better divorce laws, more maternity leave, more protection for women who work the 'mommy track' will solve these problems."
Both sides are reported accurately. The Dems don't hammer the Republicans over the head, they just state their disagreement.
You really think that the targeted women would vote for Republicans without the hammering?
No.
So it's not the clubbing, it's the pandering. And the pandering is for the voters, who will believe anything stupid if it means more for them.
Dems wouldn't say this. They'd say "You don't care about the horrible plight of working women."
Furthermore, Democrats don't even believe the paragraph you wrote. 95% believe that women are paid less because they take 4-6 years off (altogether) for various pregnancies, and that of course means they simply don't have the experience of most men of the same age.
And that's their right. But that's also their choice, and they really ought to live with it and stop whining.
But that would be a club, Ace. I'm giving you a situation where they don't use a club, and pointing out that the results would be the same.
Furthermore, Democrats don't even believe the paragraph you wrote.
Of course not. They're pandering. If the Dems pander and don't hammer, the Republicans will still get hammered in that scenario. By the voters.
In an October 6 story noted by MRC Communications Director Liz Swsey: "Gore's the Winner Any Way TV Ted Slices It," Johnson discloses that Republicans "suspect CNN's manipulation of the pooled camera feed was done to help Gore."
He's an excerpt from Johnson's story:
Brian Propp, a former TV-station engineer who watched the debate on CNN International, noticed the inequity.
"Its impact was to give Gore a more commanding presence on the screen and Bush a visually reduced impact," Propp said in an e-mail to Bush headquarters after he measured each side of the split screen with graph paper.
The split-screen comes after The New York Times attacked the Republicans in a front-page story for showing the word "...rats" for a 1/30 of a second in a health care ad slamming bureaucrats.
"They were all upset about a 30th of a second of a subliminal 'rats,' but they have no problem with 90 minutes of a George W. Bush being diminished," one Republican scoffed.
Last night and today the Fox News Channel has been illustrating the difference in screen size by showing a still shot from CNN's debate coverage.
Incidentally, Dems always have the advantage on pandering -- because when you pander to a specific group, they like it.
The trouble is, any time you "give" a favored group you must, by necessity, "take" from all non-favored groups. If women are to be treated as if they have more experience than they actually do, men might wonder why they shouldn't be entitled to the same consideration.
And if a woman, who has ten years work experience, is paid just the same as a man who has thirteen years work experience, that means, obviously, the man is being stuck with a "minus three years" adjustment to his pay. Or a plus three years for the woman -- it harldy matters; it's the same operation.
But it's difficult to sell this point to everyone who's *not* being pandered to.
Thanks for that clip. I wondered about that as I was watching. And, silly me I didn't want to bring it up afterwards and sound like a paranoid.
CNN's split-screen images during this week's presidential debate gave Vice President Al Gore a slightly bigger portion of the screen than Gov. George Bush, the network acknowledge Friday.
"It was certainly unintentional," CNN spokeswoman Sue Binford said. "Technicians made the adjustments they had to make, and it won't happen again."
The split-screen format, with Gore seen on the left at his lectern and Bush on the right, was used during about 13 minutes of the 95-minute debate.
Binford called the disparity "a technical glitch" that went unnoticed during airtime at the network. It drew no complaints from viewers, she added. An estimated 3.2 million people watched the debate on CNN.
CNN got burnt because they got caught and promise not to do THAT again.
As usual at Rick "poison gas" Kaplan's former propaganda playground, an associate producer will take the heat.
Sigh! (heavier) Sigh! With Algore's heavy makeup, Ted Kennedy-neck and audio/visual sound effects, it might not have been a good idea in the first place.
That's a relief.
It's no fun anymore.
It's an emoting contest to win in the town hall debate.
--Lucianne Goldberg.
She has one of the smartest political websites around. www.lucianne.com. Bookmark the sucker.
It's O.K., everybody knows he's David, and Ace is Golieth. Trouble is, Cellar won't pick up stones.
As to the quibbling discussion between Ace and CalGal, they make a distinction without a difference. Both parties club each over the head, with serious looks on their face, when they know they are full of crap. And the press aids them in their nonsense. Of course the average voter is stupid and uninformed. If the media tried to inform them, nobody would listen as it is just too boring. Look at the debate on the Mote. A substantial number of posts about polls, either a report of them, or argument about them. When is their serious consideration giving to any politicians utterances?
Dick Cheney and a few other of Dubya's dad's cadre are his briefing book. Basically, the guy starts talking on an issue and they all sit around and correct him when he strays off course. That's what he does instead of reading.
Many Republican politicians weren't happy with Bush's debate effort. While the talking heads thought that him just staying upright was enough, the Republicans worry that he's not giving the swing voters enough reason to swing his way.
There was a great exchange that I missed in the veep debate (which I didn't catch all of). While the audience was applauding, Dick Cheney said to Lieberman, "I took my watch off before we started," and Lieberman said, "Yeah, they wouldn't let me wear mine."
What utter rubbish. FDR was only pandering to voters? Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, mere hacks who did what they did in the cynical pursuit of votes?
Perhaps you want to claim this is a recent phenomenon? I think the issue of comparable worth has been around for at least a decade. Only now we have to play along with a falsehood because those women voters just aren't smart enough to know when they are being patronized and exploited?
I think the responses were weak because the question was, nearly as bad as the "pretend your black" question. They only care because they would be black?
I don't know that this is what I said. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are sensible; it has to do with what the voters want.
I don't think it's fair to compare Roosevelt and Lincoln, who were crisis presidents, to non-crisis presidents. I certainly think that presidential pandering is nothing new. And I'm not sure that Roosevelt didn't pander. That's a gut feel, though.
I think the issue of comparable worth has been around for at least a decade.
Comparable worth has been around close to 20 years, actually. Comparable worth is different from the "women make 55/69/75 cents to a man's dollar." The latter has been around longer than twenty years, I think, but has never been a major issue in a Presidential election, has it? Possibly with Ferraro. In any event, it was many years before this assertion began to be challenged with the information that the Ms provided. You can certainly find large pockets of women who believe that it's all due to discrimination. I would be surprised if any national politician has officially rejected this stat as proof of discrimination.
It's probably not going to happen any time soon. Not until the men's vote becomes desirable, anyway.
I'm taking a response to the pandering issue over to Politics.
If you dopn't think Roosevelt was pandering, please explain his promise not to get envolved in a war in Europe when he knew full well that it would be necessary. He simply told people what they wanted, in fact almost insisted on, hearing. Wilkie was no better in that regard, but I don't have a sense of what he really believed. You wouldn't like to argue that Roosevelt only became a hawk after Russia was attacked, now would you? 
MSNBC has the videos, which you can watch on your computer. Go to the stories, and then click on the video icons.
It helps if you use broadband. 56K is OK, but it takes awhile for the file to download and buffer and all that crap.
Thank you very much!!!!
I think that's a bit too optimistic, myself. Bush is a neophyte in this area, but then Reagan was worse, and his ignorance was a sort of strength when it came to playing cold war. 'Course I consider that blind luck.
Did the format contribute to Chenney-Lieberman's mature exchanges as much as the character of each of the participants?
I think that the format helped somewhat, but that Chenney and Lieberman are of the old school of political discourse. Attacking the ideas and proposals of the opposition does not mean attacking the proponant under the old school. There was a certain civility that was expected of persons in high office, and departing from civility was usually regarded as a weakness of character of the attacker or that he was desparate to defend a position that was unsupportable with reason. As has been pointed out earlier, extreme partisanship has been a part of US political history, but it was not the standard 30-40 years ago.
I gotta admit, Gore has these effeminate winces and facial gestures I don't like too much. But Bush is such a doofus!!! I mean, if he were elected, the good scenario is that other people, like Dick Cheney, or Bush's mom and dad, would be running the country de facto, while W. went around making a total, utter fool of himself in public. I mean, some things are excuseable in older men like Reagan and Yeltsin but are simply unbearably embarrassing in a yet-to-be-senile leader.
Will Bush go more consistently negative?
doesn't he have to?
Will Gore continue the sighs and patronizing style?
yes, but to a lesser degree. i'm sure mr. Gore is as sick of hearing about what a prick he is even more than i am. he is, however, still a dick and will continue to act like it.
Did the format contribute to Chenney-Lieberman's mature exchanges as much as the character of each of the participants?
i don't think the format had much to do with it. these 2 set out, imo, to not have the typical Veep-Attack Debate. they succeeded.
Cheney and Lieberman were both refreshingly partisan. They were just
pleasantly so. The stark contrast between the two debates was this: the seconds were more articulate in expressing their ideas and differences than the firsts. Gore was a wax figure straining to show how much he cared about us, pleading for us to trust him, to let him go to work for us, showing us all he knew, as if the person who perspires the most is the best choice. He was so cloying in the first debate that he just couldn't stand to be corrected in the
slightest. Hence, his audible sighs and eye rolls. Bush met Gore's unctuous plea with a leaden response and a consistent good guy smile - and that was about it. He was aided by the fact that all the giggling eggheads had derided him as retarded for so long, now was his payback. He doesn't drool, he comes out favorably.
I expect little more in the second exchange. My advice to Gore - lighten up. Stop looking like you want it so much that you have to be impressive in every exchange. It leads not only to greasy embellishments, but it adds to the sense of personal desperation that haunts you like the stink of a stunk. It makes you look like you are selling personal growth and development videos.
To Bush, forget the prepared lines, and try to articulate more than one sentence at a time. If the best argument you have against Gore is to shake your head and say "he has no credibility on the issue" without being able to demonstrate how, than you are a lummox who won't be able to crack the instinct of the people to stick with the status quo. Everyone knows that Gore is a weasel. That is why he doesn't have the solid 10 point lead he should have at this point. But you have to be able to explain why his being a lying weasel is a bad thing. It is an easy task, and if you cannot do it cheerily
(so as not to frighten the soccer moms), you are a dork.
As to the quibbling discussion between Ace and CalGal, they make a distinction without a difference. Both parties club each over the head, with serious looks on their face, when they know they are full of crap. And the press aids them in their nonsense.
Right ho. The complicity of the media in keeping real issues out of any policy discussion is central here. They report what the candidates say, whether it is true or not. Bush continues to talk about his 1 dollar out of every four going back to Americans, which Paul Krugman has shown simply is not the case. Bush talks about shrinking Washington's role, while advocating increases in spending on the military, on education, on the drug war, on interest on the public debt (to fund his tax cut) and so forth, with no reduction in SS or Medicare benefits. He doesn't believe in "nation building." Does he support withdrawing troops from Korea?
Gore talks about bringing the new prosperity to every American, while income inequality has expanded during this administration. He makes appeals to traditional liberal sectors of his base, having been part of an administration that has sold them down the river. He and Lieberman babble about the entertainment industry, but neither of them have done anything about it, and they continue to take Hollywood money.
This is Reagan's legacy, imo. He proved that if you just said falsehoods often enough, they become accepted. But at least he believed in principles that underlied the falsehoods. These guys will say anything, and seem to believe in nothing.
Moreover, policies that have manifestly failed--the Cuban embargo, the drug war, START--aren't even on the table. We keep pissing money away on the usual suspects. All this race is about is who gets to direct the stream to whom. The media is complicit in this, as Cheney would say, Big Time.
As for reporting what they say, no matter its truth or falsity, this is only partially true. The media reports the exaggerations and the factual inaccuracies, but they highlight the soundbite, the garbled line, and the audible sighs. The choice is simple. After a debate, the media could report with a panel of experts as to the meat of the discussion, of they can report with a panel of experts as to the generalized minutiae. They choose the latter, interspersed with immediate polling, and we get conventional wisdom dullards like Doris Kearns Goodwin, William Schneider or Jeff Greenfield. They are either practiced in the art of the blah (Goodwin and Schneider) or they are particularly keen on the intricacies of the form (Greenfield) to the detriment of substance.
Moreover, they take on a knowing insiderism that is understanding of non-answers and misstatements in their effort to get to the "essence" of the candidate (a shorthand that elevates all media types to the level of expert and absolves them of knowing much about policy).
All in all, a fair exchange.
No doubt, W. also will try to eliminate the impression (as so vividly expressed over the weekend by either Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich, I forget whom) that he lives in terror of being confronted by three syllable words having lots of consonants) that he really is a lazy, uninformed guy who doesn't really give much of a damn about most of the "issues" and whose knowledge of same is spoonfed via high level cronies.
