The Mote Archive - The Presidential Debates 2000

The Presidential Debates

Debate the debates and debaters!

1100. JJBiener - 10/10/2000 6:30:17 PM

janjon - What do the words "cannot be infringed" mean to you?

You may want to do a little research on where those words have been used before.

Where oh where is there any concern, let alone reference, to a putative mother there? Or anywhere else in that platform plank.

The mother already has a right to life. It doesn't need to be spelled out in the platform. All the proposed amendment does is extend those same rights to the fetus. Please indicate where in that platform plank or anywhere else where the mother's right to life is placed second to that of the child.

1101. JJBiener - 10/10/2000 6:34:46 PM

janjon - A convicted murderer can be put to death and his rights are not infringed. A man can be drafted and killed in war and his rights are not infringed. I siamese twin can be killed to save the life of the other and his rights have not been infringed. A fetus can be aborted to save the life of his mother and his rights have not been infringed. You conclusion is wrong.

1102. vonKreedon - 10/10/2000 6:45:15 PM

JJ - Ok, well argued on competing rights to life. Now, how about health, mental and physical of the mother? What about rape and incest?

1103. Dusty - 10/10/2000 7:21:40 PM

Oops, sorry, I thought I was in the debates thread. I'll look elsewhere.

1104. Al D - 10/10/2000 11:26:20 PM

I'll make this post relevant by saying my daughter, a diligent worker for the Democrat Party, did not see the debate. Now that I have established I am on topic, let me digress. She told me she cannot see herself voting for Gore. She says he is such a liar. (Withough even seeing the debate) She lives in Washington State and is so discouraged she is not working for any candidates. Knowing she would never vote for Bush, or my man Browne, I said she should vote for Nader. Me thinks Gore is in trouble.

1105. Indiana Jones - 10/11/2000 9:31:22 AM

5 questions for Gore:

1. Suppose a classroom was short a desk, and the local PTA took up a collection to buy some more. Two parents put in $100, two others put in $10. After buying the desk so that Kaylie could sit, you, the treasurer discovered $5 leftover. What would you do with the money?

2. In the first debate you referred to putting SS and Medicare in a "lockbox" seven times and at one point said:

"And I'll tell you this: I will veto anything that takes money out of Social Security for privatization or anything else other than Social Security."

Who is your lockbox keeping out...the people who contribute to Social Security or Washington politicians? If the latter, why not refund some of the money to its owners or at least give the key to them, rather than leaving it in the safe-keeping of what you imply is a den of untrustworthy thieves?

3. In the first debate, you pooh-poohed a suggestion by the Governor that Russia be brought in to assist in the Yugoslavia situation. Could you clarify what was wrong with his suggestion, in light of subsequent events?

4. You attended St. Albans, a private school. In the first debate, you said your children had attended both public and private schools. Why do you not support--as has your running mate--some form of school vouchers so that all children can have more of an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a private education as did you and yours?

5. Earlier this year you opposed releasing our strategic petroleum reserve. Then you favored it. In retrospect and with an estimated 2/3 of the released oil going overseas rather than to warm American homes, which position do you think was wiser?

1106. Ronski - 10/11/2000 9:42:16 AM

While tonight's debate format is the one Bush preferred, it may be that it will help Gore more, making him seem a bit human. He has reportedly decided not to do any sighing.

And a new makeup person will presumably not let him go before the camera looking like Kryten in Red Dwarf.

1107. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 9:53:32 AM

As others have posted, the pressure to go negative is increasing day by day. However, the positive reaction to the VP debate was so strong because of the respectful and polite tone between the candidates. I think that the candidates are between a rock and a hard place. Bush is fortunate to have the polls as favorable as they are. Awhile back I would have guaranteed that he would go as negative as possible in this debate. Now he may wait to counterpunch.

1108. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 9:54:48 AM

you can be "negative" and "polite" at the same time, can you not?

1109. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 10:28:32 AM

One can be negative and polite, as was demonstrated by the VP candidates. This requires refined speaking skills, self control and intelligence. Bush has learned self control. He's bereft of the rest.

1110. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 10:30:00 AM

I should clarify. By going negative, I mean to say ad hominem, not merely pointing out political differences and stating negative things about the other fellow's policies.

1111. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 10:32:17 AM

So if Al's not going to sigh, does that mean Dubbya's not going to scream "FUZZY MATH! FUZZY MATH!" ?

1112. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 10:40:55 AM

because there is never enough analysis, from Slate's Today's Papers:

If you don't think the first debate was picked apart enough, check out the WP "Style" section piece about the neuropsychologist who measured the candidates' blink rates during it. How much a person blinks can be correlated with stress and last week, Bush outblinked Gore 2-1.

1113. janjon - 10/11/2000 10:43:48 AM

Biener.

Your logic is, predictably, just a lot of claptrap.

And, as for the "cannot be infringed" analogy, the Second Amendment has a spiffy qualifier in it. You may recall the language about a well-regulated militia.

There is no way you can make that GOP platform plank stretch to accommodate your spin on it.

CalGal - cross-over and blurring of topics re Politics and Debates is inevitable and probably healthy. And, who in the final analysis gives much of a fig. This stuff isn't being graded. Live with it.

1114. Dusty - 10/11/2000 10:46:22 AM

Hmm, running for President is stressful? Who wudda guessed?

1115. PsychProf - 10/11/2000 10:47:11 AM

ROUND 2

click on photo

1116. Dusty - 10/11/2000 10:48:04 AM

janjon

And, as for the "cannot be infringed" analogy, the Second Amendment has a spiffy qualifier in it. You may recall the language about a well-regulated militia.

Not everyone agrees that that phrase is a qualifier. Some people (myself included), read it as a "for instance"

1117. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 10:57:10 AM

vonK - Now, how about health, mental and physical of the mother? What about rape and incest?

The wording in the plaform plank does not give much indication. It is in the exceptions where members of the GOP tend to disagree. Some want no exceptions, others like me can see the logic in some exceptions.

1118. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:00:37 AM

"The wording in the plaform plank does not give much indication. It is in the exceptions where members of the GOP tend to disagree. Some want no exceptions, others like me can see the logic in some exceptions."

Talk about doing a soft-shoe.

1119. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 11:03:58 AM

janjon - Instead of reading the Second Amendment, try reading the Fifth. The woman already has the right to life. The proposed amendment would extend that right to the unborn.

1120. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:10:14 AM

Biener. Sure it would. Inalienably. Period. Read that plank again. About as clear as it can be, even if absurd and illogical in terms of absolutely ignoring conflicts with other rights.

A clarion call to the R.R. that all is as they would like on the abortion rights front, as far as the official GOP line is concerned.

1121. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:17:53 AM

And, for Biener's and marshame's benefit in particular, here is much of the lead editorial in today's Times which addresssed the fragile state of abortion rights in the U.S. today:

"The fact is that in the nearly three decades since the Roe decision, a woman's right to choose abortion is becoming ever more fragile. In thousands of communities it is nonexistent. Years of violent attacks on medical clinics by anti-abortion protesters and increasing efforts by state legislatures to hinder abortion rights have taken an enormous toll. The number of abortion providers has dropped by 30 percent since 1982. Some 86 percent of counties in the country have no abortion services.

In 1992 the Supreme Court upheld the right to choose abortion, but gave states greater latitude to discourage the practice. Anti-abortion forces have since seized on the opportunity to impose waiting periods, mandatory counseling and requirements for parental notification and consent before abortions can be performed. In 1999 alone, state legislatures enacted more than 50 measures to restrict choice. Some 31 states have enacted bans on so- called partial birth abortions that could apply to even common abortion procedures at any stage of a pregnancy. Versions of that ban were ruled unconstitutional by a divided Supreme Court this year.

more will follow

1122. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:20:46 AM

and:

"While states have increased attacks on abortion, it is the president, Congress and the Supreme Court that will ultimately determine the limits of reproductive freedom in this country. Twice in the past five years Congress has passed partial birth abortion bans, which were vetoed by President Clinton. Congress's hostility to reproductive rights is evident in measures that barred American military hospitals overseas from providing abortions and made drastic cuts in international family planning aid. Anti- choice Republicans even now are fighting to bar international women's health groups from receiving American aid, even if they use their own money to lobby foreign governments on abortion policies."

The harshest limits on abortion have been imposed on poor women in this country. Under federal law, Medicaid and other federal health insurance programs may not pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of a woman's life. Currently only 18 states use their own funds to pay for abortions for low-income women for health reasons.

The next president will determine whether a woman's ability to make this private decision will be strengthened or dismantled. For starters, he may well make two or more appointments to the Supreme Court that could result in a profound shift on privacy and abortion rights.

1123. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:25:19 AM

almost finally:

"The two presidential candidates have starkly different positions. Mr. Gore, who early in his political career opposed federal funding for abortion, now supports federal funding and is resolutely pro-choice. Mr. Bush is pro-life, though he seems eager to avoid extended debate on this matter so as not to alienate moderate voters. Mr. Gore says he will appoint justices who will respect women's reproductive rights. Mr. Bush, who says he will not impose a pro-life litmus test on a Supreme Court nominee, cites Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his models. Both justices believe the Roe decision was wrong and should be overturneThe two presidential candidates have starkly different positions. Mr. Gore, who early in his political career opposed federal funding for abortion, now supports federal funding and is resolutely pro-choice. Mr. Bush is pro-life, though he seems eager to avoid extended debate on this matter so as not to alienate moderate voters. Mr. Gore says he will appoint justices who will respect women's reproductive rights. Mr. Bush, who says he will not impose a pro-life litmus test on a Supreme Court nominee, cites Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his models. Both justices believe the Roe decision was wrong and should be overturned.

1124. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 11:27:01 AM

A question I'd like to see asked of Bush-
You've stated that you served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war, and was transferred to Alabama for duty there. There are no records of you ever attending drill in Alabama, would you release your full military records to cast some light on the issue?

1125. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:28:46 AM

Finally, really:

"The president's power in this arena is not limited to Supreme Court appointments. Veto threats by President Clinton have killed several measures in Congress to limit abortion rights, and his pro-choice stance has also helped to curb efforts to restrict access to contraception. Just last week a bill was introduced in the House to severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Gore has said he fully supports the F.D.A. decision on the drug. Mr. Bush, however, has questioned the F.D.A.'s review process. Although he has said he cannot overturn the approval, he might have to decide whether to sign or veto a bill to deny vast numbers of women access to the drug.

The majority of Americans continue to support abortion rights, and for many that issue will be a key factor in their vote. This is a pivotal moment in the long struggle to allow women the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies. The next president's views will have much to do with whether reproductive freedom is protected here and promoted abroad."

