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* terms. From what I can tell, Texas has only had four-year Governor terms since around 1970.

1364. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 12:12:20 AM

Texas Governors.

It actually looks like the change kicked in in 1980. BFD.

My take: Bush surprised by appearing statesman-like and competent in the long foreign policy section (mostly by agreeing with Gore and the Clinton administration). I thought Gore scored a nice point on nation-building, though.

But the last half of the debate was all Gore. Bush was frequently flummoxed, unable to defend a record that he should know much better than Gore. He also didn't seem to know the difference between gay marriage and a civil union.

I think the pundits and public saw a different debate than I did. I saw at least four pundits imply that Gore partially lost because he wasn't able to bring up Social Security and tax policy. Well, Lehrer never asked about them, so it makes little sense to fault Gore for the agenda.

I did think Gore came across as too tentative in this debate. My initial impression was that he was trying not to appear like a bully while slapping Bush around with his Texas record, but that seems to have not been the case. In hindsight, it looks like the public *likes* Gore to appear strong and decisive. They just don't like him to roll his eyes or make exasperated sighs.

1365. joezan - 10/12/2000 12:15:15 AM

MsIT:

I thought Gore came across with better composure and resisted any pissy facial expressions, which will be good for him.

I think the word you're looking for here is paralyzed.

Paralyzed, because he knows he can no longer lie.

Without his lies, the man is a very, very empty suit.

1366. CalGal - 10/12/2000 12:15:27 AM

Rask,

Yes, I said that earlier as well. We actually like Gore kicking ass.

1367. concerned - 10/12/2000 12:16:53 AM

I was working, so missed the debate. But I understand that after a bit of a slow start, the guy with the MBA kicked Flunky's ass.

I would like to see Pinocchio Bore revert to his Snidely Whiplash persona for the third debate. That would be a perfect setup for Bush tearing him a new one about his felonious behavior and general unworthiness for high office.

1368. joezan - 10/12/2000 12:22:14 AM

BTW, if anyone happens to catch a film clip or photo from the Bush rally tomorrow night in Grand Rapids, look for me.

I'll be the guy with the beautiful brunette wife and daughter, holding a sign that says:

BUSH
CHENEY
2000

We're PRO-TRUTH!

1369. Al D - 10/12/2000 12:26:44 AM

While I agree that Gore scored on Bush late in the debate on health care in Texas, he certainly did not win the debate, and he will slip in the polls. Gore said something I barely caught about, "If you don't believe me you can check with the judge who criticised Texas." Could he have been refering to the suit filed in '93 when Richards was governor?

1370. Al D - 10/12/2000 12:28:38 AM

joezan
If I confused you with janjon I am oh so sorry. I feel like a fool insulting you in such a manner, and I promise, though I may get some details wrong, I will work with all my heart to see I never do that again. Mea culpa

1371. Stumbo - 10/12/2000 12:33:18 AM

One Bush misstatement: apparently, only 2 of the 3 Byrd killers are getting the chair; the 3rd is getting life (presumably, because he testified against the other two?)

1372. Al D - 10/12/2000 12:36:43 AM

Lehrer is asking every question a liberal cares about. As usual, the table holds two liberals and one conservative. I guess by
liberal standards, this is considered "fair,"

Mr. Gore, how did you feel about bombing an aspirin factory to "change the subject".

Mr Gore, in states that have conceal carry laws, the murder rate goes down. How do you feel about states without this
beneficial law?

Mr. Gore, the department of education, and the agriculture department have lost track of millions of dollars, can you explain
how you would prevent this? Mr. Bush, several Catholic Churches have been vandalized by a man who was given probation
yesterday. The judge has let him walk. Why do you think the media lacks interest in this issue?
Before you guess, let me tell you this comes from Free Republic. but is there validity to the remarks, any at all?

1373. joezan - 10/12/2000 12:36:46 AM

Al:

When?

(I just naturally assume if someone's saying something nasty, it's probably directed at janjon anyway).

1374. concerned - 10/12/2000 12:37:52 AM

I just started a discussion thread in Salon, as follows:

Presidential Debate Deux: Polls show the Man with the MBA kicking Flunky's Butt
( Subscribe | Discussion summary )

conscience - 09:31 pm PDT - Oct 11, 2000

It seems that George W. Bush has been able to exorcise the demon of Alphalfa Bore's much overrated debating skills, and after a tentative beginning, taking command of the debate.
Should Pinocchio switch tactics once again and revert to Snidely Whiplash for the third debate, at the risk of alienating constituents with his meanness?

Any estimates how long this one will last? A day? A week?

1375. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 12:41:56 AM

Ummmmm...

I thought...

Um, I thought...

errr...

It seems to me that, uh...

I thought Al Gore was supposed to *win* these debates, guys.

1376. Stumbo - 10/12/2000 12:48:11 AM

I'm sure Molly Ivins thinks he's 2-0.

1377. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 12:52:59 AM

I thought Gore won the first debate on pure debating "points" (propositions unrefuted, etc.), though I don't know how well his big-L liberal program sold with the American people. And I had no idea that Gore's sighs & misstatements would annoy the electorate as much as they annoyed me.

So, Gore "Won" the first debate, on points, though he really lost.

Bush clearly won the second debate, no quotes. He just flat-out won. Gore had a few effective attacks (Bush did not have an adequate response on Texas' stingy record on health care for children, because, quite frankly, there's no gettin' around the truth), but Bush was simply the better-informed, more articulate, more thoughtful, and more mainstream candidate on most issues.

Plus, you know, they're gonna have a hard time selling Bush as an idiot. I mean, if he's an "idiot," how come he just creamed Gore? What does that make Gore?

So, a big win tonight for Bush.

1378. concerned - 10/12/2000 12:53:17 AM

Maybe Pinocchio had one of his virtual 'iced tea breaks' during the debate.

1379. Stumbo - 10/12/2000 12:55:45 AM

Judith, #1354:

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

Heh. I guess he's one of those quick-witted imbeciles we always keep reading about.

1380. RustlerPike - 10/12/2000 1:37:27 AM

Maybe Bush isn't so stupid after all. Maybe his stupidity is just a veneer.

1381. RustlerPike - 10/12/2000 1:40:14 AM

Apparently Bush has intellectual dyslexia: he's not really stupid, he just has an impairment that makes him look stupid.

1382. RustlerPike - 10/12/2000 1:41:58 AM

Gore did not sigh nearly enough this time.

1383. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 1:43:23 AM

"Apparently Bush has intellectual dyslexia: he's not really stupid, he just has an impairment that makes him look stupid."

You say this as if it's terribly uncommon. His father was a bright man, but he spoke in famously garbled syntax and sentences which trailed off into silence and embarassment.

1384. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 1:51:11 AM

Incidentally, Al Gore was just fine.

But the problem is that Bush beat him.

Americans' main reservation about Bush is the question of whether he is up to the job.

What happens when that reservation is laid to rest?

1385. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 2:03:20 AM

CONCERNED: I'm sorry that you're taking heat from the TT posse who think you're me. Don't be surprised if your thread is erased tomorrow. Being a hunted man there, I can't defend you.

On topic. CBS News says that Bush won 56 percent of the independents last night.

1386. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 2:06:34 AM

So Americans are going to believe that Bush really wants to give seniors a better deal on their prescriptions when a court finds that he cannot manage the existing system and witholds benefits from kids?

You all believe in PT Barnam more than I do.