I suspect that, deep down, W. knows he's a fraud in these areas, and I also suspect that it will be harder for him to disguise this than it will be for Gore to keep his own odd frailities in tow.
Far too negative.
On the other hand, W. almost certainly will (because he really has to - the GOP stand on too many issues doesn't go over well with the swingies) go after this so called "serial exaggeration" stuff.
Yes, this is the primary form the media complicity takes. They should not agree to a debate structure where it's possible to perform what someone upthread called fractured stump speeches. There are so many obvious contradictions between their focus group tested answers and the candidates' records and proposals that it is a shameful disservice to the viewing public that they take their free spectrum, and use it broadcast useless drivel.
Which, as you say, they know to be drivel, but of course, the stupid American voter doesn't know.
Duh.
The voters know perfectly well. That's why they don't vote. The Republicans, the Democrats and the media have teamed up to lock down a very lucrative deal. So unpleasant questions like "Fidel Castro has now been in power for longer than any other head of state in the world. Do you think it is fair to say that the embargo has been unsuccessful in removing him from power?" will never get asked. And neither Pat Buchanan nor Ralph Nader will never get into the room. Into the room? They can't even get into the paper.
Your remarks about how the media focus on the trivial after the debates somewhat mirrors what happened here...a lot of the discussion after the first debate centered on Gores exaggerations and his sighs and his embellishments.
I go back and forth on whether voters know. But I'm really sure that whether they know or not, they don't care.
I think people don't vote because they are basically satisfied.
The parties and the media have successfully eliminated most candidates from the mix before the voters see anyone. And they don't let anyone sneak past once they've set the story arc. How many congresional elections are truly contested this year? A dozen? Two dozen? I've never cast a meaningful vote for congress in my life. Not in Maine, Massachuesetts, Minnesota, New Jersey or New York. In every single race it was an incumbent against a stooge. It's worse today than it's ever been because of the last gerrymandering deal. The dems got safe black seats and the republicans got safe affluent white seats, and so now there are even fewer seats contested.
People don't vote when the vote doesn't matter. They turn out in higher numbers for elections that are either close or there is significant conflict over a meaningful issue or there is a candidate who addresses issues important to them. Turnout this time is gonna be lower than ever, because it really doesn't matter which of these guys you pick, and you don't get a choice lower down on the ticket.
True. I think this is because most participants realize that the policy differences between the candidates are minimal (Rockefeller Republican versus conservative Republican), so an exhaustive debate on the relative merits of their policy positions is besides the point. Moreover, the debate itself was largely devoid of substance, which hamstrings observers in the media and on the Mote alike. Additionally, Gore's lying was not minor - it was major. Just as Bush entered the debate labeled a moron, Gore entered the debate labeled a liar. While Bush did not exactly dazzle, it would have been major news had he demonstrated total lack of knowledge in a critical area, yet he was adequate on the intellect score, whereas Gore flat-out told an untruth (on Witt) and an exaggeration (on the Florida school). Finally, I can only answer as to why I mentioned Gore's sighs and Bush's simplistic answers - they struck me as funny.
I would not hold the casual observers on this board to the higher standards I expect (for reasons with no basis) from the working press.
That's true. But part of the point is that the debate format, and the questions asked, and the nature of the responses reduces the debate analysis to what people like Jeff Greenfield can talk about--phrasing, body language, effectiveness of presentation.
So sure, that's what was talked about here. But I think that is inherent in the combinatin of the choice of format, moderator, and the candidates style of response.
"We're gonna get a set of stooges for the corporate contributors no matter who wins."
Perhaps. But your bogeymen are, as Cal correctly notes, a sated and homogenized populace. And you do get a choice lower on the ticket, which in sum will garner about 7% of the vote. Happy times make for happy people, and happy people will produce feel-good, don't-rock-the boat candidates.
Granted, it was for all the reasons you both mentioned. I'm not trying to argue here, I'm trying to agree.
Jay and I have both responded with "true." Agreement has been achieved.
No, my bogeymen are turned off and disaffected and feel like it doesn't matter who wins. When candidates show up, like Ventura or like the early McCain, who speak about the issues that the RepDems keep off the table, there is a corresponding increase in turnout.
And the reason Nader's getting 7 and not 17 percent of the vote is that it is almost impossible to find anything about the campaign in the media. OTOH, he's running a sucky, not really in it campaign. He made it easy for them to exclude him from the debates by getting no buzz going, at all.
Are you unconcerned about Bush's numerous incorrect statements of fact in the debate? Is it because you don't consider them to be "lying"?
I agree that the vast majority of those who don't vote feel like it doesn't matter who wins. I find your claim that they are truned off and disaffected a romanticism of their disinterest, when, in fact, they simply have better things to do in a time when almost all of their basic needs are being met, no matter the leader.
McCain is a great example. A media creation, he gets a little buzz, loses, and voila', reveals himself to be the same corporate insider he flayed for the primary crowds. Your McCain example only works if a significant percenatge of those who voted for him in the primaries "turn off" and don't vote in the general. You'll find that will not happen.
As for Nader, he's fun, but he's also wildly outside the fat-and-happy margin of the average voter. Put him in the debate, and he may get to 10%. Maybe.
Both candidates, as you know, were properly criticized for questionable policy statements - and corresponding figures - during the debate.
I can understand how you might equate those debatable facts and fiigures with "I used to be Sheriff of Nottingham" when, in fact, you were not the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Again, it is a distinction most people (at least those not deeply in love) get without much difficulty.
"Your McCain example only works if a significant percenatge of those who voted for him in the primaries "turn off" and don't vote in the general. You'll find that will not happen."
You're right that it's a fair test. I think it will happen.
And I agree that Nader is a shitty candidate, but can't we have someone explain why we need a defense budget as large as we have? Without doing the stupid pandering thing that Ace was talking about? Can somebody please explain, in these debates, why people who are running to enforce the law are breaking the campaign finance laws?
Can somebody please explain where our digital TVs are? Can someone please explain why we are still having a war against marijuana smokers, a war that's been long ago lost?
Nader would raise issues that the DemRepMedia triangle leave off the table. He might raise them ineffectively, but right not they're not even discussed.
While I agree with most of what you've been posting, Jack, something occurred to me when I read this. The voter turnout in the states where McCain was in play was huge, was it not?
And yet voter turnout is expected to be fairly low. That seems to suggest that some of them have decided not to vote.
If there's a distinction, Bush misspoke about millions and billions of dollars, while Gore misspoke about which disaster he accompanied James Witt to and failed to note that conditions in a Florida high school might have improved in the three weeks since a newspaper article was published.
In a vacuum, most people might agree with you, and even as set out now, they still might. But as the NYTimes and the Washington Post belatedly point out, and as it has been consistently pointed out by me for years, Gore's overstatements can be said to have reached critical mass. If you knew a guy who lied, overstated, fudged, exaggerated and otherwise contorted the truth to the extent of Gore, doubtless, you wouldn't lend him money or have him house sit. You'd rightly say, "this guy is a freak."
No doubt, the GOP will now try to hammer home Gore's "serial exaggeration" as not only being a serious character flaw but also one that somehow ties him in with Clinton's morals, etc. If they are able to do that, BINGO. They win. Mostly because they will have succeeded in making this a non-issue last four weeks.
But, Gore and the Dems. really aren't stupid. Nay, they are quite clever. (1)"Prosperity Itself Is On The Ballot This Year", (2) W.'s record on important issues in Texas is a disaster, and (3) W.'s mangled syntax and grammer aren't just malaprops, he really is shallow and in way over his depth.
Reading that last post, I was thinking, "Hey, maybe the debates are worth something after all." Yours is a nice, quick summary of the choice we're being offered, and it came out of that 90 minutes of TV, plus some post-debate follow-up.
I really do think that this time around, Gore will lower the decibels a lot and will indeed come over much more comfortably for people. W. will more or less be the same (unless HE decides to get feistier or more aggressive towards Gore - biiig mistake, but hey you never know.)
Lehrer was a disaster first time around. No sense of control, no followup. Simplistic questions on the whole. Maybe he too will try to change his stripes a bit.
If EITHER of them is able to come over as a sort of blend of Lieberman/Cheney a la the last debate, with a soupcon of McCain, and maybe a bit of Nader - he wins.
Please.
"Bush said Gore had spent more campaign money than he, demonstrably false."
First, you ignore Gore's problem, which is his Walter Mitty complex, previously demonstrated. Next, you seize on one alleged mistatement by Bush by distorting it.
Here is Bush's quote: ""This man has outspent me," he said of
Mr. Gore. "The special interests are outspending me, and I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of a campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue."
Yet, you can't even quote him correctly in your effort to attack, so you morph "This man has outspent me" to "Bush said Gore had spent more campaign money than he."
Look at the Dallas Morning News analysis and see if your charge of "demonstrably false" hold up.
"As of last month, the Bush campaign had spent $121 million to Mr.
Gore's nearly $ 61 million, the Center for Responsive Politics said, noting that the bulk of the Bush spending occurred in the GOP primary against John McCain. Both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush are receiving $ 67.6 million in federal funding for the fall campaign. Mr. Bush does have a point on spending by special interests and the political parties, said University of Wisconsin political scientist Ken Goldstein, who is monitoring special-interest TV advertising in a study funded
by the Pew Charitable Trusts. As of mid-September, special interests had spent nearly $4 million in ads benefiting Mr. Gore to $300,000 for Mr. Bush, he said. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, had spent $ 28 million in ads on behalf of the Gore campaign, compared with less than $ 25 million spent by the GOP, he said."
So, in the Gore v. Bush raise, who has outspent whom?
"'Bush called Gore's accurate statement about the size of Bush's proposed tax cuts "phony numbers""
H ha ha ha. So, when he called them "fuzzy", he was telling the truth. It is a characterization.
Vice President Gore and Gov. George W. Bush tossed out lots of numbers about tax and budget policy in their debate last night. But often their math was faulty or misleading, even when rooted in the deep philosophical divide between the candidates.
If anything, the dueling claims illuminated that divide--a split where one candidate's tax cuts are viewed as spending by the other, or where a broad-based tax cut plan by one accounting is considered a sop to the rich by his rival.
Gore repeatedly attacked Bush's tax plan, saying that the top 1 percent of taxpayers would get more--$ 665 billion--than what Bush would devote to spending programs.
Bush dismissed that as "fuzzy math." But while it is somewhat misleading, it's in the ballpark. Gore inflated the size of the Bush tax cut going to the very rich; for instance, he included the extra interest costs the Bush plan would incur by implementing a tax cut instead of paying down the national debt. Gore also included Bush's plan for estate tax relief, which disproportionally helps the rich.
Still, setting aside those two issues, it is clear that about 30 percent of Bush's tax cut--or $ 400 billion over 10 years--would go to the wealthiest 1 percent. That should not be surprising, because the top 1 percent already pay 30 percent of federal income taxes, and Bush has repeatedly said that his plan should benefit not only the middle class but also the wealthy who, he says, create the jobs. Depending on how one does the math, Bush proposes $450 billion
to $ 550 billion in new spending.
Tax cuts were not the only issue on which the two candidates jousted sharply over the facts in a series of unusually substantive exchanges over education, Social Security and other issues.
Actually, Bush's tax plan phases in over six years. However, Gore accurately described the governor's drug plan--even as Bush complained about the vice president's "old-style Washington politics."
For the short-term, Bush has proposed an "Immediate Helping Hand" program to provide prescription drug coverage for poor seniors, but it would not reach elderly people earning more than $ 14,600 and it would not provide any relief until a retiree had spent $ 6,000 out of pocket.
After four years, Bush has called for a more fundamental restructuring of Medicare in which the government would subsidize 25 percent of the premiums for different private health plan options.
On education, meanwhile, Bush tried to poke holes in some of Gore's promises. Gore, for instance, suggested that he and Bush were in sync on plans to impose new accountability for students and teachers. "We agree on a couple of things on education," Gore said. "I strongly support new accountability."
But on the issue of teacher testing, Bush supports testing all teachers for competence, while Gore supports primarily testing new teachers. Gore also asserted that he wants to test all students every year for proficiency in key subjects. However, prominent educators have said Gore's plan to use the National Assessment of Educational Progress would have to be dramatically altered to meet Gore's pledge.
That's kind of like figuring out your car payments and not counting the interest costs on your loan. Bush actually would devote one in three dollars of the surplus on tax cuts.