1126. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:29:41 AM

And, by the way, I certainly hope that Lehrer finds it in himself to compose a meaningful, complex question about abortion rights for the so-called debate tonight.

1127. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 11:40:40 AM

janjon - Sure it would. Inalienably. Period. Read that plank again.

OK, I read it again. It still doesn't mean what you claim it means.

About as clear as it can be

I agree. Which is why I wonder why you are unable or unwilling to understand it, and why you insist on creating doomsday interpretations of a simple policy.

1128. janjon - 10/11/2000 11:48:08 AM

Biener. As is virtually always the case, we are at absolute loggerheads on this. And, no doubt will remain so. How you can say that what I am doing is creating a doomsday solution to what is a simple policy is just beyond comprehension.

What I could accept is for you to say that: "yeah, that platform plank lays it all out in stark terms, too stark for those softie "undecideds" who presumably will decide this election, so lets pretend that it really means a policy which is more balanced, reflects the need to be able to save a putative mother's life, and hope it flies. Until the election."

You won't.

And, at this point, CalGal is right. This particular merry-go-round should stop.

1129. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 11:59:15 AM

janjon - Can you explain how a fetus' right to life overrides the mother's right to life?

1130. janjon - 10/11/2000 12:03:12 PM

biener. No, I certainly could not. But, your question really should be addressed to the people who concocted that emphatically clear GOP platform plank.

And, lest there be no mistake in this, I (no doubt, obviously) certainly disagree with you as to "life begins at conception." To me, life begins at birth. Until then, the woman has the right to decide whether to become a mama or not. Period.

However, this discussion now clearly is beyond the purview of this thread.

1131. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:13:25 PM

A Lifetime of Lies
It's time to hold Al Gore accountable.

BY WILLIAM J. BENNETT
The Wall Street Journal

Albert Arnold Gore Jr. is a habitual liar.

I realize that in the political culture in which we live, making such a charge--even if it is true--is considered to be mean-spirited, in bad form, indecorous. Nevertheless, as the Founders understood, almost nothing matters more in a chief executive than his public character and trustworthiness, his truthfulness and integrity. And on these grounds alone, Mr. Gore should be disqualified from being president.

Mr. Gore's defenders dismiss his reputation as an "embellisher" as unremarkable. Shading the truth, they say, is what almost all politicians do, and Al Gore is no different. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that from time to time most politicians do take liberties with the truth and distort the facts. Still, among major political figures in the past quarter-century, Al Gore and his boss, Bill Clinton, are in a league of their own.

The vice president lies reflexively, promiscuously, even pathologically. He lies on matters large and small, significant and trivial, when he "needs" to and when he doesn't, on matters public and private, about his opponents and his family. When asked to come up with an explanation for Mr. Gore's "misstatements," Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, said, "I have no idea. I'm not a psychiatrist."

1132. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:14:10 PM

Mr. Gore has told so many lies, over so many years, on such a range of issues, that to recount them all would require far more space than this page can allow. But it is useful to recapitulate some of what we know. Most recently, Mr. Gore lied about traveling to Texas with the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and about whether he'd questioned George W. Bush's experience to be president. In a speech during which he received the endorsement of the Teamsters, Mr. Gore claimed that as a child he was lulled to sleep by the union ballad "Look for the Union Label"--even though the tune was written when he was 27 years old. His campaign initially said Mr. Gore meant a different song; a few days later they said the vice president was telling a joke.

These examples are recent, but the pattern of lies is not a recent phenomenon. It is, rather, the habit of a political lifetime. Consider the following:

In 1997, Mr. Gore told investigators that fund-raising calls he made from the White House were made only in order to raise (legal) soft-money donations. When a memorandum later surfaced and disclosed that the vice president had attended meetings in which discussions about (illegal) "hard money" accounts took place, Mr. Gore told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he was sometimes inattentive and that "he drank a lot of iced tea during meetings, which could have necessitated a restroom break."

1133. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:14:28 PM

Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said in a deposition that he remembers Mr. Gore "attentively listening" to the hard-money conversations, and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes testified that whenever the vice president left the room, he, Mr. Ickes, stopped the meetings. In light of the evidence, FBI General Counsel Larry Parkinson wrote to the assistant attorney general that there was "sufficient evidence" to prove that the vice president made a false statement to investigators on this matter.

In an April 18 deposition conducted by Robert Conrad, the chief of the Justice Department's campaign-finance task force, Mr. Gore was asked if he had any recollection of conversations he had with his old friend, Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia, about a 1996 fund-raising breakfast for Asian-Americans at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington. "I have none," Mr. Gore responded. He was then asked if he recalled being seated at her table. "No, I don't," he answered. In fact, as photos show, Hsia (convicted of illegally raising $25,000 for the Democratic National Committee at the breakfast) was seated right next to Mr. Gore.

During the same April 18 deposition, the vice president denied having a "concrete recollection" of his attendance at any of the more than 30 fund-raising coffees he hosted or co-hosted between January 1995 and August 1996 (Mr. Gore later said he misunderstood the question). He claims that he did not know at the time that a 1996 event at a Buddhist Temple in Los Angeles was an (illegal) fund-raiser. He says this despite the fact that the Secret Service, the National Security Council, the White House deputy chief of staff, staff members, and his own e-mail referred to it as a fund-raiser before the visit occurred.

1134. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:14:45 PM

In November 1999, Mr. Gore claimed to be a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform legislation. But that bill was not introduced until three years after Mr. Gore left the Senate. And during the same month the vice president claimed to be the author of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In fact, the EITC law was enacted in 1975--two years before Mr. Gore entered Congress.

The misleading statements predate Mr. Gore's term as vice president. They include his claims about his service as an Army journalist in Vietnam; his work as a reporter at the Nashville Tennessean; his view regarding Senate hearings on music lyrics; his position on the nuclear test ban treaty; his assertion (made during the 1988 presidential campaign) that half his staff were women; and his role in Hubert Humphrey's 1968 convention speech. These and other incidents led Mr. Gore's own staff to warn him about his propensity for "exaggeration" and for making claims that "may be impossible to back up."

One might think that the Gore campaign would be vaguely embarrassed about his record of deception. But Gore aide Mark Fabiani refuses to explain it. Rather, he says, "We've never attacked Bush for his numerous crimes against the English language." This is a revealing statement; the Gore team views poor syntax as the equivalent of compulsive lying. And Mr. Gore himself dismisses concerns about his veracity as an "ad hominem personal attack." We hear this argument made all the time, that "attacking" an opponent's character is a way to avoid talking about the "real issues." If Mr. Gore invokes this defense in tonight's debate, how should Mr. Bush respond?
First, by pointing out that persistent lies by a person in high public office are not merely "personal"; they have to do with the public interest. Public office is a public trust, and people who violate it ought to be held accountable--particularly if they deceive federal investigators.

1135. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:14:53 PM

Second, if the people can't trust your word, why should they trust your proposals? Mr. Gore's primary opponent, Sen. Bill Bradley, uttered the single most devastating line of the 2000 campaign: "Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?"

Third, if an individual is a habitual liar, it will manifest itself in all sorts of ways. As Mr. Clinton demonstrated, a person who has utter contempt for the truth is likely to have utter contempt for the law.

Fourth, the American public's loss of trust in government is a vital national issue. We don't need another president to deepen further the people's cynicism.

Finally, whether you're talking about a police officer, a teacher, a doctor or a car mechanic, it matters greatly whether that person's word is good. If it matters for all these people, then it surely matters in choosing a president.

James Madison famously wrote that men are not angels, and nobody is insisting that the president be a saint. But with Mr. Gore, one begins to suspect that his lies are symptomatic of something fundamentally disquieting, and quite relevant. This is, after all, an individual who has been warned repeatedly to take care not to lie, embellish, or misstate the facts and his own history. He is acknowledged to be a master of details. Yet the problem persists. His lying appears to be incorrigible. And it is a matter of public record.
If the Clinton years have taught us anything, it is that character matters in a president. And Al Gore, like Bill Clinton before him, is manifestly lacking in that regard. As the public considers for whom it will vote on Nov. 7, it should recall the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Surely the past eight years of persistent half-truths, lies and lawlessness have been enough.

Haven't they?

Mr. Bennett is co-director of Empower America.

1136. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 12:15:00 PM

janjon - But, your question really should be addressed to the people who concocted that emphatically clear GOP platform plank.

What language specifically in the plank do you believe states what you claim?

To me, life begins at birth.

Birth can be rather long process. When specifically does life begin. Onset of labor? Transition? Crowning of the head? When the body has been delivered? Cutting the umbilical cord? We are talking about life and death here. Be specific. Why do you choose that particular point in time?

1137. glendajean - 10/11/2000 12:16:12 PM

Jack -- I suppose we couldn't pay you good money to learn how to link (particularly pompous jerks like Bennett)?

1138. CalGal - 10/11/2000 12:17:13 PM

Jack,

You know, if you're going to cite someone just because they make a particular point you agree with, it's polite to link.

1139. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:17:26 PM

glenda

You posted so quickly, it is clear you skimmed, and if you skimmed my entire recitation, how can I trust you to read the link?

And Bill Bennett is the good one. You've confused him with his evil brother.

1140. CalGal - 10/11/2000 12:18:14 PM

I should refresh before I post, but it's funnier this way.

1141. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:21:48 PM

Bill Bennett is full of self-righteous shit, as usual.

1142. glendajean - 10/11/2000 12:22:31 PM

Jack -- my life is too sort to read another word written by Bill Bennett. So I won't. Short of sending people into my office and pointing a gun at my head, you have failed to get me to read it, anyway.

I mean, really. You saw what gay people did to Dr. Laura. No threats, but you could be next.

1143. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:23:59 PM

Ohio

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

glenda

Try reading just the verbs. As a starter.

1144. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:28:25 PM

"I realize that in the political culture in which we live, making such a charge--even if it is true--is considered to be mean-spirited, in bad form, indecorous."

And this from a congenital liar in the newspaper of lies!

This is the pimp who got that scuzzy whore Jeff Gerth a Pulitzer prize for his only-now-being questioned Loral story! And that's not to mention his sterling coverage of Whitewater. I'm sure you all remember that series of scandals that rocked Washington D.C. resulting in the startling revelation that the POTUS was -- GASP!-- "unfaithful" to his wife! And then to top it all off, Safire's butt-boy sics the Feds and CIA on Wen Ho Lee. SCANDAL SUPEREME! CLITON'S GIVING OUR MOST TREASURED NUCLEAR SECRETS TO THE RED CHINESE!