1387. Stumbo - 10/12/2000 2:12:16 AM

Ace:

"What happens when that reservation is laid to rest?"

In my dreams, what happens is that Bush wins by at least 55%.

But in my even wetter dreams, he wins by the same percentage, after forcefully pointing out (among other things) that if some indigent-as-it-is couple (or single mother) decides to have kids, the taxpayers ought to have no automatic obligation to pony up for those kids' health insurance, or any other expenses.

However, he's either too pussy, or too pragmatic, or (barf) too compassionate to actually state this.

1388. CalGal - 10/12/2000 2:14:14 AM

Well, the government subsidizes your health care. So I'm not sure why it's so dreadful they pay for the poor--although I wish they'd subsidize them a real insurance policy, but you can't have everything.

1389. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 2:26:29 AM

"However, he's either too pussy, or too pragmatic, or (barf) too compassionate to actually state this."

Lao Tzu: When a battle can't be won, don't fight it.

Politics is the art of the possible.

1390. Stumbo - 10/12/2000 2:28:05 AM

CG:

The gov't does not subsidize my health care. To whatever extent it does so, it does so using my money, without consulting me as to exactly how I would like it to be spent. I'd prefer to be consulted; better yet, I'd rather simply spend my money as I see fit.

G'night.

1391. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 2:31:07 AM

"Bush was seen as the winner by 46 percent, while 30 percent said Gore won in an ABC News snap poll. Bush was viewed as having done the better job, a slightly different question, by 49 percent to 36 percent for Gore in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. In a CBS News poll, 51 percent thought Bush won, while 48 percent thought Gore won. The error margins for the polls ranged from 4 to 5 percentage points."

Putting that into a lazy-man's table:

 
      BUSH    GORE 
ABC    46      30 
CNN    49      36 
CBS    51      48

1392. CalGal - 10/12/2000 2:32:12 AM

To whatever extent it does so, it does so using my money, without consulting me as to exactly how I would like it to be spent.

God, this sort of shit is so ignorant. How anyone like you can be so damn pissy about spelling is more than I can figure.

In any event, you receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K/year of completely untaxed dollars from your company in benefits. Your company then turns around and deducts the cost of those dollars from their taxes. That's subsidization. It's not returning your tax dollars, it's giving you money free and clear that you don't pay taxes on.

You know this, so don't be silly.

1393. Stumbo - 10/12/2000 2:44:50 AM

CG:

I'm about to pass out, so I'll necessarily be very brief -- but:

Where do you think this "free money" comes from?

Do you think the gov't just prints new money to pay for these things? Or does it, just maybe, come from the taxpayers?

(And, BTW -- I'm only pissy about spelling vis-a-vis folks who are pissy about enunciation in nationally-televised debates.)

1394. Al D - 10/12/2000 2:52:00 AM

Jonesatlaw
So Americans are going to believe that Bush really wants to give
seniors a better deal on their prescriptions when a court finds that he cannot manage the existing system and witholds benefits from kids?
Would you please explain what you are talking about? When was that copurt action filed? Could you be refering to the one filed in '93? Plese explain why you think Gore's idea about funding drugs for all seniors no matter what their economic status makes sense?

1395. vonKreedon - 10/12/2000 3:53:07 AM

As so often happens to me, the pundits and public saw a different debate than I did. I saw Bush spend the first half hour saying what a great job the current admin has been doing on foreign policy. I saw Bush spend the first 45 minutes doing his best imitation of a liberal, not a good imitation, but his best shot at it. I saw Bush say twice that we should forgive foreign debt and provide other economic inducements to get poor countries to reform their political-economic systems, and then attempt to lambaste Gore for the hubris of wanting to impose his nanny state ideals on poor countries. I saw Bush look inappropriately pleased as punch that the state of Texas was going to kill three people, and then appear slightly disappointed that the state could not come up with a greater punishment. I saw Bush continue to have no grasp of the disconnect between his expressed concern for the uninsured and his policies in Texas. I saw Bush claim that the insertion of US troops in Columbia is right and proper because any destabilization of a nation in our hemisphere impacts our national interests, but we should have stayed out of Haiti! Finally, I saw Bush, whose camp has been raising the roof over Gore's serial lying come up with a series of precisely similar...embelishments: all three of Byrds killers will be put to death; he's for Hate Crime Laws; we still have a peacekeeping mission in Haiti.

I saw Gore consistently point to specific pieces of legislation as examples of what he will do, or of what Bush has done. I saw Gore control the pace and tone of the debate. I saw Gore nail, absolutely nail Bush on health insurance.

My wife saw all of this also, so I'm not alone, honest.

1396. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 4:09:02 AM

Governor Bush leads Al Gore 59% to 30% in Texas, according to the latest POA survey.

After last night's attack by Gore on Texas, expect Bush to gain another 10%.

1397. joezan - 10/12/2000 6:52:18 AM

vonK:

I saw Bush claim that the insertion of US troops in Columbia is right and proper because any destabilization of a nation in our hemisphere impacts our national interests, but we should have stayed out of Haiti!

Please.

You know, I often forget that Haiti is a nation in our hemisphere, too. That's because it could sink into the Atlantic under the weight of its own filth, and the only people who'd notice would be the Dominicans who live along the border.

1398. joezan - 10/12/2000 7:19:04 AM

Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power.
(Al Gore, last night, implying that G.Bush did not finish the job).

Doubtless, among the exiled Iraqis, one can find survivors who are people of virtue and wisdom, but it is hard to see how these individuals might come to power unless we were to install them, and that would require the conquest and occupation of Iraq, which is not in prospect and should not be in prospect.
(Al Gore, Congressional Record, January 30, 1991)

1399. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 8:13:32 AM

Did Gore say that, Joe? Let's not exaggerate.

1400. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 8:20:22 AM

I think Bush held his own, and therefore "won".

I was reminded of an old Star Trek episode, in which Captain Kirk is somehow split into two persons each having different aspects of his personality. Evil Kirk is aggressive, decisive and commanding, but unfortunately evil. Nice Kirk is moral and caring, but too much of a wimp to command.

Who was that sitting in Gore's chair last night? Bush lies about Gore - saying Gore said in a debate with Bill Bradley that he authored the Earned Income Tax Credit statute (or "statue", in Bush-speak) - and Gore apologizes!! Who sent Nice Gore to the debate? I want Evil Gore!!

1401. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 8:33:31 AM

To be precise, Bush has been elected Governor twice but has only served one full term; his entire second term thus far has been spent running for "another job". But since he pops in occassionally to read through clemency pleas from convicted murderers and sign papers denying them stays, he keeps being referred to as a man who has served 2 terms as Governor.

1402. Dusty - 10/12/2000 9:04:39 AM

JudithAtHome

BTW, nice post with Message # 1354

1403. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 9:11:57 AM

Thanks, Dusty...

Did you notice the watch thing? I thought it was really smart of Bush to remove it so he wouldn't be caught looking at it...can you imagine the uproar if he'd done that? Of course, everyone was so high on his doing well last night, he could've asked out loud "What the hell time is it, anyhow?" and been excused for it.

1404. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 9:29:02 AM

Al Gore wants smaller government?! Hah! That's a laugh. But, it just goes to show just how untenable a position you communists are in.

1405. Dusty - 10/12/2000 9:39:35 AM

JudithAtHome

I didn't catch the watch thing this time; I was aware that he was told by his handlers at the first debate not to wear his watch. I assume he was given the same advice this time.