Gore's math on his plans--every dollar of spending on health care or
education is matched a dollar in tax cuts, while double that goes to debt reduction--was more accurate, if you buy his budget numbers. But others, such as the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, have calculated that Gore devotes five dollars on spending for every dollar in tax cuts.
Moreover, both candidates would eat up much of a surplus that has not
materialized yet, is contingent on a number of speculative spending assumptions and might disappear in an economic downturn.
On Social Security, both candidates offered fairly accurate critiques of each other's plans, but glossed over the hard choices posed by moderator Jim Lehrer--whether either plan could solve a possible financing crisis in Social Security without cutting benefits or increasing taxes.
As Bush said, Gore essentially would shift much of the problem to future generations, who would pay it out of general revenue. As Gore said, Bush has not adequately explained how he would finance his plan, especially when he also proposes a large tax cut.
Bush, however, misspoke when he said, "I want to get a better rate of return for your own money than the paltry 2 percent that the current Social Security trust gets today." The trust fund is invested in special Treasury bills, which earn at least 4 percent.
Bush was apparently referring to the return that workers might expect on their current contributions to the fund. But Social Security is more than a retirement program; contributions also in effect pay for an insurance policy for people who are disabled or die early, so that also has to be considered when assessing rates of return.
(FWIW, I know we live in a vacuum here in NYC, but I know not a single soul - colleague, family, friend or neighbor - who is voting for W. Four years ago, at least 20% of that same crowd was voting for Dole.)
OTOH, most bright people I know read a book or two.
Toys.
"As Mark Shields said the other night, Gore has it within him over the next four weeks to neuter this "exaggeration" business."
Perhaps. I'm reminded of when folks thought Clinton could keep his wick zipped when he became president. The 30 day discipline, however, is irrelevant. In his first big test to not make a classic screw-up of the type that has dogged him forever, so much so in 1988 that his campaign staff wrote a memo cautioning him on his exaggerations, what does he do? Exaggerates. Tells a whopper. As I said previously, it tells you something that the first people on the horn to the National Archives to check out that Gore's uncle really was gassed in WWI was not the Bush campaign, but rather, the Gore campaign.
But, Gore and the Dems. really aren't stupid. Nay, they are quite clever. (1)"Prosperity Itself Is On The Ballot This Year", (2) W.'s record on important issues in Texas is a disaster, and (3) W.'s mangled syntax and grammer aren't just malaprops, he really is shallow and in way over his depth.
hmmm, i don't think so.
we all go a little negative sometimes
SARASOTA, Fla. (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore's campaign will attack Republican George W. Bush on Monday for public-policy "bloopers" and for his record as Texas governor, Gore campaign officials said.
The Democratic National Committee will announce that a feature on its Web site will include a video Webcast of Bush's tongued-tied pronouncements, from his difficulties explaining his $1.3 trillion tax cut to his statements on the abortion pill RU-486, campaign officials said.
...
Just on Saturday Gore said he did not plan to attack Bush personally, but would feel free to criticize Bush's record. Now, it appeared Bush's intellect was on trial.
However, when democrats tell me not to vote for Nader because I'm wasting my vote, I reply by saying that if New York is close, then Gore's lost anyway. It won't take that many votes to qualify the Greens for matching funds. Since they are a real party, rather than a personal vehicle like Roosevelt's or Wallace's or Perot's, there may be a gradual heightening of the issues they raise, that major parties ignore. Some of these issues appeal to young people, and could lead to a postive feedback effect. This may be why Nader is spending time on campuses, trying to build the party rather than get votes.
Like it or not, we've now entered into the negative phase of the campaign. The trick is, which will seem to do it in a less obnoxious way.
JanJon:
whoops, i misread your post as saying they wouldn't go after the "malaprops". apologies 
"this was in the context of his certainty about the correctness of the process in all those people who have been executed in Texas while he's been governor"
That's another one he should get called on, when he starts out his prolife riff, a moderator or Gore should say "Now wait a minute. You want to have a society that has greater respect for life, while at the same time you support the string of Texas executions?"
DO you think Bush would do better or worse under tougher questioning?
OTOH, if someone asks him a so-called tough question (say, about his grammar), I suspect he's primed to hit that type out of the park while engendering a great deal of sympathy for having been hit with such a low blow.
demonstrably false."
Jack V replied (in Message # 780):
"First, you ignore Gore's problem, which is his Walter Mitty complex,
previously demonstrated. [comment: ??? Walter Mitty would daydream about going on 17 disaster trips with FEMA chaiman Witt when he had in reality gone on only 16?] Next, you seize on one alleged mistatement [comment: I picked out the two biggest whoppers. There were several more misstatements.] by Bush by distorting it.
"Here is Bush's quote: ""This man has outspent me," he said of
Mr. Gore. . . ."
"Gore has spent more campaign money then me" is a fair paraphrase from memory of "This man has outspent me.", isn't it?
(continued)
You want to change people, giving them what they want is not the way to go about it.
Talk about a soft ball even Bush could knock out of the park.
"Jim, executions demonstrate a greater respect for life. When a man is executed for brutalizing by rape and then murder, or blowing off the head of a fellow citizen for pocket change, when he is ajudged guilty by a jury, and when he has exhausted his numerous appeals, it is with utmost respect for not only the families of the victims, but for ourselves, that we impose the harshest punishment in our arsenal.
Some people believe it is respectful to allow a proven killer to eat, sleep and otherwise while away in prison at taxpayer expense. I disagree. I think it shows the utmost disrespect for law-abiding people to keep such a cancer alive.
More important, when that killer kills again - be it a prison guard or a fellow prisoner or someone on the outside, should he escape - I don't think I've shown the citizens much respect by thwarting their judgment because of my concerns over an execution.
I respect the decisions of the people of Texas. I don't presume to overturn those decisions without great cause. And I respect the desire of a nation to respond to senseless, brutal violence."
I mean a "How can you reconcile...." kind of question. In Gore's case, the best one is "How can you reconcile your commitment to all Americans with your administration's failures in the areas of health care reform and with the fact that under a Clinton/Gore administration, income inequality is at its highest level ever?"
I think Gov. Ryan may have something to say about this.
I had to leave for a bit and just saw your question to me: Yes, I do agree that if Gore doesn't control his tendency to embellish it can be very serious for him...and for ME because it could very well lead to Bush winning and leaving me with this prettyboy Governor named Rick Perry who seems like a typical Texas pretty boy, all hat and no cattle. Looks good in that hat, though.
121 Million Bush campaign
- 61 million Gore
_____
$ 60 million Bush advantage.
4 million Special interest ads Gore
.3 million Bush
_____
$ 3.7 Gore
______________________
$ 56.3 million Bush advantage.
Bush, even counting special interest ads for Gore, is outspending him nearly 2-1 according to your post.
I wouldn't presume to second-guess Governor Thompson, just as I expect critics to be a little more discriminating in assessing what we have decided upon in Texas. And I am absolutely convinced that every person executed under my watch in Texas has been guilty of the crime for which he or she was convicted.
But let me talk the larger point. Being a leader means difficult decisions. I don't take my responsibility lightly, but I don't shirk it either. I could quite easily hand out 30 day commutations on political expedience, to satisfy your concerns, or the concerns of others. But I am the governor of a state that has determined that the death penalty is a the proper response to murder. I agree with that sentiment. And I have to be responsive to the constituency that is on the receiving end of these killings, the rapes, these senseless acts of violence. You asked before about respect. What respect did Mr. Byrd get when he was tied to a truck and dragged to his death, all because of the color of his skin? What way is it to respect his death if the citizens of Texas were to spare the lives of his killers? And what respect would I have for his memory, or the law, if I were to commute their executions for political gain? It is in asking those questions to myself that I have come to the conclusions that I have articulated tonight regarding the death penalty.
"Governor, do you believe that abortion is murder?"
Either you can't read or you miss the point. In the Bush v. Gore race (excluding the primaries), who has outspent whom?
Yes, but he wouldn't say what you just spouted off for him.
And if he were the sort of person who did say these things, he probably wouldn't have been nominated.
I'm glad you asked that question. I don't believe it is murder. I believe it is, however, the wrongful taking of a life. It is a wrong that is perpetrated by many people in our society, because they feel thay have no alternatives, no choices, and no hope. And I want to do everything I can to give threm alternatives, to give them hope, to change the ethos so that the choice becomes an unthinkable option, not a first option. And I have no intention of adding to the difficult decisions of these women by labeling them murderers.
Yes. He could get the eseence of it, and in fact, if he put his heart in it, he could deliver it better because it would not sound so clever by half.
Of course, I would have to replace Rove as his strategist and Senator Gregg as his stand-in for Gore.
Under the existing regime, I think he could get it out, only not so effectively. He does not articulate well. It is a true fact.
Then add in the problem that he doesn't want to talk about abortion.
Do you think W could navigate those straits? Really?
Jack -forgetting his various policy speeches which are read from the prompters (including while out in the wildnerness), would you also agree that he doesn't give much evidence of being able to discuss policy issues except to a (very thin) skin level?
Yes. Simplicity is the key. Taking the offensive is the kicker.
"Jay, I have heard the argument that one can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty, and frankly, I find it offensive. A child in the womb has killed no one, has hurt nothing, has done nothing but be. A man who has been executed, however, has premeditatively taken the life of another human being, usually for the worst of reasons. I don't see how a child who has yet to even open his eyes can be equated with a brutal killer who makes us want to shut ours when we see his depraved acts."
I agree on those to which he has little emotional attachment. I've listened to him many times on eduation and social security, and I think he articulates his ideas and his depth of feeling on both very well. But he will always be hesitant on policy, simply because he is and always will be a "big picture" guy. Were I to make my decision based on who I thought had the better grasp of issues and policy and the facts that underlie both, I'd choose Gore. But I'm choosing a chairman of the board of directors, not a Mr. Wizard.
A question about the technicalities of the debates. At the VP debate there were what appeared to my untrained eye to be three glass topped recesses in front of the participants. Anyone know if the rules of engagement include video monitors for the participants?
Jack, you're living in some sort of Republican fairyland. (Have you joined Log Cabin?)
If Bush spent too much on the primary, then it hardly seems fair for him to lay his poor planning at Gore's feet. Since Bush did not follow campaing finance rules and was free to raise and spend as much as he wanted, it certainly is the height of hypocracy to whine that he is outspent now.
I wish you or someone , anyone would replace Rove. When you (the editorial you) vote for GW, yo are really voting for that little weasel because he is the one setting policy, not Bush...
He can say what he wants, and he has, on abortion, as long as it is fuzzy and nice. See his earlier pronouncements on judicial nominees (no litmus test) as opposed to Gore (who stated a litmus test the other night when he said that his nominees would "very likely" be pro-choice). He also spoke to the Christian Coalition by video monitor. If he were to reaffirm his pro-life position but state flatly that abortion was not murder, Bauer might bitch, but before 30 to 40 million people, the benefits would far outweight the positives.
The only policies that matters to me are
-cut my taxes
-have competent professionals at defense, NSC, and state
-do not presume you are all that smart; be a board chair, not a CEO
-cut everyone else's taxes
-get me moderate to conservative justices
-be comfortable with yourself
-veto stupid "Here, everybody, have a government subsidized pinata" stuff
-don't be excitable
-try to keep away from sexual harassment suits, grand juries and heavy-set teenagers
There may be a few more in there, but those are the biggies.
What I meant in my response was that you are overstating the American tolerance for plain speech.
Could be, but I dunno. Given Gore's waxen drone, it might be just the trick.
Being comfortable with yourself is personality, not policy.
It disagree that it is but one thing. It is many things. I think it can help in effectuating good policy.
He wouldn't have made it through the primaries. I mean, do you think it's a coincidence that we end up with these mealymouthed stuffed shirts?
"it certainly is the height of hypocracy to whine that he is outspent now."
His claim was labeled false, not petulant. It may have been the latter, but it was not the former.
I think they won it outright, mainly by good planning and better organization.
I don't know him that well. You sound like you too dated and it ended badly.
Bush is bitching because his timing is bad?
Yes, but they didn't win it by plain speaking. Or didn't you notice?
As for being comfortable with yourself making for good policy: I think both Nixon and Clinton did fairly well leading the country with reasonably good policies and they are both notoriously uncomfortable with themselves.
Bush is quite comfortable and wasn't very good. Kennedy's self-comfort was wildly overstated--no one that comfortable would screw chicks as maliciously with quite so much vengeance--but even then, he wasn't so terrific.
So I think you overstate the relationship considerably.