"You see, Wen Ho Lee? You're worse than the Rosenbergs! Says so right here in the New York Times. And written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter too!"

Yeah, Safire's a name to trust alright. Synonymous with TRUTH.

1145. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:28:50 PM

Excuse me. I misspoke.

. . . self-righteous, DISHONEST shit, as usual.

1146. Dusty - 10/11/2000 12:29:02 PM

The article came from the WSJ; I read it just a few minutes ago. I don't believe that WSJ allows links to their site, although this policy may have changed. Does anyone know for sure?

(I realize that if it is allowed, this won't solve jack's link phobia)

1147. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:29:03 PM

Man.

The truth be stingin' today.

1148. Dusty - 10/11/2000 12:30:51 PM

Cellar Door

Why are you raging about Safire?

1149. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:31:26 PM

Isn't it obvious?

1150. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:31:28 PM

I'll remember the tack the next time someone posts a link or the text of a thorough Kinsley analysis.

"Kinsley! What an asshole!"

1151. janjon - 10/11/2000 12:31:36 PM

Biener. I could. But, I wouldn't. Getting into an abortion to-do with you just isn't worth the time. Believe on.

Jack - thanks for the laugh of the day. Bill Bennett is the good one, indeed. Pompous just begins to describe that sack.

1152. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:32:19 PM

Well Kinsley is an asshole.

1153. Dusty - 10/11/2000 12:32:28 PM

I hadn't heard the EITC claim before. Has this been documented by either side?

1154. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:32:43 PM

Okay, let me jot that one down.

"Kinsley. Pompous just begins to describe that sack."

1155. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:33:22 PM

Dusty

There are just so many that documentation give way to the limits of storage space.

1156. glendajean - 10/11/2000 12:33:55 PM

I'll remember the tack the next time someone posts a link or the text of a thorough Kinsley analysis.

If only you would link (an easy skill actually)...

1157. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:33:57 PM

What "either side"? In the fourth estate there's only ONE side.

1158. Indiana Jones - 10/11/2000 12:33:59 PM

Of course windbags like Bill Bennett have to weigh in on this kind of thing, but they've not learned yet that their moralizing is counter-productive. As I posted a while ago, at some point you inoculate your adversary against a charge when you level it enough (Clinton and scandal, Gore and lies).

The Republicans IMO have over-played the issue now, especially when they let self-righteous moralizers like Bennett do it, and the polls are showing a slight pullback in Gore's direction.

Whether or not Americans dislike immoral behavior, the last few years should have taught the pecksniffs that we dislike would-be Chillingworths worse. Gore is his own worst enemy, and Republicans are terrible at political jiu-jitsu, which is what is called for.

Alas, it's time to move on...and hope that the current bounce is enough to see Bush through with his "rope-a-charming-dope" strategy, or that Gore continues to impale himself--as Bush has so far proved himself singularly not up to the task.

1159. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:35:32 PM

Bennett's article is clear-eyed, factually irrefutable, and a strong argument for the relevance of Gore's pathology. You may or may not agree with his conclusions, but you can hardly rebut his facts.

Except with . . .

what a pompous asshole!

1160. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:38:05 PM

Bennett is about as "clear-eyed" as Christopher Hitchens. What a gaseous weenie -- belching and snorting "indignation" on the meat puppet shows. Not one word about Dubbya's AWOL escapades of course.

1161. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:38:53 PM

Message # 1132:

James Witt - of course, that was a "lie", not confusing one disaster for another.

"Look For the Union Label" - Please. An obvious joke. (Good thing Bilious Bill didn't see Al do his "Top Ten List" on Letterman - there were a bunch of "lies" there!)

"iced tea" - Hardly anyone at that meeting remembered any discussion of hard money/soft money. Neither did Gore.

1162. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:40:55 PM

You want factually irrefutable, Jack? HERE! I keep posting it and you keep ignoring it.

1163. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:42:50 PM

Message # 1133

Maria Hsia - Gore couldn't remember discussions at a breakfast 4 years ago? He MUST be lying.

1996 "illegal Buddhist Temple fundraiser" - I'll type this slowly so even Bill Bennett can understand: No funds were raised at the luncheon!

1164. janjon - 10/11/2000 12:43:46 PM

Jack - it would be easier to accept the Bennett article as being something more than the usual heavy-handed drive by the Wall Street Journal to be the defender of the American Way Of Life The Way They And All Right-Thinking People See It, if it had been balanced and kept things in perspective.

But, no. Instead, the same old crapola spewed forth, in an
predictably indignant manner.

No sense or proportion. No fairness of comparison. For instance, a lot of ink on Gore's having talked about a song being sung in his childhood that turns out to have been written years later. At the very least, the article would have been more plausible if it had cross-referenced W's similar boo-boo about a favorite childhood book that was written long after even his attenuated childhood/when he was young he was young period.

In sum, all just part of this new drive/hope to make CHARACTER and CLINTON'S LACK THEREOF the deciding so-called "issues" of this campaign.

It didn't work following the GOP convention, it won't work now.

1165. Indiana Jones - 10/11/2000 12:44:40 PM

Jack: But we've heard most of it now.

And William Bennett is a big, fat, sententious white guy.

That's so your father's Republican Party.

1166. Dusty - 10/11/2000 12:45:30 PM

Cellar Door

Um no.

An article by Bennett shows up and you are raging about Safire. Are they the same person?

1167. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 12:46:31 PM

An interesting question, Dusty.

let me get back to you on it.

1168. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:49:07 PM

Earned Income Tax Credit: The source of this "lie" is an interview with Time Magazine. Gore said, "[Bradley proposes] the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. I was the author of that proposal. I wrote that, so I say welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for some time."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,33135,00.html

By "that proposal", did Gore mean the proposal to expand the EITC, or the original EITC legislation? Obviously the former.

1169. Indiana Jones - 10/11/2000 12:49:19 PM

If Bush wants to win, he has to keep Bill Bennett, Jesse Helms, Dennis Hastert (sorry, Dennis, you're just the most uncharismatic politician I've ever seen), and Tom Delay (not fat, but bad hair makes up for it) locked up wherever he's keeping Newt.

1170. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:50:41 PM

Ohio

"James Witt - of course, that was a "lie", not confusing one disaster for another."

What Gore said was untrue. All untruths, I imagine, could be labeled a mistake (i.e., "Oh, I was mistaken when I said that I was Sheriff of Nottingham").

"Look For the Union Label" - Please. An obvious joke. (Good thing Bilious Bill didn't see Al do his "Top Ten List" on Letterman - there were a bunch of "lies" there!)"

So obvious that Gore's staff initially said he meant a different song.

"iced tea" - Hardly anyone at that meeting remembered any discussion of hard money/soft money. Neither did Gore."

Except for died-in-the-wool Democrats Ickes and Panetta.

"Maria Hsia - Gore couldn't remember discussions at a breakfast 4 years ago? He MUST be lying."

Not "must". But given the totality of the circumstances, most likely.

"1996 "illegal Buddhist Temple fundraiser" - I'll type this slowly so even Bill Bennett can understand: No funds were raised at the luncheon!"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

It's hard work, but I'll give you credit. You got moxie.

janjon

Whether it works is irrelevant to the discussion. Truth need not "work".

Indy

He is big, he is fat, but he is down.

1171. Indiana Jones - 10/11/2000 12:53:19 PM

Bill Bennett: The Berry White of Politics.

1172. Ronski - 10/11/2000 12:53:26 PM

Gore's problem is not only his penchant for embroidering stories. He was supposed to move to the center, and even started to after the convention. Then he seemed to drift back into the bigger government is better mode. He is perceived as a liberal by about eight to ten percent more of the voting public than he was at convention time.

Al Gore appears to have forgotten that memo from Bill Clinton, which stated:

Liberals do not win presidential elections in the U.S.

Centrists do.

1173. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:54:29 PM

From his actions in the first debate, it appears Gore has decided that it would be counterproductive to debate the merits of these accusations of "lies". However, I think if Bush raises one of these at tonight's debate, Gore should address it head on.

1174. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 12:55:39 PM

Okay, Jack, what was the admission price to the Buddhist Temple luncheon?

And why was the luncheon illegal?

1175. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 12:56:06 PM

Ohio

On EITC, even if your strained interpretation is accepted, the expansion law was authored by several legislators, not just Gore.

1176. janjon - 10/11/2000 12:56:13 PM

And, I suspect he will. If W. Does. Which, cocky as he seems to be right now and what with "character" back at the center of his attacks, it is likely he will.

1177. Thoughtful - 10/11/2000 12:59:56 PM

This a.m. Katie Curic on the Today show asked what I thought was a dumb question -- until I heard the answer. She asked someone from the Bush staff --communications chief or some such thing -- if Bush viewed the videotape of the debate and she said no he hadn't.

I'm really surprised by that....wouldn't that be a key starting point for analysis on where and how to improve his performance for the next debate?

1178. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 1:00:39 PM

Ohio

Do you really want to do this again? Fine. I have a proposal. In Politics, post limit of two. I'll make my argument today. You have a post limit of two to oppose. Each has a one post limit surrebuttal.

Do you accept?

And if Bush brings this stuff up, he's truly a moron. It has a life of its own. When asked, "Do you believe Mr. Gore has a problem telling the truth?" Bush should say, "That's not for me to say. That's a broad based question and I'll let the people decide. I'm only interested when he gets facts wrong abouy my proposals. But to the extent people want to look at his record and make decisions, that's fine. I frankly don't know what to make of it."

1179. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:00:42 PM

Time Magazine Interview with Gore
Gore:
[Bradley's proposals were] an old-style approach that spends a lot of money but doesn't have any new ideas. [He proposes] the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. I was the author of that proposal. I wrote that, so I say, welcome aboard.

Problem: the EITC became law in 1975, a year BEFORE Gore was elected to Congress.

1180. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:05:08 PM

janjon

At the very least, the article would have been more plausible if it had cross-referenced W's similar boo-boo about a favorite childhood book that was written long after even his attenuated childhood/when he was young he was young period.

I believe Bush explained that he thought the question was about children's books. He listed one he had read to his children. The people who asked the question also posed it to the 50 governors. A number of them made the same "error". The author of the question conceded it might be poorly worded. Were all the governors who made the mistake incompetent? Or only the GOP ones?

1181. janjon - 10/11/2000 1:07:43 PM

Nope. Sounds plausible to me. Never heard it before.

Now - you want to take a crack at W.'s attempt to discuss his tax plan in Florida last week? The time when he got all those pesky % all tangled up.

1182. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:09:57 PM

janjon

Do you have something I can look at?

1183. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 1:09:58 PM

Jack O' - Very well written Bush response to softball question about Gore's problems with simple truths. Hope he doesn't use it.