1406. Dusty - 10/12/2000 9:44:12 AM

I agree with MsIT's observation that Bush's facial expression when talking about the death penalty for Byrd's killers was wrong. I think his reaction was based upon, "you think you've got me, but I've got a good response". Because of the seriousness of the issue, he should have controlled his expression.

1407. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 9:44:47 AM

Dusty:

He put it on the little table next to the desk.

Cygnus:

You must be dreaming if you think the government will get smaller if Bush wins.....lip service to that is very different than action.

1408. Dusty - 10/12/2000 9:47:55 AM

I thought the apology by Gore for exaggeration was well-done. His point was on target; the ensuing discussion about the accuracy of the details detracted from the larger point.

A point I've tried to make on occasion; if you want to add realism to a general point with a specific example, make damn sure your specifics are accurate, or it detracts from your message.

1409. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 9:58:01 AM

I thought Gore did very well. All this carping about him being soft and humble is from the very people who were carping about him being too much of a bully before. He can't please them without passing into the great beyond...

1410. marjoribanks - 10/12/2000 10:02:55 AM

Jeez, I turned off the TV after the debate so missed the talkfests. Now I see people actually think that Bush did well and even won. What I saw, in pure debating terms, was a near demolition by Gore. On points, strict substance points as opposed to style, Gore has to be the winner. On style, I thought he was clearly relishing hammering Bush on Texas and that was unseemly. But then Bush looked immature in gloating about putting people to death.

1411. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 10:03:09 AM

If Bush had asked "What the hell time is it, anyway?" he would have brought the house down.

Salon's take on the debate

I erred in thinking these two couldn't conduct a civil debate. Gore, a la the French WWI-WWII, fought the last war. Had he presented himself last week the way he did last night, the dynamics of this election would be very different because he would have won fewer debating points, but the post-debate buzz would have been more about how awful Bush was IMO.

This week, however, Bush brought a much better game. I still think Gore scored the most telling blows--Von K's post while not covering Bush's victories did a good job describing Gore's--but they were few and the bulk of the fight resembled more a board meeting with two guys making a presentation in which one guy thinks his plan is better but the other guy outranks him in the company's hierarchy. That's just how tentative Gore was.

Before the debates began, I said the way to measure the "winner" was who did the most to help their campaign. In that respect, I think the jury (i.e., electorate) is still out on debate #2, but IMO Gore didn't do too terribly. He was not so unlikeable as in the first debate, and while he sometimes had the aura of a loser, it's still a close race. The dynamics before the debates were in his favor, so assuming no more damage, he can hope things start drifting that way again.

1412. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 10:09:13 AM

Very few pundits, if any, mentioned Bushs gloating over the death penalty and his getting it wrong about all three men when one got life and only two were gloatworthy. However, almost to a man they have said Gore was tenative, being over-handled, not scrappy enough....

1413. Dusty - 10/12/2000 10:13:14 AM

JudithAtHome

I agree that neither candidate is pushing for smaller government. Explaining, in large part, why I intend to vote for neither.

1414. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 10:14:21 AM

I saw only the last 30 min of the debate and heard the prior 30 on the radio while I was driving home. I left the debate with the very strong impression of not wanting to vote for either candidate and suspect I will need latex gloves in the voting booth. I found Gore to look less made up, but still very beady-eyed and very insincere. He has so far during this campaign put on more persona than Rich Little. I found Bush to still remind me too much of Tommy Smothers. The man lacks any courage or self-confidence whatsoever. He never strayed from the safe waters of the phrases from his stump speeches, the foreign policy dicta spoon-fed by Colin Powell, or even the rehearsed "syl-la-ble" joke.

I am not undecided. I will vote for Gore because of his social policy stance (choice, gays, school prayer, etc.); because I think he has more native intelligence and a genuine desire to do a good job no matter what it takes; and because he is listening to better economists -- and a good economy will buy you a lot of good things: incomes, jobs, lower poverty, lower crime, better education, etc. I will vote for Gore, but I'm not going to be happy about it.

1415. Dusty - 10/12/2000 10:15:36 AM

marjoribanks

Please share an example where Gore demolished Bush in debating terms.

1416. glendajean - 10/12/2000 10:16:56 AM

Thoughtful -- happiness is a rarity at the polling booth

The Today Show this morning interviewed their two uncommitted voters. No surprise (since they're invited back after the last debate), they are still uncommitted.

1417. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 10:17:47 AM

I think it's extremely difficult to separate one's own position from one's analysis of who wins a debate on a particular issue. That is, if you are anti-death penalty, you are horrified that a man would gloat the way Bush did about "Texas justice."

Bush, OTOH, clearly doesn't see why he should tone it down just a bit. As with the Karla Faye Tucker allegation, he seemed almost about to smile. Luckily for him, he did not.

Remember, though, that both Gore and Bush have pro death penalty positions. You'll also note that Gore didn't call Bush on it and say, "I'm for hate crime legislation, but life imprisonment should be sufficient punishment for murdering bigots who drag folks to death with their pickup trucks."

Another example of this dissonance in perception is taxes. When Bush says "It's only fair that people who pay in the money get some of it back" and Gore says "We need to make sure SS and Medicare don't go bankrupt instead," the supporters of each are likely to think their man won the point. A truly objective observer would IMO call such assertions in and of themselves a wash.

1418. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 10:21:29 AM

Dusty:

I would think you could tell when Gore scored by the way Bush started to rapidly blink his eyes...he does this when he gets worried. The things about Texas' standing in childrens insurance and the fact Bush could only answer with "I hope he isn't saying I don't have a good heart" or whatever; the Bryd remarks and the hate crimes remarks. Bush was blinking to beat the band during those....

1419. marjoribanks - 10/12/2000 10:23:59 AM

re 1415:

The discussion on environment. Bush's rhetoric was shown, demonstrate, to be empty. Points for Gore. Bush was then asked to confirm/deny the allegations. He avoided the question not once but twice. More points for Gore. And Gore knew it, and looked quite smug about it.

1420. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 10:25:46 AM

When Bush starts to blink like that, he becomes the "antiRossPerot".

1421. marjoribanks - 10/12/2000 10:27:40 AM

I genuinely think the talking heads are trying desperately to churn up a closer race than it actually is. I watched the debate in a group of 6 people, only two of who can be said to be committed to one candidate. The absolute consensus was that at certain times Gore made mincemeat of Bush and the rest of the time it was a draw. Our visitor from Venezuela who was seeing the two for the first time thought Bush seemed barely competent.

1422. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 10:29:35 AM

Astute visitor.

1423. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 10:30:13 AM

Posted Salon link above, so here's an equal time link from the National Review. I agree with this assessment about the foreign policy part of the debate, which I thought terribly boring, despite being extremely interested in foreign policy. The great mass of Americans have yet to find any foreign issue important enough about which to be divided, so what is there to debate? Lots, but nothing these guys want to touch.

When it comes to foreign policy, even George Bush's most ardent supporters cannot help but be disappointed in his performance during the second presidential debate. Lofted a high-hanging curve by moderator Jim Lehrer, who opened the proceedings by asking Bush to describe the purposes to which U.S. power should be put, the Texas governor whiffed. Well, replied Bush, as president he would act "in our interests" — a phrase that he then repeated several times as he ticked off the regions of the world. In Europe, Asia, Latin America — Bush promised to act "in our interests...."