The weren't running against each other in the primaries. They were fighting for the nomination. They were running against, and spending against, others. As for the McCain ad, it was an independent expenditure, so it wouldn't be on the Bush campaign tab.
If we had dated, it would indeed have ended badly.
Okay, I will lay off the lackwit and busy myself elsewhere....ha!
You may think that two guys who threw the nation in constitutional crisis were did fairly well because one went to China and the other had Alan Greenspan alive and ticking. I just disagree.
Adios.
A truly unprofessional goodbye. Since you have placed the terms, let us be fair. The spending should be compared from the moment the last man had the requisite number of delegates to win his party's nomination. I will do the research. I will abide by the results.
Now.
Vamanos
Well, you ranked Richard Nixon on your top 5 presidents of the century. Also LBJ, a notoriously unhappy guy who wasn't comfortable at all.
The other three on your top five were Reagan--who, like Kennedy, was credited with more assurance than he had. He was an alkie's son, after all--and the two Roosevelts. FDR I grant you was your kind of guy. But Teddy Roosevelt was never comfortable in his own skin; his entire life was geared towards proving himself after his sickly childhood.
So using your own president ranking, it's pretty clear that your own priorities don't necessarily turn out good presidents.
Jack- your timing seemed convenient, given that your cite for Bush's veracity seemed to be ambiguous at best. If the real world calls, I apologize for any unprofessional implications.
If Bush meant to say (as Jack V. translates) that from a certain point in time going forward (and excluding all spending, campaign-building or otherwise, prior to that point) all spending directed towards assisting Gore's campaign for president has exceeded all spending directed toward assisting Bush's campaign for president, he should have said that. "The man has outspent me. The special interests are outspending me." doesn't say that.
Furthermore, the Bush campaign has failed to provide statistics that would back up any interpretation of Bush's statement consistent with truth, even though they've had almost a week to do it. Karen Hughes threw around some general statements on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday trying to justify Bush's claim, but even Tony Snow and Brit Hume weren't buying it.
Your apology is appreciated. Will you accept April 1, 2000 as the benchmark?
Cal
It was a weak century.
Now,
hasta la juan uegizamo.
As was your concession.
Yes. The end of the Conventions is a fairly common milestone in the campaign from which things are measured. If the milestone was Sept 17, I would be more dubious.
Some of those same ads, or remakes of them, are being recycled about now, I hear.
I do think it is curious that supposedly Bush is so inarticulate that he borders on unintelligible, but he can slip in specific code phrases so elegantly that the vast audience is unaware.
As for the articulateness or not, t'wasn't elegant at all. And, being only three words, one of which was "of" and only one of the others had two syllables - he managed it o.k.
So it must be true, right? The paper wouldn't print it if it weren't true, right?
-- "Fuzzy math": This means, "I am too fuzzy on math to be able to provide you with an intelligent response."
-- "Culture of life": "If you think I'm appointing any Supreme Court justice to the left of Atilla the Hun and his godson, Atonin Scalia, you're not paying attention."
-- "A difference of opinion": "I can't articulate sound policy reasons for opposing his position, so I'll just make it sound like the difference is philosophical, though I can't really articulate those differences either."
-- "A different attitude in Washington": "One fully compliant with a Congress run by right-wing whackos."
-- "Mediscare": "I'm too scared to argue facts, so I'll toss out a good sound bite instead."
-- "And I’ve given my answer": "Don't ask me to explain this any further because I can't without getting into deep shit."
-- "Liberal, activist judges": "Anyone who supports Roe v. Wade."
-- "I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, 'I don’t want you to let me down again.' ": "I feel really bad about the way the Bush family let the nation down the first time."
-- "I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life.": "Unless, like my National Guard AWOL record, they were mere 'youthful indiscretions.' "
how odd
To all the members of the Church, the people of life and for life, I make this most urgent appeal, that together we may offer this world of ours new signs of hope, and work to ensure that justice and solidarity will increase and that a new culture of human life will be affirmed, for the building of an authentic civilization of truth and love. Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II 1995.
This was a big part of Cardinal O'Connor's ministry. It illustrates the minefield that Bush walks when he talks about abortion and capital punishment. The Catholic view is coherent. Life begins at conception. Taking a life is wrong. Thus, euthanasia, abortion and executions are all wrong.
The repright view is not coherent. It tries to pick and choose between lives worth preserving and lives that should be eliminated. You can walk this minefield. Jack has suggested how, but the walk is really a difficult one.
It's not at all inconsistent to believe that Bush stuffs in code phrases that he doesn't know are code phrases because his handlers tell him that they test well. Your supposition that his deft use of clever phrasing in debates rests on his constructing those phrases. It's pretty clear that neither he nor Gore construct their phrasing on the fly. That leaves authorship in doubt in both cases. 
jones - Message # 877:
Bull.
The phrase Culture of Death has been used by the Pro-life movement since its early days - and certainly well prior to the Pope's epistle - to describe the diminution of human life in a society where baby killing is the law of the land.
As soon as I heard Bush utter the phrase Culture of Life, I recognized it as a positive twist - not a particularly clever one, but a twist all the same - of the original phrase.
There is nothing novel about it. I have heard it from pulpits and seen it in Catholic newspapers for several years. It is not a new twist on the culture of death because it is not new, and neither is it clever from Bush because it is not his thought nor is it used in a novel or clever way different from its original use.
Did Bush intend it to be code words for his thoughts? I don't know. If he drafted it himself, probably not, because I doubt he has any intellectual contact with anything that would enable him to use it. If the more likely scenario is accepted, that it was a pat phrase produced by his speachwriters and advisors then it could be test marketed phrases or code words.
My take on what the candidates should do in the next debate.
Bush: Take the education issue and hang everything else off of it. Education is a good issue for Bush and polls as one of the top couple of issues for the electorate. Bush can push his program and also use it to highlight the desired differences between him and Gore; nanny state vs. freedom of choice, accountability vs. pandering to special interests. Run this into the ground the way that Gore did the "tax cut for the wealthiest 1%" in the first debate.
Gore: Run against the viciously partisan Republican Congress. Use it to highlight what the Republican Party stands for; forcing morality down the throats of working American families, pursuing partisan advantage to the detriment of working American families, kowtowing to powerful special interests over the interests of working American families. Tie the Bush ticket to the cement shoes of the Congress and toss them into the river.
You'll note I haven't posted about the girl and the musical chairs at the school. That's because IMO the story is exactly equivalent to what Bush did with regard to Pentagon readiness. Somewhere, I assume some kid is having to stand in a classroom, and if Gore didn't get that story straight, well, the essence is true and it may be that any discrepancy was just bad translation by staff. Similarly, Bush apparently screwed up because earlier a couple of divisions weren't ready, but now they were. I think most voters expect politicians to couch figures the way they are most favorable to a candidate and expect in debates a human being will get some facts wrong.
Now Ohio thinks that policy errors or exaggerations are much worse than personal ones, whereas I believe exactly the opposite...especially given a pattern as Gore has exhibited. Anyone should know what he or she has done: were you around when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was begun, or were you a muck-raking reporter busy sending people to jail? Did you co-sponsor McCain-Feingold, or were you serving with the one of the greatest presidents of all time?
Moreover, look at it this way: in 1988 Gore's staff apparently warned him that his "knack" was something he really had to control for the sake of his campaign. Now, 12 years later he's running for his life-long goal, the thing that has mattered the most to him, and enjoying a comfortable lead. He knows he can beat Bush in a debate...yet he's unable to control this personality tick.
Doesn't the mere fact that he can't control the flaw when his political survival demands it indicate that it is a serious, and deep-seated weakness?
I saw GWB in at least one debate with McCain in the upcoming format, and I wasn't impressed with him then, either, but he apparently won in most people's opinion. And he was certainly better than he was against Gore the other night.
I disagree with any notion that Lieberman-Cheney will have a placating effect on this debate. IMO it will not be any prettier than the last and probably worse.
My lord, we just had a president who regularly unzipped his pants as a means of requesting a blowjob, and I don't recall it affecting his ability one way or another to work out a settlement between Palestine and Israel.
Yes, it does. When you're trying to work out settlements between third parties, it kinda matters whether they trust your word or not. Likewise for many other aspects of a president's prof. resp.'s.
I don't wish to revisit the Clinton argument in all its gorey, but Clinton's weakness certainly did affect his presidency.
Back to Gore, I might overlook his tendency to exaggerate if I approved of his policies and didn't see other disagreeable personality traits as well (such as the aforementioned portraying of those who disagree with him as not only stupid but evil).
When you're trying to work out settlements between third parties, it kinda matters whether they trust your word or not.
And yet Clinton lied in far more dramatic fashion to no ill effect. Gore's untruths are more stretches and exaggerations. Not to minimize them--as I said earlier, I think they should be considered pretty much a part of his nature, not accidents--but the guy has had a very successful 20+ years in politics without this affecting his interactions with other political professionals.
Thinking it will make a difference is the same sort of wishful thinking that caused Republicans to think that somehow, someday, Clinton would get his.
Indy,
I don't wish to revisit the Clinton argument in all its gorey, but Clinton's weakness certainly did affect his presidency.
I doubt you could point to any major policy or issue that was changed by the Lewinsky affair. It didn't affect his presidency; it affected his personal life--everyone, whether they knew him professionally or personally, views him differently. But he did the job just fine, and it didn't matter in the slightest.
Back to Gore, I might overlook his tendency to exaggerate if I approved of his policies
hahahaha. You'd defend him if he were a Republican, in other words.
This is utter nonsense.
1) Israel & Palenstine are about to go to full-out war.
2) Clinton's cock kept him from acting on any significant foreign or domestic policy issues for a full two years.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, for example, was killed by the Republicans because they *could* -- Clinton had not bothered to sell the treaty to the people. One day it came up for a vote, and everyone voted, and that was *it*.
That's just one example, of course. But those who still believe that Clinton "compartmentalized" are living with the spin of two years ago.
Clinton didn't "compartmentalize" anything. When he was spending six hours a day playing grab-ass to Monica and lying to everyone else, that was all wasted Presidential time. And he's been obsessed with the impeachment fight for three years now; meanwhile the country flies on autopilot.
Cal - You don't think that the impeachement process affected Slick's Presidency?
Ho, hum. Cal continues to spin the White House "I've never met someone who could compartmentalize like the President!" line, discredited a year ago.
Cal, can you name any significant initiatives in the past three years?
You are probably serious, which is pretty pathetic. You can disagree with what Clinton did, but unless you can prove--or even reasonably suggest--that he didn't do X, Y, or Z specifically because of the scandal, then don't go around blaming any action or inaction you disagreed with on that.
But if you're going to go around ranting and making up positions to go along with your rebuttals, do it on your own. I'm not going to be responding.
Cal: I wouldn't defend his exaggerations and lies as anything than what they are. But I'd say, as many Gore Motiers do, "He's better than the alternative."
And that's if he had a better personality in general and policies I agreed with pretty much down the line...but his party affiliation doesn't matter to me at all, and on several issues I already prefer him to Bush (the environment, for one).
Oh, and Jones--you never know where the candidates might be lurking.
Where's the Tank?
In anticipation of Wednesday's debate in Winston-Salem, N.C., Mr. Gore settled in for three days of practice at the Mote Marine Laboratory, a shark research and conference center near here.
"You can disagree with what Clinton did, but unless you can prove--or even reasonably suggest--that he didn't do X, Y, or Z specifically because of the scandal, then don't go around blaming any action or inaction you disagreed with on that."
Why didn't Clinton prepare the public for the CNTB treaty, then, Cal?
Just malfeasance, perhaps?
Can you name a single foreign or domestic initiative Clinton has advanced in three years, other than the pro-forma laundry lists he reads in his State of the Union?
(same speech the last three years, btw; it's the same speech, because nothing on the laundry list was accomplished, or even really pushed for)
No, you can't name a sinlge initiative Clinton has advanced.
Why is this, Cal?
Once again, if he was not distracted by oral-anal contacts & scandal & his Nixonian obsession with impeachment, *why* can you not name a single initiative?
As Ace has already pointed out, BC's Middle-East diplomatic achievements don't seem quite bulletproof. And I wouldn't be surprised if similar crises sprang up in Northern Ireland, etc.
On the other hand, Gorbachev & Co. ended up effectively surrendering to Reagan's strategy --because, whatever they thought of his IQ, they knew damn well that he meant what he said.
The comparison is not in Gore's favor.
If Bush pulls this out, all the Clinton defenders are going to do a *MAJOR* about-face on Clinton.