1184. JudithAtHome - 10/11/2000 1:10:29 PM

Well, you can all stop this fruitless arguing and making predictions: the sales of Halloween masks at one store in New York have predicted the winner of presidential elections since said masks have been produced....this year, more Al Gore masks have sold than George Bush masks. The owners of the store are confident that Gore will win.

1185. Thoughtful - 10/11/2000 1:10:57 PM

Of course, then again, they had Gore view the SNL satire of the debate to show where he made his mistakes.

Something is seriously wrong with Gore if, as was suggested by his guy on the Today show, he was doing his sighing routine as a way to demonstrate more emotion...what is it with this guy that he's so far removed from his personal feelings that even his reactions have to be scripted?

There is someting very wrong with needing to prove you aren't a robot...just as there is something very wrong with needing to prove you aren't a dope.

Is this the best we can do?!?

1186. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 1:12:35 PM

That SNL satire was absolutely brilliant. I do hope that Gore watched it.

1187. janjon - 10/11/2000 1:12:54 PM

Dusty - it was in the papers Monday. Some event where he got tax brackets, credits, social security withholdings, etc., all mangled up and asked his brother Jeb who was sitting nearby whether the numbers he'd used added up. Jeb simply smiled and shrugged, leaving W. on his own to fend his way through. (Quite astutely, i.m.o. Had Jeb stepped in, the image of W. needing help to understand or cope would have been far worse than the mangle he made.)

1188. JudithAtHome - 10/11/2000 1:13:29 PM

Thoughtful:

No, it's not the best we can do but unfortunately, the best we could've done got eliminated in the Primaries.

1189. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:14:15 PM

OhioSTOPAS
Okay, Jack, what was the admission price to the Buddhist Temple luncheon?

According to this site:

Participants paid $2,500 each to attend, in apparent violation of the temple's tax-free status as a non-political religious group (5/23/1997)

BTW, I cannot vouch unconditionally for the accuracy of this site. It contains a number of Gore gaffes as well as explanations for some absolving Gore of the claim, but I cannot say it is unbiased.

1190. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:15:51 PM

janjon

Didn't read it, but then Monday was a holiday, so I didn't see a paper.

1191. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 1:19:48 PM

Jack: I have to leave the office shortly, so I can't debate with you this afternoon.

1192. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 1:22:11 PM

Dusty: Regarding EITC, can anyone honestly maintain that when Gore said "that proposal" he meant by those words a statute enacted 20 years ago? If he meant to claim that he wrote the EITC Act, calling it a "proposal" was an odd choice of words. (Although not in Bill Bennett's view, evidently.)

1193. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:22:31 PM

janjon

I searched the Washington Post, using Bush and Florida as key words. Five stories were filed Monday; I perused each of them and didn't find the incident. Sorry.

1194. CalGal - 10/11/2000 1:22:58 PM

Dusty,

Actually, the problem was that they combined two events. One was a fundraiser, one wasn't.

1195. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:25:26 PM

OhioSTOPAS

Of course. The other alternative is that his reference to "that proposal" was a reference to Bradley's proposals.

Now if you want to argue that Gore was claiming he authored Bradley's proposal, you go right ahead.
I don't see any other candidates for what "that proposal" might refer to.

1196. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 1:27:49 PM

Dusty: There was to have been a restaurant fund-raiser on the same day as the Buddhist Temple visit, but it was cancelled. Some donors who were going to attend the cancelled restaurant fund-raiser attended the Temple luncheon instead.

Here's the straight scoop, from an article in the Sept. 18, 2000 New Yorker (page 82):

"A videotape of the event supports Gore's assertion that it was not a fundraiser. . . . There were no tickets to the lunch, money was never discussed and none changed hands, and most of the people in the audience, of more than a hundred, had never given money to the Democrats and never would. (Only fifteen of the guests who had paid to go to Huang's aborted restaurant fund-raiser, and who contributed a total of around sixty thousand dollars to the Democratic National Committee, came to the temple.) . .."

1197. CalGal - 10/11/2000 1:33:57 PM

Hey, I had just dug up my copy of the New Yorker for the same reason.

In March of 1996, Hsia wrote to Gore, "John Huang has asked me to help with organizing a fund-raising lunch event, with your anticipated presence, on behalf of the local Chinese community. After the lunch, we will attend a rally at the Hsi Lai Temple."

As the Los Angeles visit drew near, the Vice-President's staff realized that he wouldn't have time to make it to the lunch and the rally. In any case, advance sales for the fund-raiser had been modest. So, in what turned out to be a fateful decision, Huang and others at the Democratic National Committee cancelled the event at Harbor Village and invited the paying guests to join the larger crowd that was expected at the temple. The rejiggering of Gore's schedule raised a question that has taken on considerable importance. What, then, was the event that ultimately took place at the temple on April 29th--a fundraiser, a rally, or something else?

As far as Gore is concerned, there seems little doubt that he regarded the event as a rally, which was how it was described in his briefing book for the day."

Only about 15 of the paying guests went to the rally, who contributed a total of 60,000.

1198. OhioSTOPAS - 10/11/2000 1:33:59 PM

See y'all later.

1199. CalGal - 10/11/2000 1:35:23 PM

Ooops, I thought I had deleted my summary at the bottom (since Ohio quoted it) but I missed a bit.

1200. Dusty - 10/11/2000 1:51:36 PM

OhioSTOPAS

OK thanks, I did not know that.

1201. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 2:28:27 PM

janjon - I could. But, I wouldn't.

At least you're consistent. This isn't the first time you've refused to back up your claims with facts. I am sure it won't be the last. I don't know why I expected better of you.

1202. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 2:31:24 PM

Ohio - No funds were raised at the luncheon

You mean that it is only a fundraiser if money actually changes hands at the event? Curious.

1203. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 2:36:27 PM

Thoughtful - She asked someone from the Bush staff -- communications chief or some such thing -- if Bush viewed the videotape of the debate and she said no he hadn't.

I'm really surprised by that....wouldn't that be a key starting point for analysis on where and how to improve his performance for the next debate?

I thought Bush was running for President, not for host of the Tonight Show. I would hope he is working on how to best communicate his policies, rather worrying about how he will appear on television. I guess it is a symptom of our age where candidates are judged by their performances rather than their policies or their character.

1204. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 2:40:14 PM

CalGal - I thought there was another aspect to the Buddhist Temple event. The nuns contributed $5000 apiece to the DNC and were then reimbursed by the temple. Huang and Hsia had set this up with the head of the temple and it was the motivation for Gore appearing at the temple. Doesn't the New Yorker article mention this?

1205. CalGal - 10/11/2000 2:46:35 PM

There is no question that Huang knew about it, apparently; there is a great deal of question as to whether Hsia knew about it. She makes a decent case, I felt, for not knowing about it. There seems little question that Gore didn't know about that part, either--but then, he didn't even know that the fund raiser had been merged with the rally.

I went to work in between when I made my last post and now; the article is at home. I'll post the relevant part when I get home (either here or in Politics).

1206. Thoughtful - 10/11/2000 3:10:19 PM

jj, as I said yesterday, 70% or some such number of communications is nonverbal. How you say what you say is as important as what you say. Additionally, understanding how you appear and come across and express yourself is a critical element of effective communication. Starting with seeing yourself as others see you and hearing yourself as others hear you is key. All the good communications and effective presentation courses I've ever taken include video taping and then analyzing your performance, audience reaction, how you handle questions, etc.
And that analysis does not exclude what is said .... that is all part of it. It's about the entire package of presenting yourself and your ideas.

1207. janjon - 10/11/2000 3:12:44 PM

Biener. You know damned well the context in which I said that I wasn't going to bother going through yet another dreary exercise in utter and abject futility with you. (This time, no less, on "facts" such as does life begin when the crown of the head shows, or other such...rubbish.)

You can meow as much as you want about expecting better, running away, or whatever. It is utterly of no import to me.

1208. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 3:36:25 PM

Thoughtful - I am not contestint those points. I am just questioning whether those things are what a Presidential candidate should be concerned about. In our current society, he probably should, but I think that reflects poorly on our society. It is the reliance on packaging rather than content.

For example, if Gore gets his act together and in the next two debates manages to control his tendency to be smug, arrogant, condescending and self-righteous, it doesn't change the fact that he is smug, arrogant, condescending and self-righteous.

Likewise, I don't want Bush spending his time trying to perfect his image. I want Bush to concentrate on substance.

1209. janjon - 10/11/2000 3:40:07 PM

"I want Bush to concentrate on substance.

So do I. Intensively. Openly and Notoriously.

1210. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 3:43:47 PM

janjon - I was honestly curious about where you draw the line. Saying that life begins at birth is a bit murky and I was hoping you would clarify. If you aren't interested in presenting your position, that is up to you.

I do wonder why you won't back up your claim about the GOP platform, but I am used to that with you. You have made several claims over the past few months and refused in spite of contrary evidence to either change your positions or justify them. It is a shame, really.

1211. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 3:44:47 PM

janjon - So do I.

So there is something we agree on. Will God's wonders ever cease.

1212. Thoughtful - 10/11/2000 3:47:32 PM

jj, you can have all the substance in the world but it won't mean squat if it's delivered with insincerity, insecurity, or incomprehensibility. When you are fighting for the top job in a race this close everything counts, everything matters, and always everything has political implications. That's the way it is.

A key tool in understanding one's strengths and weaknesses is to examine one's past performance...coaches do it with athletes all the time...stance, swing, timing, etc....why shouldn't Bush be at least as prepared as a ball player?

1213. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 3:54:30 PM

Thoughtful - A key tool in understanding one's strengths and weaknesses is to examine one's past performance...coaches do it with athletes all the time...stance, swing, timing, etc....why shouldn't Bush be at least as prepared as a ball player?

I don't disagree. I just have a more idealistic point of view.

1214. janjon - 10/11/2000 4:03:23 PM

Biener. Cut the shame crap. If you don't realize that you have a well-deserved reputation of being an obdurate brick wall when it comes to meaningful discussion, then you really have not an iota of introspection or self-awareness.

This lunacy about trying to take that pitiful worse-than-rigid GOP platform plank and make it dance the light fantastic in terms of representing a nuanced proposal designed to protect a woman's life while also protecting the unborn so-called children is just the latest example. It cannot be done with any degree of intellectual honesty.