None of this is reason to vote for Gore who responded to the Rwanda question by striking a pose of faux regret and admitting that "we were too late." (The vice president did remind the audience that he had dispatched Tipper to the scene to see what she could do). In his smarmy, officious manner, Gore proclaimed that the American "mission" was to get the rest of the world to "be more like us." "Even those who sometimes shake their fists at us" actually want nothing more than to conform to what it means to be an American. Perhaps Gore can send his wife to explain that to the rioters in the West Bank and Gaza.

1424. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 10:38:02 AM

I am baffled by the post-debate polls. This is the first debate I have seen (dating back to those in 1984) where I disagreed with the perceptions of the public. This is what I saw:

Foreign policy: Bush basically avoided any mistakes by agreeing with administration policy in almost all areas. Exceptions were nation building, where Gore routed him by bringing up the Marshall Plan, and Iraq, where Bush had no alternative. Bush did appear statesmanlike, but anyone can appear statesmanlike if they simply agree with the person at the table who knows more. Bush gave no reason for us to believe that he would do a better job than Gore, and the basic gist of his answers was that the Clinton/Gore administration has done a fine job. Advantage: Gore.

Racial Profiling/Hate Crimes: There is a solid argument against hate crimes legislation, but Bush didn't make it. He instead agreed that hate crime laws were a good thing, and was very evasive about the post-Byrd attempts at amending Texas hate crimes laws. Advantage: Gore, but I don't think this is a huge issue with the public.

Gay marriage: Bush didn't seem to understand the difference between civil unions and gay marriage, giving a very confused response to Gore's statement of agreement with Cheney. Advantage: Gore.

Health Care: Bush got his ass handed to him. He sputtered, completely unable to mount an effective rebuttal. Gore's questioning of Bush's priorities was also successful, emphasizing his more general point about the priorities of Bush's current plans. advantage: Gore.

1425. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 10:38:16 AM

Environment: this one mostly came down to just different philosophies. Neither one really outmaneuvered the other on facts or arguments, but the American center generally has environmentalist tendencies. Advantage: Gore

Gun Control: Bush basically argued that it was all about culture and enforcement. Gore added that these were factors, but that it foolish to ignore the role of the availability of guns. Again, gun control is also popular with centrists. Advantage: Gore

Gore's credibility: The fact that it was even asked was an inherent advantage for Bush (where is the liberal media bias again?). Advantage: Bush.

Even on style, while I agree Gore was more tentative than he has in the past, he still came across as more confident and Presidential than the frequently stammering and panicked-looking Bush.

Now, I fully recognize that the pundits and the populace seem to have seen a different debate than I did, but what the hell are they seeing?

1426. glendajean - 10/12/2000 10:41:37 AM

You discount the fact that Bush gets points for showing up, breathing and not drooling. A lot of points.

1427. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 10:43:46 AM

Rask:

To begin with, they have on rose colored glasses...

1428. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 10:45:03 AM

Actually, he gets points for being consistent and telling the truth.

1429. rubberducky - 10/12/2000 10:45:15 AM

various thoughts (to be picked up later, I’m sure)

the only time i got even slightly interested was Bush stammering and hollering about "special rights" in the Gay Marriage discussion. i thought he looked very bad. Gore was, of course, typically non-committal.

OTOH, i thought the whole bit about have a photo id wrt gun ownership and somehow tying to Columbine was probably the most asinine thing of the whole night.

1430. marjoribanks - 10/12/2000 10:45:32 AM

Excellent posts, Rask. Doesn't it seem like a media conspiracy to keep people paying attention to a "close" race?

1431. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 10:47:39 AM

Rosetta:

But he didn't tell the truth...there aren't 3 men on death row due to the Byrd killing.

1432. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 10:48:22 AM

The only thing I can really think of is that making a factual point only helps if the public believes your facts. If the viewers spend 90 minutes asking themselves "I wonder if that is even true", it isn't going to help.

1433. Dusty - 10/12/2000 10:49:29 AM

marjoribanks

Nonsense.

The recent polling has Bush with a slight lead or a tie. If the media has a vested interest in a close race, they would be gunning for a tie, or a minor nod to Gore. That isn't what happened.

Your notion that the media are orchestrating a tie is devoid of supporting evidence.

1434. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 10:52:06 AM

Reading the news, it looks like Bush is going to be on gaffe-control this week. The media's need for even-handedness is going to bring them down hard on him.

1435. marjoribanks - 10/12/2000 10:52:49 AM

Ass,

Notions dont need supporting evidence. Anyway, I said "seems". I'm reachinf for any possible theory to explain how some few of us (apparently) saw a completely different debate than the pundits and the poll-fodder.

1436. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 10:54:55 AM

MB: I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as the need for a story to change in order to keep selling it. But I wouldn't include Lehrer in that. If we had been told in advance that half the debate was going to be on foreign policy, Republicans in this thread probably would have been calling for Lehrer's head.

1437. Wombat - 10/12/2000 10:56:06 AM

NATO is a perfect example of an open ended military committment with no exit strategy.

Cygnus:

Something I heard on the radio this morning (NPR) is that in proportion to the population, the Federal work force is the smallest it's been since before WWII. Gore's "massive Federal programs" would bring it to the levels reached in the Eisenhower administration. Oooh!

Indy:

David Brooks of Wall Street Journal (or is it the Standard?) was appalled by Bush's glee vis-a-vis the death penalty.

1438. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 10:58:02 AM

wombat: You know why, don't you?

The cuts in the military the last eight years.

1439. Wombat - 10/12/2000 11:05:43 AM

I don't believe that the military is counted, Rosetta.

1440. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 11:06:42 AM

Wombat: I thought it was the most dangerous moment for Bush in the debate as well because of my own questions about him, but personally believe that he avoided the precipice. And I'm a waffler on the death penalty, whereas I think a large portion of the population is just fine with it. If you support the death penalty at all, how can you not want it for these guys? (Such support is likely a cyclical thing, though, that responds to crime, and if we're to believe crime statistics, I would expect support for the death penalty to start dropping again.)

In terms of the debate question, unless Bush went farther than he did, it was hard for Gore to make points. Gore supports the death penalty. Gore supports hate crime legislation to make punishments worse on such criminials than for comparable "non-hate-motivated" crimes.

Not a lot of traction there for him to disagree with Bush.

1441. Wombat - 10/12/2000 11:10:08 AM

I must confess that I spent more time watching the baseball playoffs last night. My comments are ex post facto.

1442. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 11:11:50 AM

Of course the military is counted. They're federal workers.

1443. Ronski - 10/12/2000 11:13:16 AM

Rosie is correct on this one.

1444. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 11:14:22 AM

Mark this day on your calendars!

1445. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 11:19:52 AM

CalGal - In any event, you receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K/year of completely untaxed dollars from your company in benefits. Your company then turns around and deducts the cost of those dollars from their taxes. That's subsidization.

How many times do we have to go through this before you stop making that absurd claim. To review: Taxes are based roughly on an individual's ability to pay. That is why we have progressive tax rates. A person can not pay taxes on money they don't receive even if they do gain a benefit.

The company deducts the cost of insurance because like all compensation to workers, it is a part of the cost of doing business. As with individuals, companies are taxes on their ability to pay. Ability to pay is roughtly equivalent to profit, not gross receipts. In other words, a deduction is NOT a subsidy. It is how the government determines ability to pay.

Now please stop making this claim.

1446. concerned - 10/12/2000 11:21:05 AM

VonKreedon says:

"I saw Bush spend the first half hour saying what a great job the current admin has been doing on foreign policy."