Granted, if Gore wins, no such re-evaluation will be forthcoming. Though we R's will, of course, have to re-evaluate Bush and our can't-live-with-'em-can't-live-without-'em relationship with the Christian Right.
As Ace has already pointed out, BC's Middle-East diplomatic achievements don't seem quite bulletproof.
Please tell me where I implied that they were successful, much less bulletproof.
My exact words were: "I don't recall it affecting his ability one way or another to work out a settlement between Palestine and Israel."
Did it affect his ability to work out a settlement? No. Not one way or the other--it didn't improve the ability or disable him completely. Note the utter lack of assertion that he did, in fact, work out a settlement. I was only commenting on the fact that his efforts to do so were not impacted by the scandal or the impeachment process.
Now in Northern Ireland I do believe he was more successful. Should it get screwed up in the future, that doesn't change the fact that it was viewed as a success, it happened during the impeachment, and that his ability to work with Mitchell and the PMs of both countries was not marred by their knowledge that he fucked an intern with a cigar.
A man who spends 700 days fighting impeachment is *not* spending 700 days working for peace or domestic initiatives.
I would think that rather self-evident.
"Did it affect his ability to work out a settlement? No."
Well, neither one of us has supplied any dispositive proof -- be it about the ability to work out the settlement itself, nor about that settlement's permanence -- nor is likely to. So I'm suprised to see you make an absolute statement, one way or the other.
Please. That's not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment affected his ability to work on it, or his reputation among international leaders (your original contention was that such a person couldn't be trusted). That it was not affected is pretty much beyond any reasonable dispute. If reports come out later that Israeli and Palestinian leaders were reluctant to trust him because of the scandal and that this impacted the chances for success, I will happily retract. But one would think such stories would be out and about now, and they are very clearly not. It's not even hinted at, not even by his enemies.
OK, amend my poorly-worded original contention to be about to what extent such a person could be trusted.
And I doubt there'd be any stories about this, either. What is some international leader gonna do -- go to the press and say, "yes, because I trusted him 17.93% less in view of his Monica-related lies, I went ahead and negotiated a different treaty for my people than I would have, had I thought he always told the truth"?
Besides, Gore's lies aren't about Monica; they're much more related to actual issues. That would, odds are, make those int'l leaders even more apprehensive (or more likely to also lie, when signing Gore-brokered agreements).
This is what comes up first when you punch "culture of life" into Yahoo, and use their web search.
In fact, the whole process is in some ways a lie. It's not a debate. These guys are not engaging each other, or even the issues, and frequently don't even answer the question asked. They're reciting prefab lines.
SO why so much focus on Gore's lies over trivial issues? Is it because they're trivial that they loom so large? Or is it because they illuminate the most obnoxious aspects of his personality?
Not really. What is occuring is the purposeful murk created by the Gore counterattack. He has a past littered with a specific type of lie or embellishment of the Walter Mitty stripe. he wants to be in the thick of it. He wants to be impressive. He wants to convey the human touch. So, he exaggerates his Vietnam experience; makes his sister the first member of the Peace Corps; morphs a House study on prescription drugs with his dog and his mother-in-law; states that his father was a champion of civil rights, even though his father voted against the civil rights act of 1964 (not uncommon amongst Southern senators at the time, but you see Al Gore Sr. get a pass that would never be afforded Strom Thurmond); explains his taking of tobacco money after his sister's death from lung cancer, and in the wake of his disgusting 1996 speech on the highly personal anecdote, as denial; the Internet goofiness; inflate his role as an investigative reporter by saying his work had resulted in jail time (it had not); stated he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands; stated that he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold; and so on and so on.
And the rebuttal? Tried and true. "We all do it." It is a page out of the Clinton Lewinsky book. Muddle, ward off reasonable distinction like a vampire to a cross, and get the message out. So, now, the pundits lick the slop of "isn't lying about policy worse than these minor gaffes?" and "Bush said that thing about who had outspent whom" and "lying about sex isn't lying" and on and on and on.
The media will now tilt against Bush in the second debate in an effort to keep equilibrium.
I think he's nuts and closer to Martin Sheen in "The Dead Zone."
Exactly. Not that there isn't truth to both claims, but look for the press to be ready to pounce on a Ford-like Poland line if Bush gives them the opportunity. 
"The fact is, the mainstream of the Republican Party, which for decades had the cold war and anti-Sovietism to guide it abroad, has simply gone brain dead since the cold war ended. It has lived off Clinton gaffes and a kind of drive-by foreign policy, in which Republicans drive by the White House, shout some insult at the Clinton team and drive on."
Ha!
"He came in fourth, because anyone watching could see that Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman all had a better command of the issues than Mr. Bush and seemed more like presidential timber than he did."
It is this stubborn eggheadedness that represents Bush's best shot at winning.
The smart set just can't fathom that he goes over well. Like the Clinton-haters, they just refuse to accept that others have differing impressions, and horrified, they retreat behind the walls of their own instincts, emerging to proclaim (against all current indicators) that "anyone watching" must determine - as they have determined - that Bush is a boob.
Mr. Bush's answers to the foreign policy questions were so deeply, deeply shallow that you could only wonder: Is he that unfamiliar with the material and uncomfortable with the issues, or have his foreign policy advisers simply not prepared him because they themselves are unprepared for this world? I think it was a little of both.
Consider the moment when Mr. Bush was asked how he would respond to another sudden global financial crisis. He said: I would call Alan Greenspan and I would gather the facts. Wonderful! So would my mother. But she doesn't think she should be president. This is the essence of Mr. Bush's foreign policy. I would call Colin Powell. I would call Alan Greenspan. But what will he ask those advisers, and what happens if they disagree? For that Mr. Bush actually has to know something himself, and he appears to be a man with little intellectual curiosity. Mr. Bush seems to believe that by simply mentioning the name Colin Powell on foreign policy, he has a foreign policy. Had Mr. Bush listened to Mr. Powell on Kosovo, there would probably never have been a U.S. air war against Slobodan Milosevic and he would still be in power.
Since Mr. Bush is not interested in either, it is not surprising that when pressed on foreign policy he falls back on name- dropping or on neo-cold-warism, such as his vow to "rebuild military power," which "starts with a billion-dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform."
Friedman sure has that part right.
Since Mr. Bush is not interested in either, it is not surprising that when pressed on foreign policy he falls back on name-dropping or on neo-cold-warism, such as his vow to "rebuild military power," which "starts with a billion-dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform."
The best you can say about Mr. Bush is that he has thought about the world and decided that it's still the 1980's, and therefore he plans to solve the problems of his father's era with his father's old advisers. The worst you can say is that deep into this campaign he still hasn't been able to master his briefing book on foreign policy and has evinced zero interest in thinking about the world afresh.
Since he may be our next president, both alternatives are troubling.
******************************************* Do you have toys to put away?
Shock of all shocks.
The Russians leaned on Milosevic.
(to his credit, Gore rebutted Bush on this point less on substance - as Gore had leaned on the Russians for similar purposes in April of 1999 - and more so he could pronounce some tough names in an effort to goad Bush into taking a crack at it).
Then we also have the tacit concession of the successful foreign policy when Republicans controlled the White House by Clinton's rallying cry, "It's the economy, stupid."
Only the last part of his sentence, not the first. Polls demonstrate that people did think he came in fourth. But it is wrong to conclude that they therefore think he's not oak, or mahogany, or pine.
And while you're wrong about him being nuts, I do agree that Gore's lying is not of the same genre as the usual political lie. It's closer to the type of lie told by that Navy guy who killed himself.
Did someone take a poll ranking the four candidates? Can you link it? (or just paste it, as I don't link)
I very much enjoyed the irony of "And while you're wrong about him being nuts, I do agree that Gore's lying is not of the same genre as the usual political lie. It's closer to the type of lie told by that Navy guy who killed himself."
Kinsley is so full of shit I can smell him through my computer. I'm not acknowledging that Bush's plan is full of tax credits, but even if it were, it doesn't mean that he likes them just because Kinsley says so. It has big government in it and he doesn't like that, but he realizes it's a necessity for the moment. As for Haliburton owing some of it's success to the government, it's not true just because Kinsley wishes it to be so. It would be true if the government gave it subsidies to stay in business, but not because it buys its services. It could have bought those services from any company it wanted. BTW, this is how you communists justify an income tax rate that's akin to theft: you claim that the rich owe their success to the poor and therefore the poor deserve the rich's money. It doesn't matter that a rich businessman may have taken risks, put up his own capital, came up with creative ways to manufacture products, etc. It's just not emotionally fulfulling to you unless the poor can call you their savior.
I imagine he'd call Powell and say "What do you think we should do with that whats-his-name?"
Lennon and McCartney didn't even know the names of most of the chords they played.
The central point, of course, is that Cheney didn't do that. He used his government connections to get a CEO position, and then used those connections to drive revenue.
I knew it was Boor-something. Yes, it was interesting. I particularly liked the Harpers/Atlantic article on the Navy problems of the last 15 years and how his suicide played into that (some 3-4 years ago).
Jack,
Sorry, I don't know if there was a rating and ranking--although there may have been, and I'll check. I was thinking of the fact that Gore, Cheney, and Lieberman all got high polling results on knowledge, and Bush didn't. That, to me, suggests that on that subject he came in "fourth". But I should have said I just inferred it, apologies.
The point I was trying to make is that Friedman and others are wrong in assuming that people won't vote for him if they see him as last iin this area.
Yes, I figured you'd like that, but only because you're the sort who thinks people commit suicide because they are caught lying.
(snerk)
I suppose I could rejoin that "you are the sort" but that doesn't really interest me. As I said, I enjoyed the irony.
He has not told me that. He strikes me as a very amiable one if true.
I've also seen a counter argument to the "it's the stupidity, stupid" charge that goes something like this:
Al Gore plainly can't keep his facts straight, and George W. Bush admits he doesn't know every last detail about everything. That's why Bush doesn't doesn't think either he or Al Gore should try to micromanage America, but that you should be empowered to run your own life. You know what's best for you, whether your daughter needs a new chair in her classroom or a new computer. Whether you need to keep more of your own money to buy arthritis medicine for yourself or for your dog.
Al Gore is a smart man who think he knows what's best for you. George W. Bush is a plain-speaking man who thinks you know best what's best for you.
I meant nothing bad of "you are the sort". I meant it literally--some people think that Boorda committed suicide because he was busted in the lie. In fact, I'm sure most people do.
The whole point is that there is no irony if you don't think he committed suicide because he was busted.
This is, of course, Bush's central problem in constructing coherent arguments. He opposes big government in principle, but triangulation forces him to create big government plans. He opposes abortion in principle, but can't do anything about RU-486. He likes tax cuts in principle, but in practice, by paying for the tax cuts with borrowing, he increase the tax bill in the long haul.
Of course, a coherent course would be to cut taxes by cutting spending--raising the ss retirement age, cutting DOD and CIA budgets, not giving in on prescription drugs for seniors, etc. I don't think that course tested well.
I got it.
BTW, no one laughed that Gore was going to the Mote to prepare for his debate.
Leave it be. That kind of stuff is best ignored. Of course, that kind of stuff is why I don't spend any time in the politics thread.
Haha!
I don't think Jay's a commie. I agree with him sometimes, and I don't think I'd ever agree with a commie. 
well, it's hit and miss, but Politics is better these days, imo.
That one hurt. But now I'll be on my way home so you won't have me to kick around for a while.
By the same reasoning that makes Jay a commie, Cygnus is a facist. Not that this kind of thing adds to the discussion in any way.
That's weak. Even if what you say were true, the fact of the matter is it was still Cheney who got into the government position through his merits. The same would have been true if he gained notoriety some other way. It still remains that the government did not help Cheney other than buying his company's services.
Of course, a coherent course would be to cut taxes by cutting spending--raising the ss retirement age, cutting DOD and CIA budgets, not giving in on prescription drugs for seniors, etc. I don't think that course tested well.
And who do you think will come closer to that? Al Gore? $4.3 trillion in new spending Al Gore?
That tired tale about hard working businessmen putting up capital and gaining the fruits of their labor doesn't apply to people going from government jobs to government contractors. They can't accumulate the capital, legally, in the government jobs. They weren't hardworking businessmen when they were pissing the people's money away.
I was just having a bit of fun.
That'd be a pretty big lie, wouldn't it?
Thanks for the clarification -- anyone who supports Gore is a communist. Yes indeed, that's certainly a well reasoned position and worthy of consideration -- I'll file it under "nut case" with the rest of your opinions.