Now, if it makes you somehow feel better about yourself by concluding and proclaiming your own superiority, so be it, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

1215. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 4:31:54 PM

Jack- What is Bennett's position on promising to appear for National Guard Duty and not doing so? How about stating that one did such duty when all evidence available shows that one did not? How about saying that one got into the Guard on one's own merit when it is clear that Poppy's friends pulled strings, getting you a commission when you'd never been to OTC, ROTC or an academy? Does Bennett have a moral take on lying about receiving orders to go to the Alabama Guard when they were in fact denied? How about being AWOL during wartime? [This could be ticklish for Billy Boy too]

I take it that Bennett is voting for Nader, or Browne. Buchanan is out for the Holocaust denial alone...

1216. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 4:33:47 PM

Four days in the Fall

An investigation into the National Guard Service of George Walker Bush

Nearly two hundred Manila wrapped pages of George Walker Bush's service records came to me like some sort of giant banana flip stuffed into my mailbox.

I had been seeking more information on just what may have happened to him to account for the fact that his discharge papers show no record that he performed any duty or drills for the last 18 months of his service as had been reported by the Boston Globe. (1) So it was natural that one of the first pages I examined was a chronological listing of Bush's service. (Document 10)

This document charted active duty days served since his enlistment. For his first year, with extensive training, young Bush was credited with 226 days. In his second year in the Guard, 2nd Lt Bush was shown to have logged a total of 313 days. After Bush got his wings in June 1970 until May 71, he is credited with a total of 46 days of active duty. From May 71 to May 72, 22 days of active duty.

Then something happened and, from 15 May 72 to 1 Oct 73, there are no days shown.

I decided to check to see just how many days that Bush should have served in that time span. A National Guardsman at that time would have been responsible for a two-week long active duty "encampment." They would also have been required to do the standard one weekend per month drill. This would add up to about 36 days that Bush would have had as his obligation to the National Guard for the may1,72- April 30, 73 evaluation period. Plus there would be the obligation for the annual "active duty" training and for the period from May till when Bush was released to attend college in October of 73. This would have meant an additional obligation of about 28 days for the 73 period.

1217. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 4:34:01 PM

janjon - Cut the shame crap.

If you won't defend the outrageous accusations you make, it is indeed a shame.

If you don't realize that you have a well-deserved reputation of being an obdurate brick wall when it comes to meaningful discussion, then you really have not an iota of introspection or self-awareness.

I am sorry, but I am not going to accept your blind proclamations, especially when you are demonstrably wrong. If you interpret that as obdurate, so be it.

This lunacy about trying to take that pitiful worse-than-rigid GOP platform plank and make it dance the light fantastic in terms of representing a nuanced proposal designed to protect a woman's life while also protecting the unborn so-called children is just the latest example.

So far you have claimed the GOP platform places the life of the fetus above the life of the mother. When questioned on this bizarre interpretation you insist that it is obvious and you don't have to explain it. When asked for specifics, you refuse and insult me. As I said before this is a pattern with you, so I am not really surprised.

It cannot be done with any degree of intellectual honesty.

I have explained in detail why I believe my interpretation is correct. You have ignored my arguments and refused present anything to support your conclusions. You have no room to lecture on intellectual honesty.

Now, if it makes you somehow feel better about yourself by concluding and proclaiming your own superiority, so be it, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

I have neither concluded or proclaimed any such thing. I am just trying to figure out how you came to such twisted interpretation of what seems simple enough to me.

1218. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 4:35:08 PM

I found out that for the first four months of this time period that Lt. George Walker Bush did not have orders to be at any unit in Alabama where he was working on the Senate campaign of William Blount.

On 24 May, Bush had applied for a transfer to a unit in Montgomery Alabama (Document 7). This was to allow him to work on the Senate campaign of William Blount, a political friend of George W's Congressman father.

The commanding officer of the 9921st, Lt Colonel Reese R. Bricken accepted Bush's request to do temporary duty in his outfit (Document 6). Lt Colonel Bricken also reiterated Bush's points that the 9921st was a minimal duty unit. This unit was known as a postal unit and met one weeknight per month with no other training and "no pay" involved.

But on May 31st the Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver Colorado disallowed Lt Bush's request for a transfer to Alabama (Document 5). The Director of Personnel Resources, S.L.Dallin, noted that Lt Bush had a "Military Service Obligation until 26 May 1974." As an obligated Reservist, Bush was ineligible to serve his time in what amounted to a paper unit with few responsibilities.

After his transfer request was rejected Bush choose to stay in Alabama working on the Senate campaign. We know that Lt Bush did not report back to the Texas Air National Guard (TxANG) for his required drills because we have his annual evaluation from the 111th Ftr Intcp Sq at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston. On an AF 77 annual evaluation report, Lt Bush's evaluating officers marked him down as "Not Observed" to all questions (Document 4).
In the "comments" part of that annual evaluation (Document 9), Lt Colonel William Harris noted that Bush had "not been observed at this unit during the period of report."

1219. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 4:36:23 PM

But Lt Colonel Harris gave an explanation that Bush had "cleared this base on 15 May 1972, and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

This wasn't correct. Lt Bush had not even made a request for the 187th until 5 September, four months after he had ceased attending Guard drills with the 111th at Ellington (Document 2). And, when headquarters authorized Bush's request, a copy of his orders was sent to his unit at Ellington (Document 11) and to the Texas Adjutant General.

The letter approving his duty with the 187th at Dannelly clearly directed Bush to report to Lt Colonel William Turnipseed on the dates of "7-8 October 0730-1600, and 4-5 November 0730-1600."
But both Lt General Turnipseed ret. and his former administration officer, Lt Colonel Kenneth Lott, say that Bush never showed up at their unit.

Adding to those charges is a story in the July 22, 2000 New York Times with a statement by the Bush campaign to the effect that they had a record that Bush had served a day with the 187th on November 29,72.

If this is so it means that for a period of six weeks Lt Bush ignored direct orders to report for duty. But it looks even worse for Lt Bush if the memory of Turnipseed and Lott is correct and Bush never reported at all.

1220. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 4:37:19 PM

Bush's orders for temporary assignment in Alabama were only good through November, 1972. After the election was over, he was to have returned to Texas and the 111th at Ellington. And Lt. Bush did return to Houston, where, he says, he worked for an inner-city youth organization, Project P.U.L.L. But his 72-73 annual evaluation report, completed on April 30, 1973, states that he had not been observed at his unit. This means that there were another five months, after he left Alabama, during which Bush did not fulfill any of his obligations as a Guardsman. In fact, for this period of time, neither Bush nor his aides have ever tried to claim attendance at any Guard activities.

I pointed out earlier that there were no dates of service mentioned in the "Chronological Service Listing" (Document 10) for 1973. There is also a very interesting letter from the National Guard Bureau headquarters stating that George W. Bush "should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he is no longer in training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment."(Document 12)

This is important because Bush's unit of assignment at this time was the 111th at Ellington AFB TX (Document 14). Plus, this gives even more weight to recent statements by Bush's former Texas CO, Major General Bobby W Hodges that ''If [Bush] had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out, but I don't recall him coming back at all.'' (July 28 Boston Globe( July 28, Boston Globe ).

Bush's long absence from the records came to an end a week after Bush failed to comply with an order to attend "ANNUAL ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING" starting 22 May 73(Document 17).

There is a lone computer generated document which lists 35 points for Bush in 73. (Document 16). Unlike the other records I obtained, this document has no information as to who filed it, a date filed or for which unit it was filed.

1221. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 4:38:05 PM

These points are marked down as 3 days in May, 3 days in June and 29 days in July. But they are not broken down as in other listings of points. And, they are not enough points to make up for both the missing year and the last year of Bush's active service.

Bush and his campaign have made numerous statements to the effect that Bush made-up and fulfilled all of his Guard obligations. They point to Bush's honorable discharge as proof of this.

But in these old documents there is a clue as to how Bush finally fulfilled his obligations and made up for those missed drill days. In my first request for information on Bush's National Guard service I had been sent a small three page reply containing the "MILITARY BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE WALKER BUSH" from the Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel center in Denver Colorado (Document 14).

In these documents I found the final separation date for Lt Bush to be 21 November 1974, a half year later than the anticipated separation dates of 26 May 1974 which was recorded on Bush's enlistment record and on all documents as late as October 2nd 1973 (Document 10)

It would appear that the way Bush fulfilled his duty was not by attending the obligated number of drills, but by having his name added to the roster of a paper unit at the ARPC (ORS) Denver Colorado for an extra six months.

An investigative report by Martin Heldt

1222. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 4:40:17 PM

JJ - While agree in general with your critique of the image oriented consumerism of our culture, I would argue that a competitive system in which skill at presenting a coherent, compelling, and comfortable image determines the winner is a decent form of job interview for POTUS.

1223. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 4:42:10 PM

We could take a debate on the moment one becomes human to either Politics or Religion, but it should not happen here.

1224. janjon - 10/11/2000 4:48:17 PM

Biener. The GOP platform plank states in very plain English that the right of a fetus is inalienable. No nuances. The GOP platform plan does not address, nay it doesn't even mention, the rights if any of the putative mother. To get to where you want to go you have to go way beyond interpretation. You have to graft on so many modifications that the original hard-as-stone language must lose all of its clear meaning.

Now, if you find the above to be an "outrageous" interpretation, I not only am dumbfounded but truly believe that it is not possible to communicate with you in a sustained, complex manner.

1225. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 4:48:57 PM

Bienner- lets put this as plainly as possible. If a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to equal protection of the law and due process, what legal power has a pregnant woman to kill her fetus? Since the fetus is incompetant to advocate for itself, a guardian must be appointed for the fetus. Can you think of another instance in the law where you can obtain an order from the court to kill a person not convicted of a crime, regardless of how that person's life may effect you? How then would a pregnant woman make such a case? Remember self defense is a self-help remedy available only in the case of immediate danger, not a judicial remedy. What is she then to do? Shoot her abdomen when the danger is at the utmost?

1226. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 4:52:38 PM

vonK - I would argue that a competitive system in which skill at presenting a coherent, compelling, and comfortable image determines the winner is a decent form of job interview for POTUS.

What we end up with is the best salesman. The best salesman is not always the best leader. The last 8 years are ample evidence of that.

While agree in general with your critique of the image oriented consumerism of our culture

I am a little disenchanted with our current brand of consumerism. The packaging of the candidates is just one of the things that is bugging me. The debates should be a forum for communicating the candidates vision and policies, not a grade school recital.

1227. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:09:06 PM

janjon - Here is the language in the platform.

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

Note the reference the DoI. Note the reference to the 14th Amendment. The right to life of the unborn is the SAME right that we all have including the mother. There are no modifications or embellishments necessary to demonstrate it. It is right there in black and white.