He wasn't doing anything of the sort. At most, he employed some rhetoric which superficially resembled some of the things that have been released by this administration. I don't see where he praised the Clowntoon administration's record.

1447. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 11:46:14 AM

"If I'm elected President, I will try to get the big things right." --Al Gore

Couldn't the people putting words in his mouth come up with anything better than this? They had a whole week. He will probably get a pass for this just like he did for his "I am my own man" comment. The man has no business being President.

1448. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 11:52:14 AM

Wombat, Bush's glee wrt the death penalaty in the debate was due to his disbelief that Gore would be so stupid as to use that dragging death as an example of why we need hate crimes despite the 14th amendment. Really, how can you punish someone more than killing them? Killing their children? Oh wait, you liberals support that, right? Thousands each year.

1449. Wombat - 10/12/2000 12:02:32 PM

Personally, I don't believe in hate crime legislation.

However this is not the first time that Bush has shown what appears to be a light-hearted attitude toward executing people.

1450. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 12:11:38 PM

Could be. Yes, he could be showing a light-hearted attitued toward executing guilty people.

1451. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 12:12:57 PM

Meaning that aborted children are innocent.

1452. Wombat - 10/12/2000 12:23:05 PM

Hopefully they are guilty. I don't share W's faith in the wonders of Texas' public defender system.

1453. phydeau - 10/12/2000 12:44:50 PM

Have the presidential debates ever been relevant? Has any election been changed by how the candidates performed in the debates? Any clear evidence?

Let me get this right, JJ -- Al Gore mouths some platitude just like Bush does, and this is evidence that he's not suited to be president? Sound like you've been hitting that wishful thinking juice a little hard...

1454. ranheim - 10/12/2000 12:55:48 PM

#1437 Wombat

Did NPR comment on how the reduction in numbers in the military have affected this %?

1455. Al D - 10/12/2000 12:57:19 PM

After listening for months from every liberal on the Mote, even some centrists (CalGal, for one) tell us what a dolt Bush is and how after the debates he would be toast, now we have to hear that the debates don't really matter. Get a grip on yourself, Fido.

1456. janjon - 10/12/2000 12:58:44 PM

Many of the analyses above hit the mark with me in many ways, but the one that I find closest to my own assessment and feelings was that of rask.

In sum -

If people were looking for reassurance that W. won't make a total mess of things before voting for him, they probably got it.

If people were looking for reassurance that W. really does think about issues and does have a contemplative, curious side, they probably didn't get any reassurance. More like, not much of a clue either way.

If people were looking to see if Gore could tone it down and not come over as peripatetic as he did before, before deciding to vote for him, they almost surely got it.

If the great undecideds are indeed mostly women, I have to believe that Gore came out by far the winner, because of his positions on issues that are supposed to count with them the most.

As for the "exaggerations", I thought Gore handled that quite well. I also think, however, that in the climate that now exists (and with W. pushing things like serial exaggerator, credibility, etc.), his apparent flub on the Byrd murderers (two will get death, not the third) will be thrown in his face. And, why not, in view of the way his handlers have been playing the game. Its not exactly the same thing as mispronouncing a word or two. You would think that the Governor would have all of the facts straight on a case of such notoriety and import in terms of the racial aspects and general horror it involved.

And, so the games continue.

1457. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 1:00:59 PM

I checked the government reduction numbers.

It is true that there were about 250,000 fewer civilian government employees in March 1999 than in October 1992. However, as the sources below show, while technically civilians, 270,000 jobs were eliminated in National Defense and International Relations (as a result of the ending of the Cold War).

Meaning that during the time period in question, the rest of the federal bureaucracy actually grew.

1992

1999

1458. bubbaette - 10/12/2000 1:02:23 PM

I think the way in which it could be perceived as Bush having had the advantage in the debates last night is if you vote based on personality rather than issues and positions. I found myself thinking last night that Bush really is a likeable guy in an Alfred E. Newmanish way.

He was only really off-putting in his zeal for the death penalty and imprisionment. He looked flummoxed WRT the CHIP program in Texas as well. But all in all he didn't come off as the dumb bunny he's been made out to be. Shallow, yes. Stupid, no.

1459. Al D - 10/12/2000 1:04:05 PM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am flaggergasted at joezan's take on the debate. Knowing him to be a thoughtful, intelligent person...oh excuse me all to hell, that was janjon's post.

1460. Wombat - 10/12/2000 1:05:48 PM

Indy:

Did it grow on a per capita basis?

1461. Ronski - 10/12/2000 1:08:35 PM

I'm not sure what would constitute clear evidence, but two examples of where the debates may have influenced the election are Kennedy-Nixon and Reagan-Carter. The former was famous for Kennedy's tan and Nixon's 4 o'clock shadow. It was also said that those who had only heard the debate thought Nixon had won, while those who watched it favored Kennedy, but that point has also been called revisionism.

Kennedy may have won because he was more aggressive while seeming affable at the same time. He also ran to the right of Nixon on at least one issue, the military, whereas Nixon was defending the status quo.

The other example came at a time when people were tired of stagflation and the like, and the hostage situation, and were probably looking for a change, but were unsure if Reagan was up to the job and centrist enough. Reagan, it has been said, measured up on both counts and was able to seal the deal.

If Bush wins, it will probably be said that he sealed the deal as well by being affable and by seeming reasonably competent in the debates.

Who knows for sure if the debates really matter. I have my doubts.

1462. janjon - 10/12/2000 1:11:07 PM

Al D - time for another reality check. The day I gain your respect or approval is the day I will know that I have gone off the deep end.

The converse is true, as well.

1463. ranheim - 10/12/2000 1:16:53 PM

wombat

Can that be done?
How accurate are the population of the USA estimates?
Most of these figures that I see are quoted by people with a definite agenda; e.g. minorities in urban areas. Can total population estimates be believed? Any more than the actual census?

1464. CalGal - 10/12/2000 1:19:29 PM

Incidentally, I think Gore got a lucky break with the situation in the Middle East this morning.

1465. bubbaette - 10/12/2000 1:19:57 PM

I tend to think that the people who watch the debates already know how they plan to vote.

1466. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 1:22:22 PM

Wombat: Don't know...let's see

(Approximately for the time in question)

Civilian federal workers in non-Defense jobs
October 1992 about 2 million.
March 1999 about 2.2 million

U.S. population
October 1992 256 million
March 1999 272 million

Per capita
October 1992 about .0078
March 1999 about .0081

These are all rough figures/approximations, but it doesn't seem substantially less in any event.

1467. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 1:23:49 PM

Oops. Just discovered an error already.

Should be 2.02 million for March 1999, meaning the math is wrong, too.

1468. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 1:24:23 PM

Bravo, IJ. Thanks for the research.

1469. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 1:25:03 PM

Correct figure is 1992 .0078 and 1999 is .0074, so on a per capita basis, it did shrink.

1470. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 1:25:17 PM

Ooops. I spoke too soon.

1471. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 1:26:11 PM

Oops. I shouldn't have posted my last post.

1472. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 1:26:21 PM

Hee-hee-hee.

1473. rubberducky - 10/12/2000 1:27:36 PM

Re: Message # 1465, bubbaette.

I tend to think that the people who watch the debates already know how they plan to vote.

i'd agree. i tend to also think those that don't know for whom (read: if) they'll vote and don't watch, depend on others to tell them who "won". that might be the only way i see the mattering to any significant degree.