In the constellation Cygnus
there lurks a mysterious, invisible force.
The black hole, Cygnus X-1.
Six stars of the Northan Cross
In morning for their sister's loss
Nevermore to face the night.
Excerpt:
As has been well documented (see, e.g., "Feasting at the Federal Trough," by Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller in these pages), in the five years that Cheney headed up Halliburton, the company garnered some $2.3 billion in federal government contracts, nearly double the amount of government business the company did in the five-year period preceding his arrival. In all, Halliburton managed to obtain some $3.8 billion in government contracts and taxpayer-insured loans during Cheney’s tenure. These gains occurred while the company more than doubled its contributions, from $534,750 to $1,212,000, to the political parties and members of Congress. Halliburton’s lobbying expenditures also substantially increased while Cheney ran the company, from $280,000 in 1996 to $600,000 in 1999. Tracking the escalating lobbying expenses from year to year during that period, Royce and Heller note that the "upward trend parallels the increasing success Halliburton has had in winning government contracts, loans and guarantees under Cheney’s direction." Perhaps just as important to Halliburton’s recent successes in attracting government business and subsidies is Cheney’s cozy relationships with government officials. According to Wall Street analysts, these contacts, developed during his days as Secretary of Defense under George Bush, have helped facilitate Halliburton’s dealings with the federal government.
No, not really. But a minimilast government is closer to what you described then a bloated bureaucracy is.
Now, before anyone gets in a tizzy, I won't preach to the ignorant masses in this thread anymore. This thread is for discussing Al Gore's autism that he exhibits in the debates.
Correct. That is what both parties are absolutely committed to continuing. That's why our choices are limited to people who operate by the use of pull, graft and corruption. That's why the debates have corporate sponsors who won't let Nader in the room.
It's also why the debates are so boring and, frankly, irrelevant, because it doesn't really matter which guy wins.
My experience with people of this stripe as the Bush types, is that they have no problems talking patriotic at the same time that they dodge the draft, talking clean air at the same time they 'grand-father' 60-year old polluting refineries--espousing clean politics at the same time they grant sweetheart state contracts to the billionnaire Wiley brothers in return for soft money--rail against the government at the same time attempting to use the government to deprive more than half of the population of the right to control their own bodies. These people are so bad and so evil that they may be the force that brings on communism and destroys the Republic if we let them be in power long enough. 
Bub - Tomorow night.
Add consonants as needed.
The Prime Millenial itself.
I went to my other computer, as I did yesterday, and it comes up just fine.
Hmmm, I'm using 300-width. Perhaps that may be too large?
1,000 has lice?
Perhaps to get "up" for the debate...?
Did anyone count the number of times Gore used the term "lockbox"?
Did anyone count how many times Bush said "umm or uh"?
Those who invested said time must be just bonkers today at knowing how ineffectual all of that effort turned out to be. Actually, you can substitute counterproductive for ineffectual.
Gore ignored the question and proceeded to give two minute opening statement. So much for following the rules.
I noticed that. Given that the campaigns settled on the rules, does this mean that the Bush camp did not want an opening statement, while the Gore camp did? Why would this be? (Presumably, if they both wanted opening statements, they would have agreed to opening statements.)
I fault Lehrer for not taking more control. The most obvious area was failure to control time, but I think a good moderator would have noted when the speaker did not respond to the question. Both were guilty of this, and I think it should be pointed out more.
When you are expressing your own very biased opinions, try to stay away from phrases su7ch as "You got the feeling he was going to make a booboo."
It is a time honored technique in these things for the speaker to do his own thing in terms of the response he gives, to hell with the question asked. The trick is to do it in a way that at least gives lip service to the idea that it is a response. Gore didn't quite succeed at it on that first question, but he was smooth enough.
I for one prefer for the dialogue to be more or less open ended, if it is flowing, instead of adhering to the time constraints.
OTOH, I would have been quite upset had either of them brought props (they had agreed not to). A la the grandstanding that Ricky Lazio did in his debate with Hillary with the one page agreement. (They also had agreed - no props.) Since that whole episode has probably irretrivably sunk Ricky, I am sure he wishes now he hadn't done it.
I, of course, meant my remark to be helpful, but you seem to take offense. What a pity.
I agree. I hate it when candidates do this -- and they all seem to do it to some degree or another. There were a couple of areas where they seemed to get stuck and just ate up time throwing the same tired lines at each other while acting like it was crucial that they get one last iteration of something they'd already said before.
Altogether, I thought it was an uninspired performance by both candidates. Gore did seem to have a better grasp of details -- esp. in foreign affairs, but that would be expected in a V.P. v. a Gov.
Regarding Bush's sniffing, his campaign said, before the debate I believe, that the Bush has a cold.
I thought that Bush did well to avoid the voucher issue. At one point I thought that Gore had set Bush up to go for the voucher issue, but Bush didn't bite. I was pleased to see Gore come out in favor of charter schools.
My family also made it a family event. Our seven year old son is quite interested in this race, arguing with a Bush supporting classmate at school and all that.
Bush made no major mistakes, but was killed on any sort of policy discussion. It strongly came across that Gore knew more about Bush's proposals than Bush did. My favorite moment was in regards to Russia and Serbia, where Gore verbally patted Bush on the head for a good try in suggesting to get Russia involved, and then explained exactly why it was bad idea at this time.
Gore needs to watch that fucking condescension of his. His sighs, and eyerolls really piss people off.
Gore needs to watch that fucking condescension of his. His sighs, and eyerolls really piss people off.
Gore did play the "superior-position" thing to the hilt. Too bad. He had Bush, who appeared quite 'elfin', self destructing from his own deliverance aura, yet allowed himself to get into what I perceived as "siblings vying to be mommy's favorite son" format.
As mild and tentative as they were, W.'s efforts didn't really work. But they did open up the opportunity for Gore to respond that HE wouldn't be attacking W's character etc. And, he did so matter-of-factly, without appearing either unctuous or hurt or whatever. In the little tit/tat these things are, that was a clear victory for Gore.
I don't know if you're purposely distorting what conservatives including myself stand for or just aren't aware, but you're missing the point. Conservatives don't want to regulate individual rights per se. Rather, they want people to be free to determine with whom they associate and what can take place in their community - for better or worse.
For Jexster, Wherever He Might Be:
Last time I checked, saying "umm" was a common trait shared by a lot of people. It is a common way to pause in speech. I use it a lot (although I try not to).
But the term "lockbox" is deliberately used as an evocative phrase. I wouldn't object, if it were accurate, but it isn't. And I'm not simply picking the nit that there isn't a physical lockbox; obviously "lockbox" is intended to metaphorical. The metaphor is intended to suggest that the money will be allocated in such a way that politicians cannot meddle with it, or use it for other purposes. This is abject nonsense. There are ways to put things beyond the simple meddling of politicians, but this isn't one of them. A provision for a so-called lockbox, passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President, can be undone by a bill passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President.
They are misleading the electorate when they use this term.
(Yes, I know that Republicans do it too. They are also misleading the electorate when they do it.)
Gore's distortions:
1) He was never with Witt in Texas as he claimed.
2) Re "Kailey having to stand in class": Ludicrously misleading. The classroom might have been crowded-- because the room was packed with $100,000 of new science equipment which had just been delivered and had not yet been set up.
Is Gore against $100,000 in new science equipment?
3) Gore charged that Bush's plan would leave kids in failing schools for THREE YEARS before his voucher-liberation took place. Gore claimed that his plan, on the other hand, would work immediately to close failing schools, then reopen them under new, better management.
The problem: Gore's own plan calls for waiting for PRECISELY THREE YEARS before closing and reopening a failing school.
This is a monster lie.
If Bush doesn't confront Gore with these facts at the next debate... well, then I just don't know what to say.
To my knowledge Americans served almost exclusively on the Western Front during WWI. Now it's also true that Gore could simply have slipped up and meant France, but in that case, bringing in his uncle was totally irrelevant to the point he was making, which was about Kosovo.
So in that case it would again be a useless personal family embellishment.
But I don't know for certain that his uncle was not in fact gassed in the Balkans during WWI.
It would also mean that Gore confuses France with Kosovo.
We'll see. I, too, always imagined that Americans were deployed only in Northern Europe.
Dusty
Yes it is true what you say about "um" or "er" etc. However, when intellect, and projected honesty are goals these "natural" pauses cause appearance to uncertainty in knowledge and truth. A liar is much more prone to search for the answer, while an honest person can respond spontaneously.
It did not help in his efforts to project strong principle and well-laid planning.
Conservatives don't want to regulate individual rights per se. Rather, they want people to be free to determine with whom they associate and what can take place in their community - for better or worse.
I thought conservatives did not want their community intruding their lives without compelling state interest. Roe v Wade represents a reduction in intrusion, so has always seemed like a conservative policy.
labwabbit:
Hillary Clinton says "Ummm" and "Uhhh" literally --and I do mean literally -- every second, third, or fourth word.
Case closed....
However Gore was noting that WWI started in the Balkans, and that his grandfather fought in it (as did mine.)
Gore said, ". . . Look, that's where World War I started, in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poison gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. . . "
My objection is the implication of parallelism.
Bush's "um's" and "err's" may signal lack of intelligence to you (although I haven't noticed a strong correlation), but my observation about Gore was not suggesting that he was unintelligent. I was suggesting that he was deliberately misleading an pandering to an uninformed electorate. As CalGal might say, different thing entirely.
Look, that's where World War I started, in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poison gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict.
As I said previously, it could very well be that it's just ambigious wording. But the point he was making was about Bosnia (I mistakenly said Kosovo), and it occurs in a laundry list of his accomplishments. So, as I said, even if he meant Europe, then it's still an embellishment not relative to the point.
Here's the larger statement:
When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city and most of my peers felt against the war, as I did.
But I went anyway, because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place.
I served for eight years in the House of Representatives, and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control.
I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years, I've served on the National Security Council.
And when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe, with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that's where World War I started, in the Balkans. My uncle was a victim of poison gas there.
No, only by making sure he would go and another Tennesean might not have to, could he live with his conscience.
Well, perhaps.
Yes, you are correct. It appears to be ambiguous. Deliberate perhaps? My guess is no. he isn't that clever.
Yeah, right. Conservatives don't believe people of like mind can gather and create a community of like-minded people with laws meant to mold the community as they see fit. What was I thinking?
But I went anyway, because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place.
Was there really a quota system down to the town level?
In the context of the debates, it projected an uncertainty and lack of confidence particularly in response to direct scrutiny of his statement by Gore. Uh...well...umm = not sharp.
Who is the Motie that has a penchant for putting umms, gratuitously, I might add in his posts?
No doubt some newsie is combing the family history as we speak.
You missed my point. I probably didn't express it well.
The blame shall be based equally here. Your expression is aptly clear, but between phone calls and lost souls wandering about my office...
...the apology is mine to give for not having answered in more direct fashion.
>Was there really a quota system down to the town level?
Draft boards did have a quota. In a small town there would probably be only one draft board that also encompassed a lot of countryside as well. Whether that was his reason back then is unknowable. He may have been as keenly interested in "maintaining viablity in the system" as Clinton (or Al Senior may have been.) "I'm a veteran" always sounds good on the stump, especially back then.
I understood your point.
It's voter.com, and it's slow to load, though trying again helps. It's Jack Germond's column, in which he says that Bush's performance was good but not good enough for him to overturn Gore's advantage in November.
(and, although technically for Politics, I suppose, the spread between Hillary and Ricky continues to grow. It is massive.)
Thanks for linking that article in. I like Germond; he's a sensible guy.
Also a rather nice guy, as I recall.
What was up with Al's rosy cheeks?
He looked like a "find" at a Holiday Inn oil painting sale.
Take this in the spirit in which offered - he agrees with me in virtually every thing he says. He just says it better.
I'd forgotten how well he writes. Is he still syndicated?
A check of the transcripts reveals that both candidates used "you know." An example, from Bush:
"It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off, you know, tomorrow what we should do today."
I haven't counted all the uses, but the two that stood out to me were by Bush, including the one above. If someone has the time, perhaps an accurate count is in order.
Carry on.
Sure.
For the record. Blech. Blech on that, blech on Gore's self-serving congratulations to his own military service, and a final blech on the continued use of human props (Florida standing girl/Massachusetts couple).
But I am hopelessly out of date.
Come now, Jack, you know that you're not who they're selling to. None of us are.