What you claim is that granting 14th Amendment protection to the fetus somehow denies that same protection to the mother, but nothing in the platform even suggests this. Please explain how granting the right to life as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the fetus cancels the mother's right to life by that same Amendment.

1228. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:18:23 PM

Jones - If a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to equal protection of the law and due process, what legal power has a pregnant woman to kill her fetus?

A woman has the right to protect her life even if means the use of deadly force.

Can you think of another instance in the law where you can obtain an order from the court to kill a person not convicted of a crime, regardless of how that person's life may effect you?

As I stated before, in the case of siamese twins, one of them may be sacrificed to save the life of the other. If the mother's life is in danger there is nothing to prevent a doctor from terminating the pregnancy to save the woman's life. To not terminate the pregnancy would result in the death of both mother and fetus and that would not protect the rights of either individual.

If your assumptions lead you to a contradiction, it is time to examine your assumptions.

1229. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:23:31 PM

1230. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:23:59 PM

1231. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:24:31 PM

1232. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:25:03 PM

1233. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:25:42 PM

Cellar - Quit spamming.

1234. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:25:45 PM

1235. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:26:53 PM

I'll quit spamming when I get someone who'll talk about Martin Heldt's findings.

1236. Jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 5:29:48 PM

As I stated before, in the case of siamese twins, one of them may be sacrificed to save the life of the other.

The most recent case is in England, which has no written constitution, and certainly no statement of supreme law of the land that life begins at conception.

Second in the instance of co-joined twins, the choice is usually made by a third party- the parents, for the interests of another, the survivable twin. In the abortion example, the mother must act in her own interest and represent the fetus. Clearly a conflict of interest in your view.

1237. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 5:35:48 PM

Going out on a limb with this prediction, but here it is:

Gore will win the debate and will be able to control his pissy attitude.

Pol polls will give him a 10pt lead within one week of tonight's debate.

1238. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 5:37:03 PM

MsIT:

You may be right about Gore "winning." The story has already been written-- Bush takes round one, ergo, Gore *must* take Round Two.

1239. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 5:39:21 PM

I should also note that Gallup is now tied at 45 apiece -- meaning that Gore's numbers over the past two days are better than Bush's, and thus *tomorrow's* poll will almost certainly show Gore ahead.

This will happen even if the debate is cancelled tonight. And yet goofballs will claim that people polled *before the debates* are giving Gore the win for the debate.

1240. Thoughtful - 10/11/2000 5:41:12 PM

jj, not to quibble and I really don't want to fill the debate thread with an abortioin dispute, but being of the party of strict constructionists, you are aware that the 14th amendment specifically states, "All persons born...."

If you wish to continue this further, I suggest moving it to politics and out of the debate thread.

1241. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:41:27 PM

Jones - The most recent case is in England, which has no written constitution, and certainly no statement of supreme law of the land that life begins at conception.

Once the babies are born, the definition of when life begins is irrelevant.

In the abortion example, the mother must act in her own interest and represent the fetus.

I don't see this as unreasonable. If the choice is live and lose the baby or die and lose the baby, I don't see that there really is a conflict of interest.

1242. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:42:18 PM

Thoughtful - The point is to change the 14th Amendment.

1243. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:46:29 PM

I'm going to start spamming in a minute J.J.

1244. janjon - 10/11/2000 5:47:11 PM

Ace - the Gallup seems to be gyrating much more, both ways, than makes any sense, since this pattern isn't parroted in any of the other polls. I would think that their techniques are sufficiently sophisticated to be able to take into account a Bad Batch or whatever, but for this race presumably to have gone from 50-41 to Gore to 50-42 or so W. and then back to what, indeed by the way their poll works, will be a Gore lead tomorrow, is baffling.

1245. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 5:49:22 PM

Jan,

Gallup's sample size is smaller than many other polls.

I can't explain Gallup's wild fluctuations, though, either. But all other polls do indicate a Bush surge of some magnitude. As much as Gallup showed? Nah. But something *did* happen this weekend when people realized that half of what Gore had said last Tuesday was pure bullshit.

1246. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:52:28 PM

1247. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 5:52:39 PM

Jan - The Zogby tracking has shown a lot of movement, though it usually takes days to move from on position to another. Being a rolling two day tracking the time delay would make sense.

10/6-Gore 46%;Bush 41% - 10/11-Gore 42%; Bush 43%

1248. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:52:55 PM

Cellar - who is Martin Heldt and why should I put any faith in what he says?

1249. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:52:58 PM

1250. marshame - 10/11/2000 5:53:17 PM

It's interesting that people are not falling in line with the pundits. I found Bush to be refreshingly succinct, but the pundits said he was "shallow" and didn't have enough info to fill a 90-minute debate. On the other hand, I found that Gore over-answered (and often not the question answered) which I found to be obnoxious, yet the pundits swooned that he had mastery of detail, etc.

So that's why I think the polls surged for Bush after the debate, despite the way the pundits tried to influence people to believe.

1251. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 5:53:26 PM

Cellar - Boring!!!

1252. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:53:32 PM

1253. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:54:07 PM

1254. marshame - 10/11/2000 5:54:27 PM

Cellar

Has it occured to you that no one is interested in talking about this 28-year old story? And why do you think that is?

1255. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:54:37 PM

1256. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 5:55:09 PM

Jones - Can you please delete Cellar's repetitive posts? The are mucking up the conversation.

1257. Dusty - 10/11/2000 5:56:05 PM

I agree with von K Message # 1223
I don't recall that the date life begins was a topic of discussion at the debates.

1258. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:56:23 PM

A 28 year-old story? Gee, that's rather up-to-the-nanosecond isn't it? How old was "Whitewater"? Anybody got a year-count on that one?

1259. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:57:18 PM

Go fuck yourself, J.J.

And I say that with love.

1260. marshame - 10/11/2000 5:57:51 PM

How about Gore's supposed trip to the Texas fires with Witt? When was that, last year?

1261. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 5:58:11 PM

Post after post after post after post after post about Gore's "lies" and nothing about Dubbya's dissembling.

Yeah it's BORING alright!

1262. marshame - 10/11/2000 5:59:20 PM

It's because Gore's lies are so much more interesting - so pathological, so varied, so revealing.

1263. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:00:38 PM

Pathological and revealing? That's you marsha. Interesting? No.

1264. vonKreedon - 10/11/2000 6:02:04 PM

Cellar - Yes, boring as all heck. I would prefer it if some our colleagues from the other side of the aisle would join me in calling this piffling level of discourse for what it is, but, unfortunately for our colleagues, they have nothing else on which to hang their hats. Gore supporters can safely discuss actual issues and should restrict ourselves to such issues.

1265. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:02:37 PM

You people just aren't going to touvch it are you? Not WORD ONE about the Chosen One. Just more lies about Al Gore. Oh, excuse me -- Pinnochio Bore.

Hope the RNC is paying you plenty.

1266. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:04:02 PM

Where's our chief RNC whore? Where's The Mote's famous "former Democrat" --Ace of Spades?

1267. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:06:31 PM

WELFARE QUEENS ! WELFARE QUEENS ! WELFARE QUEENS !

1268. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 6:10:47 PM

Gee, I'm so glad that Cellar isn't a Democrat, or else she might turn into a hysterical shrieking harridan at the notion of Gore losing.

1269. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 6:11:19 PM

She might use lots of CAPITAL LETTERS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS, for example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1270. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 6:12:36 PM

janjon - Did you respond to Message # 1227? With all of the spam in here I might have missed it.

1271. Dusty - 10/11/2000 6:13:42 PM

Cellar Door

I thought the Clinton campiagn made it clear that people don't care about military service or lack thereof. For that reason, I haven't gotten exercised about the middling service record of either candidate, so I can't bring myself to care about the article you posted.

1272. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 6:15:38 PM

Dusty,

Everybody dodges the draft, you know. It's time to "move on."

1273. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:25:04 PM

CHENEY LIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1274. glendajean - 10/11/2000 6:25:51 PM

Cellar -- Bush's National Guard story doesn't fit in the general narrative this week, the one where Gore utters no truth. Of course, it might have fit the week the narrative was that Bush was losing control of his campaign.

It probably won't be a story unless the pack deems it so.

1275. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:28:07 PM

And the pack includes The Mote, right?

1276. glendajean - 10/11/2000 6:30:32 PM

No. But things are pretty partisan right now, heightened by the election. And those who believe in Bush, hate Gore (pick one or all) don't want to hear anything bad about their man. Democats likewise about Gore.

1277. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 6:30:43 PM

Please. It's time to rise above these petty partison personal attacks and "move on."

It doesn't affect his job performance, after all.

1278. glendajean - 10/11/2000 6:33:21 PM

I must say that I was afraid that Bush was going to be swinging higher in the polls. Glad to see it stop for a while. Maybe Gore can still pull this out.

As I said earlier, it would be a minor upset, given Bush's planned coronation last year by many. Frankly, I resented his showing up and winning in Texas in '94 and I resented his apparent repeat performance this time. Nice to know that he's sweating, if only a little.

1279. JJBiener - 10/11/2000 6:34:39 PM

Cellar - If the National Guard granted him an honorable discharge, I don't see how what he did while in the Guard is of any concern. If they don't think he did something wrong, I see no reason to second guess them 28 years later.

1280. glendajean - 10/11/2000 6:38:02 PM

Well, JJ, that's where we've been at for the past several years. Political points on what happened in the past. Dig,dig, dig. Each cycle seems to be more vicious and angry.

God forbid, we would just disagree on policies.

1281. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:43:19 PM

Yet welall see a need to second guess the Office of Independet Counsel 28 seconds later, don't we J.J.?

1282. Cellar Door - 10/11/2000 6:45:01 PM

BUSH SHOULD BE TOSSED INTO PRISON FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY!

1283. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 7:27:33 PM

Ace Message # 1238

You've a point. To clarify, what I meant by 'win' was that he'd come out looking and sounding more "presidential" in the sense of knowing the issues, being clearer about his positions, and answering the questions with greater competence.

The last poll I'd heard was Bush 49%, Gore 41%. My prediction was based on that information, so I'm talking about Gore regaining the lead and having a 10 point spread between he and Bush.

1284. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:28:31 PM

"The last poll I'd heard was Bush 49%, Gore 41%."

Your information is out-of-date. Bush had a HUGE +20 spike on a couple of days of polling, but that weird spike soon disappeared (as one would expect).

The poll you're talking about puts it at 45-45 at the current time, with Gore (I'm assuming) doing better over the past two days than the third day back. When the last vestige of Bush's spike disappears out of the rolling sample, Gore will be at +3 or +4 tomorrow.

1285. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:30:19 PM

As to your larger point:

I think you are "thinking" with the rooting part of your brain, rather than the reasonable-analysis portion.