1474. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 1:37:41 PM

IndianaJones, #1457, talk about an exaggeration. Using your own numbers, "the rest of the bureaucracy grew" consists of mainly an increase of 102,000 workers in the post office which is only a quasi-federal institution with a net income of over $300 million in 1999. Other increases were in corrections, justice and police. Of the categories listed in the table, the following show a decline in total employees: Financial Administration, Other Government Administration, Highways, Air Transportation, Water Transport and Terminals, Public Welfare, Health, Hospitals, Socal Insurnace Administration, Parks & Recreation, Housing & Community Development, Natural Resources, Space Research & Technology, Other Education, and Libraries.

1475. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 1:41:43 PM

and, of course, there are those among us who question whether all of those cutbacks were appropriate...any one take an on-time flight lately?

1476. janjon - 10/12/2000 1:41:46 PM

I also think that Gore's stands on various issues during last night's affair also reflected one of Ronski's observations of yesterday - he wants to make sure that he isn't perceived as having wandered away from the center on a number of issues. Ergo, much of the "me too" business.

1477. phydeau - 10/12/2000 1:46:30 PM

I think if Bush gets thru the debates without making a fool of himself, he will be considered to have "won". Is this a ringing endorsement???

1478. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 1:47:19 PM

One of my concerns is W, with the aid of his campaign managers, is managing to plaster over a lot of the right-wing elements in the party (anyone seen Hide of Hyde? Eye of Newt? or even heard much of Hastert? Lazio is one of the few necessarily in the spotlight.) Once in office, I wonder whether he has the backbone to stay centrist, especially with Cheney close at hand.

1479. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 1:51:43 PM

Thoughtful, Newt isn't a congressman anymore - hasn't been one for a while now. You should read the paper.

1480. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 1:52:14 PM

And I see him on Fox News quite a lot.

1481. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 1:52:20 PM

Piss off, Thoughtful.

1482. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 1:53:43 PM

Fox had Newt on right after the debates...he was almost foaming at the mouth with glee.

1483. JudithAtHome - 10/12/2000 1:56:17 PM

x-post w/Cyg....shudder.

And Phydeau...I don't think it's an endorsement but many do. I guess if he tied his shoes, THAT would be evidence of his Presidential demeanor, too. "Look how well he ties his shoes!"

1484. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 1:59:23 PM

From MRC:
"Another big difference is, Governor Bush is proposing to open up some of our most precious environmental treasures, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to the big oil companies....I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a few months worth of
oil," Gore said in the October 3 presidential debate.

FACT: The portion of the Arctic Coastal Plain contains an estimated 16 BILLION barrels of oil, or about equal to 30 YEARS worth of imports from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

1485. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 1:59:38 PM

IndianaJones, #1481, thank you for your intellectually stimulating and insightful response. You certainly didn't disappoint me.

1486. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 2:01:45 PM

Cygnus, I am well aware that he isn't a congressman anymore, but I wasn't aware he was on fox....I don't watch fox.

1487. phydeau - 10/12/2000 2:03:49 PM

I think it's pretty clear why we're not hearing from congressional Republicans -- they smeared shit all over themselves with the impeachment farce and they know it. Recall that Bush's biggest attraction was his "electability", i.e. the R's knew they couldn't pitch him as particularly well qualified, but he was a nice guy (admitting in a back-handed way that there were lots of not-so-nice Republicans), and he wasn't from Congress! There are plenty of congressional R's who are intellectually and temprementally more qualified than Bush, but they didn't dare run.

1488. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 2:04:32 PM

Thoughtful: You're a crybaby and a whinger who likes to zing people. Make up your mind whether you prefer your coffee black or with cream, and I'll serve you a cup.

Until then, patronize another establishment than mine.

1489. bubbaette - 10/12/2000 2:08:25 PM

Woah!

Ever heard of free speech? No need to get pissy, IJ -- I don't see where Thoughtful said anything out of line to you.

1490. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 2:12:38 PM

Thoughtful, of course you don't. If you did, you might actually hear an opposing point of view. See what I mean.

1491. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 2:26:29 PM

IJ, dear, I'm merely holding you to the objective standards of evidence to which you and others have so tightly held me. If you have made a mistake, which we all have done at one time or another, be man enough to admit it. If you do not think you have made a mistake, then defend your position. It's that simple. No crying or whining necessary. No name calling necessary either.

BTW, this isn't your establishment.

1492. Al D - 10/12/2000 2:27:56 PM

Judith
Gore wears loafers, with pennies in them.

1493. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 2:28:41 PM

Cygnus, I have to be very careful. For example, I've found reading the Wall St. Journal editorial page at breakfast unduly raises my blood pressure. I also suspect listening to Ollie North or Newt Gingrich is a risk factor for alzheimers.

1494. bubbaette - 10/12/2000 2:30:32 PM

I also suspect listening to Ollie North or Newt Gingrich is a risk factor for alzheimers.

Thoughtful

I think that you may be confusing a symptom with a cause.

1495. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 2:31:21 PM

bubbaette: I've replied to your post in the Inferno.

1496. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 2:32:22 PM

Thoughtful: Piss off.

1497. Thoughtful - 10/12/2000 2:32:59 PM

bbbtt, IJ is reacting to an earlier exchange in which I expressed my displeasure at a very patronizing post to me. While I was wrong in my thinking at the time and admitted it, I didn't feel I deserved the condescension and said so.

1498. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 2:45:13 PM

phyd - Al Gore mouths some platitude just like Bush does, and this is evidence that he's not suited to be president?

No, the fact that he has screwed up so much that he and his handlers feel it is necessary to reassure the people that he will "try to get the big things right." This should be necessary of a Presidential candidate, but apparently it is.

It is like his "I am my own man" comment at the convention. It was necessary because for the last 8 years it has been very obvious that was not his own man. He has had his nose firmly ensconced between Clinton's butt cheeks.

1499. glendajean - 10/12/2000 2:49:14 PM

He has had his nose firmly ensconced between Clinton's butt cheeks.

unwritten constitutional definition of vice president

1500. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 2:55:33 PM

Glendajean - Point taken.

1501. DaveM - 10/12/2000 3:06:15 PM

Did JJ just concede that there is an unwritten Constitution?

1502. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 3:11:57 PM

DaveM - No, just something that doesn't happen very often around here. I conceded that Glenda Jean made a good point.

1503. phydeau - 10/12/2000 3:48:13 PM

JJ, you spout this rhetoric like the R's spouted about Clinton. You claim he's "screwed up" so much, and yet don't say what. Run thru them for me would you? I'm somewhat new around here. And if you still try to beat that old dead horse about the Buddhist Temple, you needn't bother, because your credibility will be zero. Argumentum Ad Nauseum -- repeat a falsehood enough and some people will believe it's true.

Like the R's during Clinton's tenure, you're throwing as much shit at Gore as you can, hoping some of it will stick, hoping it will distract people from what a lame candidate the R's are pushing. And you notice how well it worked on Clinton. Maybe you're hoping it'll work better on Gore, because he's not as charismatic as Clinton.

You and your sneering, name-calling pals -- Ace, Al D, concerned, et al -- are just perfoming so much mutual mental masturbation as far as I can tell, one gigantic right-wing circle jerk. I sincerely hope people like you come to represent the Republican party --wait, it's already happened.

And no response to my comment about quiet congressional R's, I see.

1504. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 4:04:00 PM

"the bulk of the fight resembled more a board meeting with two guys making a presentation in which one guy thinks his plan is better but the other guy outranks him in the company's hierarchy. That's just how tentative Gore was."

