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 uncl