That mus' be southern-slang. Sordda like-L-I-B, M R Lies.
The Tin Can Lady came to Boston, Mass., from Iowa in her expensive motor home with her poodoo to get another 15 minutes of fame.
I wonder how much the gasoline cost to move that van across the country? And who paid for the trip?
That's why I love you, darling!
My "blech" was for myself and myself only.
Wild Catholic boys (you and that other Jack) never sat through three sermons a week where preachers were always hitting straw men, telling moving made up stories with the attempt to focus on some telling detail as if it stood out as proof of whatever point they were arguing.
You can have mine.
We've come a long way from the minor urp of Pat's cloth coat to the full-scale prostitution of every personal detail in an effort to woo the soft soccer mom contingent. The comparison is "Emmanuelle" to "Poop Shoot Mamas 23."
A perfect Table Talk tagline!
My cousins did all that. I just sat and looked at the stained glass while the Latin washed over me. I didn't even have to cope with nuns.
You are most kind. But I couldn't possibly take another man's blech.
Germond still writes a column for the Baltimore Sun with Jules Witcover.
At any rate, he's right on in this one.
I didn't say that it was for any other than you. I just was a tad surprised you didn't rate it on its effectiveness for its intended audience.
Oh, he is syndicated in some way--maybe through the Sun. I used to read him in the Merc all the time.
If the intent was to bore the intended audince, I give it an "A."
But the intended audience disagrees with you.
the only way i'd bother to register to vote, that's for sure
Haha. I didn't know, you know, it was said that much.
Well gag me with a spoon dude!
Such is my lot in life. But at least I have my blech.
So now we are blaming Gore's blechness on Reagan?
Is there a general rule: If it's bad, it's Reagan's fault?
While I don't think that has any long term significance, I think it suggests that a majority of people weren't bored.
Sorry, I prefer to hold people responsible for their own actions. Weird concept, but I'm not buying that Bush and Gore are unable to control what they say.
If you accept the above, even arguendo, then, yes, Reagan is to blame.
But, big deal. You are correct that either W. or Gore could stop it (and this time around, if I recall correctly, it was W. who first started using these real families -almost always of four - in his various stops around the country to emphasize why his tax plan was good and conversely why Gore's wasn't.
Long and short - the polls and other data these boys use must clearly tell them that putting a name and face on it works. Jack's permission or not, bleck.
Fer shure, ya know? The New York Times has an entire page of vox populi responses to the debate. The newsies and the pols will do anything they can to avoid talking about issues and the implications of the positions taken by the candidates.
Has anyone noticed that in "person on the street" interviews, Joe Sixpack and Sally Sockermom have begun to talk in sound bites?
Feh!
Even chicks like that tawk soundbite now.
Assume for the moment that this use of real people and their specific stories started with Reagan.
I'm not arguing against the use of real people and specific stories per se. It is an effective technique. Not my natural style, but effective enough that I would try to incorporate it if I were crazy enough (I'm not) to run for office.
But there is a difference between using a specific family situation to illustrate the impact of a tax change, and the pandering, tear jerk use of the can lady. Both create powerful imagery, but one uses real people to make a valid point more powerfully, and the other uses a real situation purely to create emotion; more intended to deceive than explain. (A reasonable question would be for some clear way of distinguishing the two. If this subject has legs, I'll try.)
Even worse is when someone uses a real person (Gore's moth-in-law) to evoke how close to home the situation is, and it turns out to be a flat lie.
Please tell me what policy point was emphasized by telling us that someone drove the can lady from Iowa to Boston? NONE. It was pure pandering. Anyone who doesn't retch at that story probably thinks with their emotions rather than their brain.
They also report that W. today is out in Pennsylvania telling all who will listen that they shouldn't pay any attention to all those facts and figures that Gore was throwing out (among other reasons, because he isn't trustworthy re same), and that every one should just pay attention to the PRINCIPLES involved. Big and broad and American as Apple Pie.
Funny.
Apt.
They are now talking about FDR and a State of Union speach which gives attention to a family with a brave little turtle that survived the dust bowl.
And so it goes.
So much for sticking to issues.
Ingrate!
Gallup: Gore 49 - Bush 41
Zogby: Gore 46 - Bush 41
Rasmussen/POS: Bush 44 - Gore 40
I can't believe this stiff is going to be our next President.
Oh, well. He gets the recession.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. D-U-M dum.
Attacking fuzzy math is fine if you can articulate the sharp math, otherwise it's just evasive. "The rich will pay a higher proportion of the total tax collected than they do today. People earning less than "x" will pay no tax and all, and everyone will get a cut in rates. That's real math for real people. Mr Gore's fuzzy numbers don't add up unless you are the one family out of (25? 50?) who can jump through all his bureaucratic hoops."
I'll be old and gray before Bush can say that, and sell it like he understands it. Never mind being able to defend it from tangential angles of attack.
Correction: Older, grayer.
Mele:
He said most of that. The "bureaucratic hoops" thing he did not say during the debate-- but he's said it before.
You're getting this from Bush himself.
So it's wrong to say he "can't" say it. He's said all of it.
Did he say it all, as forcefully as you would have liked, last night?
No, but then he's simply not a terribly good debater.
I imagine he will be sharper at the next debate. Having done what he wanted to do at the first debate -- i.e., survive -- he will be more willing to take chances and say what's on his mind.
They are running out of time and that means go for broke.
At some point, they will say enough is enough.
Even if Gore is elected president, the Senate will also have some great affect on the next justices.
I miss Jack's updates on key Senate and House races.
Maybe he should run for both jobs. Then, if there is a tie vote in the Senate, he could break the tie. Just for fun, he could vote one way as a Senator, then the other way as VP. Then he could honestly tell all constitutents that he voted in their interests.
(PS, where in the Constitution is this prohibited?)
When you write "community", I read "government."
Sure, you can go buy an island and set up a state that has any rules you want, and share it with whatever friends you want to share it with. But if you wanna live in the US, which, IME, is what conservatives all wanna do, you've gotta abide by the rules of the US "community," which include respect of individual rights.
It's not illegal, just really self-serving and not in the interest of the nation or CT.
Speaking of illegal, why hasn't anyone written about the bald violation by Bush/Cheney of the constitution's ban on Pres/Vp from the same state.
I'm fairly certain the constitution says that each house shall make it's own rules of procedure.
???
Cheney reregistered. That was the first hint he'd been selected.
Thank you for your support.
"Ginsberg has been treated during the past year or so for cancer (prostate, as I recall, strange as that may seem)."
That sounds not merely strange, but anatomically impossible.
(Shades of that joke about the woman who mistakenly got prescribed a huge dose of male-hormone injections. A few days later, she goes back to the doctor, complaining about unwanted hair growth. "Where is it growing?" "On my balls.")
don't believe you gave us your thoughts, have you?
You have my support SIR!
knew you'd shape up. That's a good chap.
Neither seems to accept that they are counting their chickens based on number of eggs regarding the surplus. Neither will accomplish anything without congressional pork added to bills.
I am going to get screwed, it is just a choice of Dicks.
336. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/00 2:56:33 PM
I have only one thing to say about the debate.
What was up with Al's rosy cheeks?
He looked like a "find" at a Holiday Inn oil painting sale.
Jack:
I have it on good authority that Gore now uses Christopher Reeve's make-up girl - whose last gig was at a funeral home in Pasadena.
Since someone actually asked for my take, I'll mention anything that hasn't been covered....(thinks, scrolls back and thinks some more)
Okay, so I'll just tell you what I think.
In the real world, it was a much closer debate. Bush sounded his themes well and often. He appealed to issues that will ignite his base of support, and those leaning towards it. His invocation of smaller government and "its your money" were on target. He didn't say anything patently stupid, and for the most part avoided the stiffness he showed in his convention speach. He looked earnest for the most part, and avoided the smirk without looking pained. His best work was done before the debate. The media swallowed the Gore as debating machine spin hook line and sinker. The mere fact that Bush was not on the canvas crying "no mas, no mas" allows him to claim a victory.
Gore hit most of his hot buttons, and scored some minor points with the "wealthiest 1%" repetition.
Both candidates did the wink and nod job on appointments to the Supreme Court. Gore challenging Bush on "code words" and a litmus test came very very close to blowing up in his face. A more able Republican would have shoved them back down his throat.
In short, Bush is down, but not out. To Gore by points on a split decision.
A thought to get you started, ala Mike Meyers in Coffeetalk-
"Neither candidate articulated a position on abortion and RU-486 that reflects the position of the majority of the electorate- reasonable restrictions on abortion, coupled with an effort to minimize abortions, while protecting the right to early abortions at the discretion of the mother."
Discuss amoungst yourselves....
"He also knew Bush's proposals better than Bush."
Not really. Gore's signature "Bush spends more for the top 1%" blah blah blah is provably false.
In fact, Bush spends *TWICE* as much in new spending over ten years as he spends on "tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%" over ten years.
You see -- it's easy to sound authoritative when you simply make bullshit up out of your ass.
Trust me, I know.
I predict more finger-pointing, tongue-thrusting, how-much-have-you-cried-recently, did too-did not antics. These displays of "showmanship" will also increase with the intensity of effort each candidate feels is needed to continue side-stepping major, divisive issues.
But just my opinion SIR!
Gore may be a sigher, he is somewhat boring and annoying, but Bush is a doofus. Please don't elect him, and I swear I would say the same thing if Gore didn't have a gene-mate of mine as running partner. Really, George-Dubbya is better than Billy Carter, but he is such a doofus. Doesn't everybody see that? And what was that bit where he forgot what the question was? He looks so silly when he goofs up like that! Can this guy be put in charge of a superpower? Can he be put in charge of any ship larger than a yacht?
Because Bush never *did* say that. Once again, Gore simply fabricated.
Bush promised "immediate help" to poor seniors, then a full program for other seniors.
Gore, out of thin air, suggested that it would take 4-5 years for this new plan. Bush *never* suggested waiting this long. This is merely Gore's bullshit assumption-- that it will take a while to get a big program up and running.
If Gore wants to make that assumption, fine -- but then, of course, he must assume his own program will take 4-5 years to get started.
In fact, Gore's own program, by its own terms, won't be fully phased in for 8 (eight!) years. Gore was tactically smart to charge Bush's plan with his own plan's defects, but he's lying.
It's sort of easy to "win" a debate by outright lying.
This is similar to Gore's charge that Bush would let children founder in failing schools for three years before the voucher kicked in.
Gore, OTOH, would "immediately" close the school and reopen it under better management.
One problem-- Gore's own plan gives schools classified as "failing" three years to straighten themselves out before he'd shut them down.
Thus, Gore lied when he claimed he would "immediately" fix failing school. And he lied when he claimed there was a difference between himself and Bush on the "three year" rule as well.
Your candidate is brazen fucking liar. You know he is, and there's no point pretending otherwise.
"Under Al Gore’s plan, seniors will be required to purchase their prescription drugs through one government entity. This would restrict choice because each region of the country would only use one government entity that would contract with drug manufacturers to buy the drugs seniors need. (Dan Crippen, “A CBO Analysis Of The Administration’s Prescription Drug Proposal,” Congressional Budget Office, May 11, 2000; Executive Summary, “Regulatory Requirements In The Clinton Administration’s Medicare...
Who's zooming who?
May 15, 2000
“Saving Social Security and Medicare”
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Governor Bush believes that the nation has a vital interest – a moral interest – in ensuring that retirement is a time of security and health for America’s seniors. That is why his new agenda for older Americans begins with preserving – and modernizing –Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security is a defining American promise that Governor Bush is determined to keep. But it can be saved for future generations only if it is reformed. Because the system taxes younger workers to pay the benefits of retired workers, it will generate huge deficits as the Baby Boom generation swells the ranks of retirees over the next three decades, eventually becoming insolvent in 2037. Under the Clinton-Gore administration, which has avoided Social Security reform, the present value of these deficits has risen from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion, or $28,000 per household.
In contrast, Governor Bush will build a bipartisan consensus to save Social Security on the basis of six key principles:
Ø Modernization must not change existing benefits for retirees or near-retirees.
Ø The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security.
Ø Social Security payroll taxes must not be increased.
Ø The government must not invest Social Security funds in the stock market.
Ø Modernization must preserve the disability and survivors components.
Ø Modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal
retirement accounts, which will augment the Social Security safety net. These
accounts will earn higher rates of return, have parameters of safety and
soundness, and help workers build wealth that can be passed on to their children.