Indy, this is so finely phrased I'll be very jealous unless you admit you swiped it from a professional.

1505. phydeau - 10/12/2000 4:06:52 PM

Well, they're both members of the Money & Property Party, slightly different in beliefs though.

1506. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 4:07:35 PM

Thanks, Ace.

It was mine.

Suffer.

1507. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 4:16:24 PM

phyd - And if you still try to beat that old dead horse about the Buddhist Temple, you needn't bother

I won't bother. You know the facts as well as I do. You choose ignore/deny them. If you can do that with all of the evidence that is currently available, nothing I say will enlighten you.

Argumentum Ad Nauseum -- repeat a falsehood enough and some people will believe it's true.

You mean like Al Gore and the Democrats have been using against Bush?

You and your sneering, name-calling pals

There is more than enough name calling on both sides. You will note that that is not something I engage in. Considering the rest of your post, I'd say you have no room to point fingers.

If you would like to have a substantive discussion, I will contribute. If #1503 is the best you are capable of, I will ignore you like I ignore the other ravers and true believers that post here.

1508. phydeau - 10/12/2000 4:19:18 PM

Clowntoon, Pinocchio Bore, etc, etc. Worst I hear about Bush is "shrubya", at least on this forum.

Keep jerking, dude.

1509. Wombat - 10/12/2000 4:21:59 PM

Phydeau:

You are getting JJ mixed up with "Concerned." JJ does not need to embellish his true believer (Republican branch) status with cheap abuse and silly word games.

1510. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 4:23:45 PM

Phyd - Worst I hear about Bush is "shrubya", at least on this forum.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Given the substance of your posts, I am not surprised.

Is there something of substance relating to the subject at hand that you would like to discuss, or are you just interested in grade-school insults?

1511. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 4:24:45 PM

Wombat - Thanks, I think.

1512. phydeau - 10/12/2000 4:25:28 PM

BTW JJ, just out of morbid curiousity, I wonder what you think of the whole Whitewater crusade against Clinton. Is he innocent or so diabolically clever that he outwitted a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and practically unlimited legal authority? What about Filegate? Travelgate? Fostergate? How much of that shit do YOU think stuck, despite any number of special prosecutors' conclusions to the contrary?

This is a test of how closely you are aligned with reality. Take your time.

BTW, I have no problem with people on here calling each other names, it's people consistently referring to the candidates with nasty terms that bothers me.

1513. Ronski - 10/12/2000 4:28:47 PM

If someone were to found a viable Money and Property Party, I might desert the Libertarians for it.

(The Libertarians don't have any money, that's for sure.)

1514. seadate - 10/12/2000 4:29:01 PM

This is much better entertainment than the real debates.

1515. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 4:29:13 PM

"Is [Clinton] innocent or so diabolically clever that he outwitted a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and practically unlimited legal authority?"

Evidently you don't read the Wall Street Journal.

1516. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 4:30:30 PM

Phyd - I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell me what you think the facts are in the various cases, and I will tell you where I disagree. To be fair to Jones@Law, please respond in the Politics thread.

Thanks.

1517. phydeau - 10/12/2000 4:31:54 PM

Go ahead JJ, enlighten me with all the mean 'n nasty names people have been calling Bush around here. I told you I was relatively new, maybe I missed it.

Wombat, I know JJ doesn't indulge in the same crap that concerned and Ace do... he's more subtle.

And no, JJ, I don't have much to discuss with you. You're just a good specimen of right-wing wackoism with a veneer of civility, the veneer that concerned and Ace lack. You're interesting to me, like a particularly colorful bug that my daughter and I might find on one of our walks. You're fun to observe. There's entertainment value here.

1518. janjon - 10/12/2000 4:32:38 PM

phyd. Make sure you go to the bathroom before starting in. And, be prepared to be verrrrry patient. Phlegmatic even. Kind and generous. Compassionate about the foibles of your fellow man.

1519. janjon - 10/12/2000 4:33:33 PM

I see that phyd is perceptive.

1520. Wombat - 10/12/2000 4:34:57 PM

JJ:

I've been working on my backhanded compliments and unapologetic apologies.

1521. phydeau - 10/12/2000 4:37:08 PM

Ooooohh, JJ, simple yes or no answer and you dodged it. But you're right, this doesn't really have to do with presidential debates, so I'll stifle myself.

OhioSTOPAS -- I've read it enough. "GUILTY! HE'S GUILTY! Now, what's the charge?"

1522. vonKreedon - 10/12/2000 4:39:34 PM

Do we need a Lame Duck thread were we can rehash the whole Clinton administration scandals/scandal fabrications issues? We could through in other former presidents to the mix. Sort of a nostalgia thread for political hacks.

1523. rubberducky - 10/12/2000 4:40:15 PM

phydeau & Cygnus sure do bring out the bile....

but yeah, seadate, much more entertaining!

1524. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 4:40:15 PM

Phyd - Go ahead JJ, enlighten me with all the mean 'n nasty names people have been calling Bush around here.

Pass. Pay attention and they will come around again soon.

I don't have much to discuss with you.

I'm not surprised.

You're fun to observe.

I aim to please. It's to bad you are far too predictable to be of much interest.

BTW, I am still looking for your post about the facts in the various Clinton scandals in Politics. If you don't want to cover all of them (a daunting task to be sure) you can pick out your favorites.

1525. Ronski - 10/12/2000 4:41:42 PM

I think wacko is a bit strong for JJ's politics.

Mine, on the other hand...

1526. PelleNilsson - 10/12/2000 4:42:58 PM

It seems jones is not around.

phydeau

Maybe you should tone down the ad hominem stuff or take it to the Inferno.

1527. Wombat - 10/12/2000 4:43:54 PM

Ronski:

Your politics aren't wacko, just misguided. (g)

1528. Ronski - 10/12/2000 4:44:49 PM

vonKreedon,

We could call the Thread, Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa?

1529. Wombat - 10/12/2000 4:46:09 PM

"Gettin' head in the White House, ha ha ha!"

1530. Ronski - 10/12/2000 4:47:38 PM

Wombat,

Which reminds me. A foursome of youths crudely attempted to molotov a synagogue in Riverdale the other day (no damage done). A detective called it misguided bigotry.

We really must, as a nation, guide our bigotries better.

1531. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 4:47:55 PM

Cygnus X-1, in Message # 1484, says:

"FACT: The portion of the Arctic Coastal Plain contains an estimated 16 BILLION barrels of oil, or about equal to 30 YEARS worth of imports
from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey."

In fact, according to the most recent estimate of oil in the Arctic Coastal Plain (i.e., the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), there exists a 95% probability of there being 5.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil. There might be more oil, but there is only a 5% probability of there being as much as 16 million barrels. See here.

Current U.S. oil usage is, I believe, about 7 billion gallons a year.

1532. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 4:52:03 PM

Phydeau (Message # 1521): The headline of the Wall Street Journal's editorial a few weeks ago on Independent Counsel Ray's closing of the Whitewater investigation says it all:

The Coverup Worked

Hahahahahaha!!!

1533. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 4:53:56 PM

If someone were to found a viable Money and Property Party,

You think the GOP is not viable anymore? There's still a wing that are true believers. Isn't Richard Epstein a GOP member?

1534. Ronski - 10/12/2000 4:55:44 PM

We're working on him.