I don't expect to see Gore out by ten at any point in this entire campaign. Your mileage may differ, but he *hasn't* been out by ten, ever (well, except for one goofy day), and he is, apparently, not so much a better debater to make a significant impact.

1286. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 8:38:16 PM

Yes, I know the prediction is an outlier. That's why I said I was going out on a limb.

As for reasonable-analysis "thinking", I'm going by "touchy-feelie" instinct here. In other words, I have a feeling...Going on a hunch...Gut-instinct...and all that stuff.

Btw, I don't think it's impossible for Gore to leap out in front, I don't think it's impossible for either of them to suddenly attract the attention of the public in a way that's been missing in this entire campaign.

Personally, once McCain was out of the race, I lost a lot of interest, but then, it's not easy to divert my attention these days...

1287. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:42:34 PM

"Btw, I don't think it's impossible for Gore to leap out in front, I don't think it's impossible for either of them to suddenly attract the attention of the public in a way that's been missing in this entire campaign."

I suppose that's true, but you're postulating that Albert "Bertie" Gore is going to suddenly "catch fire" with the American people.

Let's ask the Magic 8-Ball:

It is most doubtful.

Be more specific, 8-Ball:

At best, Gore squeaks it 48-45. The man is a dolt, and, what's worse, he's an uncharismatic dolt. At least our dolt has a bit of charm and leadership ability.

1288. CalGal - 10/11/2000 8:42:38 PM

What's behind Gallup's Volatile Poll Numbers?

On Oct. 1, Gallup reported that the race was a dead heat among likely voters. In that sample, party ID was also even: thirty five percent of all likely voters said they were Democrats, 34 percent Republicans and the rest independents.

Three days later, Gore was up with an 11-point lead in the horse race. The partisan composition of the likely voter pool: 37 percent Democratic, but only 30 percent Republican.

Two days later, it's Bush with an 8-point lead. Now, suddenly, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 38 percent to 30 percent in the likely voter sample.


Percentage of Republicans, Independents  Presidential 
and Democrats in Gallup Tracking Likely  Horse 
Voter Sample                             Race 
Sept. 29-Oct. 1:  34 R  31 I  35 D       Tie 
Sept. 30-Oct. 2:  33 R  31 I  36 D       Gore  +2 
Oct. 1-3:         33 R  29 I  38 D       Gore  +8 
Oct. 2-4:         30 R  33 I  37 D       Gore  +11 
Oct. 3-5:         34 R  32 I  34 D       Gore  +1 
Oct. 4-6:         38 R  32 I  30 D       Bush  +7 
Oct. 5-7:         39 R  31 I  31 D       Bush  +8 
Oct. 6-8:         37 R  30 I  32 D       Bush  +8 
Oct. 7-9:         35 R  31 I  34 D       Bush  +3

So the mystery is neatly solved: More Republicans in the sample,
more votes for Bush. But not so fast. Where did all those Republicans suddenly come from? (Or where did all those Democrats go?)

1289. CalGal - 10/11/2000 8:43:12 PM

checking for toys.

1290. jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 8:45:35 PM

Cellar-
Please link to the previous posts for the Bush awol story in the future, twice is enough in this thread. Feel free to beat Bsuh supporters over the head with it, just don't fill the thread with repetition please.

You might also link a previous story concerning the missing portion of Bush's military career, where there is speculation that he was grounded for failure to take/or failing to pass a mandated drug test for pilots. I believe that would be new to this thread and germane to the discussion.

1291. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:46:19 PM

Cal,

That explains Gallup's gyrations. But CNN/Time, CNN/Reuters/Zogby, ABC News, and POA also show Bush gaining strength. (FoxNews, the "right-wing bias" news organization, has consistently shown Gore ahead by one or two; they show him ahead by one at the moment.)

Surely it cannot be that these five other polls also undersampled Democrats.

1292. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:47:39 PM

Actually, I think FoxNews and CBS/Times are the *only* big, national polls showing Gore ahead at the moment (both by a single point).

Biased?

1293. jonesatlaw - 10/11/2000 8:48:48 PM

CalGal- thank you for your response to Ace- you beat me to it.

1294. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:49:33 PM

To clarify:

I don't mean Cal called the FoxNews poll "biased." But numerous liberals here have, including, I believe, JanJon.

1295. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 8:51:34 PM

Ace

At least our dolt has a bit of charm and leadership ability.

Says who?

I live in Texas and see the man in action frequently (on the news, I have no personal knowledge of him), and he's okay, but charming and a leader? I dispute that. He reminds me of a classic, boring MBA type businessman.

1296. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 8:52:26 PM

And I stand my my predictions.....

1297. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:53:01 PM

"He reminds me of a classic, boring MBA type businessman."

Yeah, but you don't know GWB like I do -- he's never given *you* a sensual back-rub.

1298. CalGal - 10/11/2000 8:54:39 PM

Ace,

If you read the analysis, you would see that it's not that simple.

There are three possibilities. The first is, bad sampling. For whatever reason, perhaps Gallup interviewed more Republicans later in the week, and more Democrats earlier.

Alternatively, maybe it's not bad methodology at all, but bad luck: Perhaps those party shifts were simply due to chance alone; the inevitable price you pay for doing random sample surveys.

Then again, maybe Gallup had it exactly right.

...But there are problems with both the bad sample and the bad luck theories. Gallup's survey and sampling methods are state-of-the-art; more PhDs work for Gallup than for many colleges. As for bad luck, the change in party identification, while dramatic, is also systematic. The percentage of Democrats and Republicans does not fluctuate randomly from day-to-day.

Those numbers lead us to hypothesis three: Gallup got it right. Maybe there really were more Republican likely voters last Friday than there were on Wednesday. Or at least there were more people who tell Gallup pollsters they're Republicans. After all, the first presidential and vice-presidential debates fell within this period.

1299. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 8:54:43 PM

*cough *cough

Uh, that's true.

Btw, he's not only a boring MBA type guy, but he's the Peter Principle in living color.

1300. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 8:56:43 PM

It's showtime here folks.

I'll be Back

1301. angel-five - 10/11/2000 8:56:46 PM

Gotta put yourself through law school somehow, i s'pose.

1302. AceofSpades - 10/11/2000 8:59:16 PM

Cal,

Rask and I had an argument about this. This is why, I suppose, the Battleground polls sets the parties at parity.

Personally, I do not believe Gore ever had Gallup's ludicrous 11 point lead, nor that Bush ever had Gallup's equally-silly ten point lead.

Gallup is a fucking mess. They don't know what the hell they're doing.

1303. angel-five - 10/11/2000 8:59:38 PM

Wow. Horrendous asymmetry in the cordon placement.

1304. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:00:49 PM

Strange how the stage is weighted. On Gore's side.

1305. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:04:02 PM

Hahahaha, he just called Gore 'President Gore'.

1306. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:04:45 PM

And apparently neither one of these gents knows how to tie a full Windsor knot.

1307. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:05:54 PM

Someone evidently told Bush that wearing a tie that looks like a lopsided bandanna would endear him to the swing vote.

1308. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 9:23:00 PM

From the debate:

Bush thinks he can handle the "Iraqi situation" "better"?

please, momma, can't we elect him??

1309. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:46:04 PM

I think Gore scored on the World War Two generation statements.

1310. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:47:30 PM

That's been the one thing said so far that's really resonated. Everything else has been --

oh. Bush just brought up that he's going to have three murderers put to death.

1311. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:48:03 PM

OK, it's now Gore 1 Bush -1.

1312. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:51:12 PM

OOOOPS.

1313. angel-five - 10/11/2000 9:53:35 PM

Why'd someone tell Bush that he should stop trying to hold the center?

1314. CalGal - 10/11/2000 10:18:29 PM

Yes, Gore definitely worked on his voice.

1315. angel-five - 10/11/2000 10:25:58 PM

If the press calls this another draw they're daft.

1316. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:41:18 PM

angel

It was 1 to 1, and now you see it a clear win?

So do I. I make no pretension as to my dislike of Gore. And glenda rightly stated today that the tone in this thread has become very sharp in partisanship. But I hope my credibility is proven by my evaluation of the first debate, whereafter I declared that Gore had won. I, like others, did not take into consideration the effect of the prevarications and the sighing. But, admittedly, I never saw that when Gore tongue-kissed his wife, he'd shoot up in the polls.

After a faltering start, when Bush got his footing, he slightly outpointed Gore. But he out-themed and out-styled him significantly. This is something, given that 45 minutes was devoted to foreign policy. Bush smoke in resonance and theme. Gore tried, adn often did well, and they were both at their best when acting like Southern gentleman, but Gore was made to look foolish on his attempted exploitation of the Byrd family, and Bush was clearly more natural. Worse, Gore ended contrite and not commanding, and ultimately, his same ole, un-reinvented self appeared.

Most surprisingly, Bush had Gore dancing to his tune, a distinct change from helplessly hollering "It's fuzzy math!"

1317. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:42:08 PM

smoke=spoke

1318. CalGal - 10/11/2000 10:47:53 PM

I haven't seen the whole thing yet--came in during the middle. I liked the first one better, in which I thought that Bush did very well (alone in the crowd here, I might add).

I thought Bush impressed again. But Gore didn't hurt his cause at all. It's hard to believe much in the polls these days, but I would be surprised if either of them moved people all that much.

1319. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:48:46 PM

In fact, on several issue - from nation-building, to command-and-control, to local control - Gore was in the uncomfortable position (for him) of following, not leading. I mention this only because I never would have expected it, as Bush - being lighter - would normally be expected to takecomfort in letting Gore lead, and maybe counterpunching a bit.

His people clammed him in a shell and it showed. But he still looked like a guy (and I know this sentiment has kinship here) who was sick he had to shut and up and suffer this fool.

Regardless, the script will require that Gore won. It must. Just as Bush had to win by not slobbering in debate #1, Gore had to win by not leaping across the table and strangling Bush.

I am gone for a few days. I will be unable to defend any of these comments for a time. By then, however, it will be reported that the real news of the debate was that Gore had a boner or Bush passed wind.

1320. angel-five - 10/11/2000 10:49:16 PM

One to negative one. I think Bush's repeated hitting on the death penalty was a mistake.

I don't think Gore was made to look foolish over the Byrd family statement, because he was right. Bush was insinuating that the men were being punished over hate crimes. But I can see how that'd go either way.

Gore won a point on Texas's miserable standings on health care and the environment, with some help from Bush's evasions. And then lost a point in the last question, where he did look less natural than Bush. So I give the debate to Gore.