Medicare is a 1965 health care delivery system that has not kept pace with 21 st century
medicine. Moreover, it faces insolvency in 2025, due to the same demographic changes
that are threatening Social Security. Thus, as President, Governor Bush will build on
recent bipartisan efforts and seek Medicare reform based on these principles:
Ø Medicare’s current guarantee of access to seniors must be preserved.
Ø Every Medicare recipient must have a choice of health plans, including the option of purchasing a plan that covers prescription drugs.
Ø Medicare must cover expenses for low-income seniors.
Ø Reform must provide streamlined access to the latest medical technologies.
Ø Medicare payroll taxes must not be increased.
Ø Reform must establish an accurate measure of the solvency of Medicare.
Rhetoric: Bush will say his prescription drug plan offers an immediate helping hand and Provide Help Sooner than the Gore Plan.
Reality: Bush's Plan Would Not Provide Immediate Coverage - that Claim is "a Fantasy."
Despite the fact that Bush says his plan gives funding in 2001, it would not help seniors sooner than the Gore plan.
Bush's plan is voluntary for states, so there is no guarantee of a benefit for millions of seniors. Currently 27 states have no plan in place. For states that do choose to participate, the steps necessary before the plan covered any seniors are time-consuming. "First, Congress would have to approve the plan and appropriate the money. Then state legislatures would have to give their OK. And then those 27 states that don't have drug benefit plans, they need to create them." According to Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, "It's really a fantasy to say [Bush's plan] is going to happen immediately." When Texas implemented a similar program in which federal money is allocated for states to expand coverage -- the Children's Health Insurance Program -- it took 2 1/2 years from when the money was first made available to when Texas began actually covering children. [CNN, "Inside Politics," 9/11/00; Wall Street Journal, 9/15/00; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 9/26/00]
The Bush "Immediate Helping Hand" Explicitly Leaves Out Middle Class Seniors, Leaves 95% Out, According to One Study.
Bush's program provides basic coverage for seniors up to 175% of poverty -about $14,600 for a single person. That means a widow making $16,000 a year with $4000 in drug costs would get no basic coverage from Bush in the first Presidential term. 49% of seniors without drug coverage are above 175% of poverty. The short-term Bush plan would only reach approximately 625,000 of the currently 13 million uninsured seniors nationwide - leaving 95% of currently uninsured seniors without coverage, according to one study. Even making generous assumptions about participation in state plans, the Bush Immediate Helping Hand, once fully implemented in all 50 states, would only cover 5% seniors who currently lack a drug benefit. [www.sph.emory.gov; "State Pharmacy Programs," GAO, 9/00; "Low-Income Prescription Drug Plans," National Economic Council, 9/00; www.georgewbush.com]
"Heat or medicine. Food or pills. In a wealthy nation, this is a scandal. In a compassionate nation, it is a call to action.
Because there is no prescription drug benefit in Medicare, 23 states have now established state drug assistance programs – programs that pay drug costs for low-income seniors. Here in Pennsylvania, that widow in Johnstown was helped by just this kind of program. Without it, she says, she would have “lost her dignity and her life.” Her story had a happy ending. And we can multiply it by millions.
We will modernize Medicare. But we will not wait to help seniors afford prescription drugs. We will give them direct aid now, by expanding state assistance programs. Today I am announcing an initiative called “An Immediate Helping Hand.”
For four years – during the transition to better Medicare coverage – we will provide $12 billion a year in direct aid to low-income seniors in all 50 states.
Every senior with an income less than $11,300 – $15,200 for a couple – will have the entire cost of their prescription drugs covered. For seniors with incomes less than $14,600 – $19,700 for couples – there will be a partial subsidy. With these large buying pools, states will be able to negotiate for significant discounts on drugs. In addition, we will set a cap, a maximum limit, on out-of-pocket drug costs of $6,000 a year for all seniors – the same limit we will set for all Medicare costs in broader Medicare modernization.
My plan sets aside $158 billion additional dollars for Medicare over the next ten years.
Four years to provide “An Immediate Helping Hand,” and an additional $110 billion for Medicare modernization."
Also compare Gore's claim that there would be no assistance under the Bush plan until 2002 to Bush's statement in post 442. This is partially true because there would be the lag of instituting the state programs as the Gore campaign mentioned, but not because Bush has built in any delay.
Thanks for your
That should read: Thanks for your Message # 362.
"In your heart, you know he's less wrong." --what GWB's campaign slogan should be
Gore will charge fifty bucks a month, for 50% coverage. Old people currently spending less than fifty would be much better off as they are, for people paying a hundred a month for scrips it's a wash (although I think there is also an annual deductible.) Does anyone know if Gore allows old people to opt out of his plans for them?
it is your thread - you can chime in with your opinion without being asked; but that is why i asked ...
:)
However, you are confusing legitimate uses of "you know" with the verbal pause form of "you know" (for example, Bush's "You know how I know?" is completely legitimate).
Actually, I'm not confusing them. I saw the example you mentioned, and at least one other. I contemplated excluding them, but decided I would create more of a shitstorm by excluding them, if someone caught it and concluded that I was being misleading. (Partly because I wasn't certain enough of my language skills to identify all legitimate uses, and I didn't have the terminology to describe the differences.)
I also considered listing all the occurrences, then providing a count of just the pauses, but I was concerned this would look more like partisan spin than legitimate analysis.
I may have missed a citation. I used the NYT source, which was broken up into 5 separate files. Moreover, I was trying to do it while conducting a meeting, so I didn't have my full attention on it.
Finally, it wasn't my intention to simply "prove" you wrong. I was more intrigued by the general concept that our impressions aren't always mirrored by the transcript. It happened to me. In the same way that I reacted to the term "lockbox", and had the impression that it had been uttered many times, while CG only thought twice (we were both wrong), you probably heard the term from Bush, it grated on you, then each subsequent time reinforced that impression. Gore may have said it with less of an emphasis, or perhaps you like him more. (Not meaning that you consciously heard it and decided not to mention it, but that the phrase honestly didn't register.)
"every one should just pay attention to the PRINCIPLES involved. Big and broad and American as Apple Pie."
Bush's fundamental problem is that his principles and programs are in opposition. He favors smaller government in principle, but grows it in practice. He's right to life, but doesn't have the power to reverse the FDA's RU-486 decision. He's against using the military for "nation-building" but do you think he's ready to pull out of Korea? He wants to reduce the role of Social Security and medicaid, but without reducing benefits.
This is a really fundamental problem for him. The minute you get specific, you discover 1) he doesn't have a good grasp of what his campaign proposes and 2) his proposals are in opposition to his principles. He can't coherently do the Clintonesque turn to the center on policies and maintain the conservative rhetoric.
This is a problem for Gore as well, which Bush did an okay job of pointing out. The administration has a horrible record in serving its base. This has been the most pro-business administration since Reagan, and is to the right of Nixon on most policies. While Gore talks about including everybody in the nation's prosperity, you gotta remember that equity of household income has declined during this administration. He has the gall to talk about campaign finance reform while breaking current laws. (Bush brought that up, but he's breaking the law too, and some journalist is gonna start remarking on that if he continues that line of attack.) Health care? The HMOs were created on Clinton/Gore's watch? TV smut? FCC licensing gutting public service requirements and regulating pretty much nothing was their administration's policies. The environment? just about nada.
Gore's gotta rein in his smarmy tics, and stop with the anecdotes already. If he did that, he could go more on the attack in his rhetoric. The consensus in the press seems to be a draw, as does the thread traffic here. Given how much more knowledgable and presidential Gore looked than Bush, he really has a problem here. Nobody can stand him.
I don't think Bush can play his hand any better than he played it. He could look a little less scared and out of his depth, but he's gotta keep the discussion broad, and he's gotta let Gore be a bully.
This keeps reminding me of 1988, a well-versed, but unlikable policy wonk using the VP slot as a stepping stone to nomination otherwise unimaginable against a governor clearly out of his depth in a national campaign. An editorial cartoonist in the at campaign (Herblock?) labeled it "the wimp versus the shrimp."
Anyone got a label for this one?
Given how much more knowledgable and presidential Gore looked than Bush, he really has a problem here. Nobody can stand him.
In retrospect, Gore helped Bush much more than the other way around. One example is that by hogging the "time of possession" Gore obscured the fact that Bush could do little with the ball when he had it.
I don't think Bush can play his hand any better than he played it.
I agree, though because the format will be different in the next two debates, they won't be playing the exact same card game.
I stick to my previous prediction before debate #1 as to debate #2: Bush will be like the student who slipped through without studying for the first exam and will not feel any need to improve on the second. Gore OTOH will retool...no more sighing, paper crumpling, etc. My only revision is that the looser format may allow Bush's likely increased laxness to play better than if they re-did debate #1.
My understanding is that the two candidates will be seated side-by-side across from the moderator at a table. If so, I expect Gore to try to physically intimidate Bush (even after the negative reactions of debate #1) because that's his track record in such a format.
My short advice to Gore is to be very circumspect about any statement that describes his personal accomplishments. For Bush, quit fearing the smirk and respond specifically when your opponent leaves an opening. (Gore leaves plenty, but I seriously doubt Bush is capable of exploiting them.)
i think we'll see a reverse of the POTUS debates here.
Cheney will come across as the policy wonk with endless minutiae and Lieberman will be more likeable if less effective of the two.
comments?
Cheney just isn't, from what i've seen, able to spew endless chatter like Gore, this is true. i meant "endless minutiae" wrt who will claim ownership of the details of the respective plans and put them forth.
and no, Lieberman won't be as "lost" as Bush - such isn't possible -haha.
wonder if that's because Gore was mealy-mouthed about the environmental stances Prez Gore would take?
Haha. Can't herd wabbits...and very few things to maintain our attentions.
I certainly didn't think you were trying to prove me wrong. In fact, I mentioned that my glance at the transcripts showed both candidates using "you know" as a mental pause. I hadn't noticed Gore doing it when I watched the debate, probably because he was less obvious about it... when Bush did it, it was a clearly enunciated pause. Gore is smoother (in a smarmy way) and it didn't stand out to me. It wasn't because of a more positive attitude, since I don't like Gore's style at all (though I like Bush as a candidate even less). The negatives outweigh my positives for both candidates, for me.
Jay and Indy:
Good comments, and I agree with what both of you say.
Jay:
Anyone got a label for this one?
I saw someone on-line label it as "the bore vs. the dolt," or something to that effect.
Perhaps the news, (as broadcast over national TV), that taxpayer-monies are allocated to support Buch's and Ralph's campaigns and yet they are "shut-out" of the debates because of minority status? Shouldn't all publicly funded voices be heard? Where's the democracy in that?
Sigh.
I suggest that at the next debate both candidates be asked if they use one or two ply toilet paper and that research then be done to see if either (or both) are LIARS!!!
I predict that Chenney will try to hit Lieberman on his "flip flop" on social security privatization, and will have his head handed back to him.
Parents vote too, of course, but in a much more diffuse way.
It should or at least could be a very interesting evening.
The fires and Witt: an unfair charge. He was down there, you can't remember any and every time you're going to some disaster, and any factual inaccuracies are both undertsandable and of no moment.
The desk. Gore said she "has" to stand in class. It is a minor point, but when you have a history of embellishing that has dogged you, you better be damn careful stretching the facts. Moreover, Gore and Bush want to use that real person, real name, real place strategy, and it bit Gore, because real people, names, and places are around to offer rebuttal.
The uncle being gassed: It turns out, he merely had gas. This is really over the line.
The uncle being gassed: It turns out, he merely had gas. This is really over the line.
Hoot! Good shot!
Jack: Is there really some new information on Gore's uncle, or was that just a joke?
A joke. Though, the fact that you asked underscores your point.
However, I also agree that by deciding to use real names and situations, with premeditation, each of them had better be damned sure of what they utter at the risk of being held up to at least some ridicule if they turn out to be wrong. (I don't put "has to" stand as compared to "had to" stand into that category. Nor the gassed uncle. He meant Europe for Christ's sake. Why he mentioned the poor soul is beyond me.)
Whew.
I love Lieberman, but I can't stand listening to him. He sounds as if he swollowed a peach pit and is about to void it.
Well-said
start a new country up
our father's father's father tried
erased the parts he didn't like
let's try to fill it in
bank the quarry, river swim
we knee-skinned it, you and me
we knee-skinned that river red
this is where they walked
this is where they swam
so take a picture here
take a souvenir
Cuyahoga
gone.