1321. angel-five - 10/11/2000 10:50:34 PM

Well, maybe you're right about that last. Gore did get a center stage smooch right off the bat.

1322. angel-five - 10/11/2000 10:51:10 PM

Try as he might, Bush always looks afraid when he has to smooch someone.

1323. CalGal - 10/11/2000 10:51:13 PM

I note the PBS commentator saying that both had a low standard. Gore had to seem likeable and Bush had to seem articulate. But who set that standard? The talking heads?

1324. Dusty - 10/11/2000 10:51:26 PM

Our family members each remarked at how often Gore was in the position of "me,too". yeah I'm also in faovr of the golden rule.
Policement are brave? Oh yeah, i think that too.

1325. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:51:49 PM

Cal

I think that in preparation, it is easier to bone someone up on issues than it is to change their personality. This showed.

Bush's worst moments were right off the bat. Unsteady, not yet leaning back in the chair. And broad foreign policy right off the bat.

1326. Dusty - 10/11/2000 10:53:21 PM

The Byrd exchange was quite interesting. I don't know whether Bush outscored Gore on that, but he had a better comeback than I had expected.

I think we'll hear the "How do enhance penalities when you give the death penalty?" again. [paraphrased]

1327. Dusty - 10/11/2000 10:54:22 PM

Is it really true that Bush is the first two-term governor in Texas hisotry? It'll jump up and bite him if he misspoke; a minor victory if he is right.

1328. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:54:32 PM

Dusty

Exactly. And it was killing him. he wants to give shots, not take them. And he took a few.

angel

The death penalty thing will hurt him only with eggheads who would vote for a mule over Bush. His answer was folksy and direct and no one gives a shit about hate crimes laws but weirdos like you and me on boards like this. But they do understand frying butchers who hook up a man to a truck and drag him down the road.

1329. angel-five - 10/11/2000 10:55:17 PM

Actually, I do think that Gore's agreement is going to work for him, once you consider that his opponent's repeatedly saying that he's going to work with both sides and be a 'uniter'.

He says 'divider' a lot for a guy who doesn't like math that much.

1330. CalGal - 10/11/2000 10:55:39 PM

Jack,

I'm not sure it mattered all that much. Gore was different, and it's hard to say how much your dislike of him affects your view. He'll never be likeable.

I think Gore would have done better to ignore the talking heads and have come out swinging--just not sighing. But neither of them killed their chances.

I thought the first debate was much more fun to watch.

1331. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:56:03 PM

Finally, I liked Bush's tack on foreugn policy. 80% mug Gore with love. 20% take a few pokes with what you know and get the hell out of Dodge City.

1332. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 10:57:44 PM

Cal

I agree that the debate has no long term effects (unless Gore screwed up another basic fact, like Tipper really wasn't on a plane to Somalia with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs).

Adios.

1333. CalGal - 10/11/2000 10:58:32 PM

Dusty,

I'm pretty sure its true; he wouldn't have said it otherwise. That's Gore's bag, not his.

1334. angel-five - 10/11/2000 10:59:00 PM

JV:

I respectfully disagree. Lots of swing voters are uncomfortable about the death penalty. What Bush did was score with the people who will probably already vote for him and come out strongly in favor of an issue that doesn't play well in the middle. I don't think it will end up working in his favor.

1335. Dusty - 10/11/2000 11:00:23 PM

ok, ok, back to spell checking.

1336. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 11:00:32 PM

angel

Trust me on this. The only swing voters you know who are "troubled" by the death penalty are putting you on. It's a gag. (g)

See ya'.

1337. CalGal - 10/11/2000 11:00:40 PM

Lots of swing voters are uncomfortable about the death penalty.

I'm not sure that's true. Support for the death penalty is still pretty strong; any recent doubts about it revolve around mistaken verdicts, not frying killers.

1338. Dusty - 10/11/2000 11:01:05 PM

CG
Good point

1339. Jack Vincennes - 10/11/2000 11:01:41 PM

And you can't ask for a better case to draw your line in the sand than the killers of James Byrd.

Okay.

Good night.

1340. angel-five - 10/11/2000 11:02:49 PM

The death penalty in Texas -- specifically, the high numbers of executions and the numbers of innocent men executed in Texas -- is something that casts a shadow over Bush for a lot of people in the middle. If he was going to make a power play over the death penalty he should have played much more of a 'it's a terrible duty' tack rather than a 'we're gonna fry the bastards dead' tack.

1341. Dusty - 10/11/2000 11:03:15 PM

I'm told the NBC studio crowd felt that Bush won.

1342. CalGal - 10/11/2000 11:04:28 PM

The death penalty in Texas -- specifically, the high numbers of executions and the numbers of innocent men executed in Texas -- is something that casts a shadow over Bush for a lot of people in the middle.

I don't see how you can say this. Support for the death penalty is high--hell, it's not even that low among registered Democrats. I don't think that swing voters can safely be considered to be anti-death penalty.

There have been no innocent men killed in Texas that I've heard of. Is there a case that I've missed?

1343. Dusty - 10/11/2000 11:05:19 PM

Both listened to their style coaches. Gore's improvement was more obvious to me.

1344. angel-five - 10/11/2000 11:06:49 PM

CalGal:

Well, we'll see how it spins.

1345. CalGal - 10/11/2000 11:07:36 PM

I thought Gore improved more, too, in terms of style. But I agree with Jack that Bush held command more.

Snap polls indicate that Bush won--47-39, I think, but the numbers were flashed right before I looked. Not that this means anything; Gore won the polls immediately after the last one.

1346. angel-five - 10/11/2000 11:07:52 PM

Anti-death penalty? There's a difference between being anti-death penalty and being unsure or uncomfortable with the death penalty.

1347. CalGal - 10/11/2000 11:08:42 PM

Well, thus far no one has mentioned any major ghastly blooper over Bush's death penalty remark, but maybe that comes later.

1348. angel-five - 10/11/2000 11:09:42 PM

As far as older voters go -- and they do seem to be a critical part of both mens' campaigns -- I think that Gore effectively harked back to the WWII and post WWII generation. All that Bush had to counter with it was the evil internet.

1349. angel-five - 10/11/2000 11:10:26 PM

with it = it with.

1350. Dusty - 10/11/2000 11:11:41 PM

One of the pundits suggested counting the number of times each said they agreed with the other. My quick count finds 5 times Gore said "I agree" to once for Bush. But this isn't a fair count, because I see Gore also "I also agree", "I certainly agree".

I'll let someone else work out the definitive account.

1351. CalGal - 10/11/2000 11:11:45 PM

There's a difference between being anti-death penalty and being unsure or uncomfortable with the death penalty.

Polls have shown no major support among swing voters against the death penalty--again, the only drop recently has been in terms of ensuring no mistakes.

And I've just watched a lot of Dem spinners analyze the debate and not one of them hammered on the comment. None have even mentioned it yet. If they perceived that it was a big issue, they would be bringing it up regularly, reminding swing voters of this critical issue. I have seen no serious analysis mentioning the dp as a major issue in the campaign.

1352. CalGal - 10/11/2000 11:13:30 PM

Among CNN's swing voters, 2 thought Gore had won, 12 thought Bush won, 11 thought it was a tie.

1353. Dusty - 10/11/2000 11:14:30 PM

Gallup Poll has Bush beating Gore (in the debate) 49-36

1354. JudithAtHome - 10/11/2000 11:24:40 PM

Maybe it's just Fox, but it seems everyone there is bitching about how Al Gore was too dull and meek...he was trying so hard not to be nasty that it threw him off. There is no way to win with these people; if he's an attack dog, he's the antichrist and if he isn't in attack mode, he's a dullard.

Meanwhile, GW obviously did his homework on foreign affairs and learned to pronounce a few foreign names and he is a hero....

I will say this: I thought GW was funny a few times. He does have quick wit.

I thought Al Gores little asides were extremely witty and even funnier delivered in that ultra dry manner. He listened to someone about the first debate, that's for sure.

And who noticed GW putting on his watch after the debate?

1355. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 11:25:56 PM

My prediction looks bleak right now, but I'm holding out for a reversal of fortunes such as Bush experienced after the first debate.

My take on things:

-Both agreed with each other too much, about even as I counted them up.
-Bush looked bad as he smirked about the three convicted felons facing the death penalty. Regardless of whether that was the result the public wanted, smirking was not good. Made him look petty, IMO.
-Gore nailed Bush in the last 20 minutes, but it may have come too late because, by then, many may have tuned out of the debate.
-Bush seemed incompetent on the foreign policy questions compared to Gore (to me), but this isn't a big issue with the public so the fact that he seemed to hold it together will probably mean he gets a pass on this one.
-I thought Gore came across with better composure and resisted any pissy facial expressions, which will be good for him.
-I think Bush lied about being the only two-term Governor in the state, he probably meant for a period of years, but it was an...
E X A G G E R A T I O N!!!!!
Perish the thought.

1356. JudithAtHome - 10/11/2000 11:29:58 PM

What chaps me about all that "Two Term" stuff is that he acts as though every single person in the state voted for him and that's just not so.

1357. RosettaStone - 10/11/2000 11:32:26 PM

LIKE THE NY YANKEES, BUSH WON 7 TO 1 TONIGHT

1358. MsIvoryTower - 10/11/2000 11:34:58 PM

I don't know, Judith, he won the election here with a wide margin, sounds like a victory dance to me. I can't begrudge him his moment in the sun.

I'm trying to find the list of Texas Governors and their terms but haven't located it yet. I thought Connolly was a two term governor, and I'm pretty sure that there were a few two-termers in the first half of the century, but they may not have served consecutive terms.

My initial reaction was that he lied, or seriously misled at the very least. In other words,

....got the facts wrong!

....exaggerated!

1359. angel-five - 10/11/2000 11:35:51 PM

Well, Rosettastone b'lieves Bush won. That's what we call 'the kiss of death.'

1360. JudithAtHome - 10/11/2000 11:46:21 PM

I'm pretty sure there are governors who served 2 terms here....maybe he is referring to the last 25 years or so.

1361. Al D - 10/11/2000 11:59:34 PM

Angel-5
executions and the numbers of innocent men executed in Texas
I would be interested in some names, if you can supply them.,p>
Judith
Alas, my dear, it is not just that right wing, Murdoch station that is making that point.
MIT
Where did you ever get the idea that Bush slipped after the first debate? You can't mean he fell in the polls because he just didn't.

1362. Al D - 10/12/2000 12:01:09 AM

If Bush misspoke, lied if you will, about being the first two term governor, we should see a link on that in a few minutes.

1363. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 12:02:44 AM

Bush is the first Texas Governor to have served two consecutive *four year* te