1535. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 4:57:24 PM

Ohio, I'm not going to argue the merits of drilling in Alaska - only the one-sided media coverage of it. But, you're source doesn't appear to be very non-partisan. The link you post appears to be from some radical environmentalist group which refers to a branch of the decidedly partisan department of energy. So, it seems the source the MRC used is just as good if not better.

1536. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 5:01:04 PM

actually, it sites the US Geological Survey. Of course, we all know that the USGS is a front for partisan, Birkenstock-wearing, granola-crunching, tree-hugging, non-bathing, nut-eating, meat-forsaking, whale-mourning, lsocialist ong-haired hippies.

1537. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 5:01:38 PM

THere have been a number of posts lately which have started out related to the debate in some manner, and degenerated into "You're and X!" "So's your Mamma"

At that point, a chivalrous invitation to visit the inferno is in order.

I have been reluctant to move posts or delete them, having come off a bit heavy handed in the past. Now all are on notice, I will grant reasonable latitude to substantive discussion straying from the debates, but originating in a debate issue. Flame wars will be consigned to the inferno without further warning or requests.

Thanks for exercising your discretion and control.

1538. Wombat - 10/12/2000 5:03:25 PM

No, Cygnet:

The link is citing a report from the Energy Information Agency compiled at the request of Frank Murkowski. It seems your "fact" is nothing but a projection, and a pretty unlikely one (5%) at that. Keep trying, but see if you can separate actual facts from estimates and projections.

1539. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 5:04:42 PM

Wombat, check my response in Politics - and get a napkin for your face.

1540. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 5:06:02 PM

jones, are you trying to take the fun out of The Mote?

1541. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2000 5:08:33 PM

Expected value estimate is 10.3 billion barrels (in between the two numbers previously cited).

The U.S imports 1.4 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia.

1543. Ronski - 10/12/2000 5:09:54 PM

jones,

In truth, I fear the GOP is not really all that interested in preserving property rights nor in preserving people's ability to keep what they produce. They're just better in that regard than the Democrats are.

And I suspect they are all too viable, which I consider not a blessing given their slowness to apply any philosophy of freedom and equal treatment to gay people (though I see some improvement there in Cheney, and certain Governors and members of Congress).

I am a little nervous about the health of the Democratic Party, however, if only because they serve as a firebreak on certain social issues.

If Gore loses, which is still a possibility, I think a major GOP era is possible.

On the other hand, Bush may inherit a nasty recession, and not figure his way out of it.

For all of Gore's "credibility" problems, I think the reason he is lagging in the polls (given the good economy) is that he is perceived as too much enamored of government. There is a center in American politics, where national elections are won, and Bush seems to be finding it better than Gore is, at least at the moment.

1544. RosettaStone - 10/12/2000 5:12:43 PM

Now I know what a real hate crime is.

I turn on NPR to get the latest on the damanged USS Cole and West Bank violence and I'm forced to listen to a 22-minute segment on Texas executions of convicted murderers.

Unbelievably boring and so, so, so biased.

It's been months since I've listened to DNC-sponsored, government radio. Now I know why.

1546. Wombat - 10/12/2000 5:17:03 PM

None taken. Please delete.

1547. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 5:19:46 PM

Ronski- It does seem that the GOP has not followed the path of the propertists in the Reagan administration where government regualtion was scoured for examples of "takings." There were several challenges to enviromental regualtion on this basis. I haven't heard Bush really address the issue. In fact the closest he came to the subject was a comment on the Clinton administration removing property from the private sector in the west with their declarations of national monuments etc. However, his criticism seemed more directed at the fact that the decisions were made only in Washington, and without sufficient consultation with local office holders.

1548. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 5:22:33 PM

That's the only downfall of Bush winning. If there's a recession - even if it's within a year of him being elected - the media will put all of the blame on him totally ignoring the absurdity of doing so.

1549. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 5:25:03 PM

Discussion of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil in "Politics" thread.

1550. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 5:28:21 PM

1542 and 1545 deleted as cross posts which screwed up the margins.

1551. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 5:30:36 PM

From Gallup:"presidential preferences of the voters who were included in the survey. Among respondents in the current debate reaction poll, 52% indicated in pre-debate interviews that they were Bush supporters and 42% Gore supporters, a 10-point advantage that is slightly smaller than the 13-point margin by which Bush won the debate. In the first debate, the margins were reversed, with viewers indicating in pre-debate polling that they supported Gore by a 3-point margin, but giving him a 7-point margin of victory after the debate. "

This explains some of it. Despite the fact that the candidates were dead even in the Gallup poll released yesterday, there was a 10 point preference for Bush among those who were polled about the debate.

1552. Cygnus X-1 - 10/12/2000 5:32:53 PM

Rask, it just goes to show you that most initiated voters - those willing to research the issues and give careful consideration to the policies presented -have enough reason to come to the conclusion that Bush is the better man for the job.

1553. The Swede - 10/12/2000 5:41:26 PM

"That's the only downfall of Bush winning. If there's a recession - even if it's within a year of him being elected - the media will put all of the blame on him totally ignoring the absurdity of doing so."

I agree. The real economic problems of Bush's tax plan probably will not be felt for at least two years. He should not get blamed until his budget deficit kicks in.

1554. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 5:42:42 PM

No, it is a relic of the volatility in Gallup over the last week or two. During their normal poll, they ask people whether they will be watching the debate, and they use that list to determine who to call for their post-debate poll. This time, they asked that question during a time when Bush was riding unusually high, and ended up oversampling Bush supporters at a time when national candidate preferences were dead even.

1555. OhioSTOPAS - 10/12/2000 5:53:39 PM

Here is some bad reporting from today's USA Today ("Political Debate Flares Into Personal", page 5A):

". . . [Bush] said he would try to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power, prompting Gore to note that his rival's father, former president George Bush, did not accomplish that mission after the Persian Gulf War.
"The Bush campaign, citing a speech by Gore in 1991, disputed the vice president's assertion that he supported removing Saddam from power when he joined the Clinton-Gore administration."

Did Gore make that assertion? No! Gore only pointed out that if Saddam's remaining in power is a failure of American foreign policy (as George W. Bush asserted), the failure was made before he and Clinton took office.

USA Today uncritically published a false statement in a press release from the Bush campaign. Pretty shoddy work.

(Note: Joezan reprinted this press release in Message # 1398.)

1556. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 6:11:21 PM

"This time, they asked that question during a time when Bush was riding unusually high, and ended up oversampling Bush supporters at a time when national candidate preferences were dead even."

Again and again Rask seems to be endorsing the Battleground model -- at least when the Gallup model shows his man behind.

Last time we talked, Rask assured me that if more Democrats were sampled, that was simply because Gore had convinced more people to be Democrats in the first place. Thus, he said, Gallup's numbers were quite accurate -- Gallup was sampling more Democrats because Gore's strong campaign was *creating* more Democrats.

Now that the tables have turned, Rask sings a different tune. Now if Gallup polls more Republicans, that's *not* because Bush is creating more Republicans, as he suggested Gore had created more Democrats. No, now it's a simple flaw in sampling, because we all really know that the country is evenly divided in political persuasion.

It's an interesting reversal.

1557. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 6:16:53 PM

Ace: you are genetically unable to follow a point.

I was criticizing the different time frames. If a ten point disparity existed at the time of the debate, it would make perfect sense to have a ten point disparity in the preferences of those who were asked about the debate. But that isn't the case -instead the candidates were dead even at the time of the debate, but the post-debate polls oversampled Bush supporters.

1558. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 6:21:22 PM

In other words, there is nothing I wrote is inconsistent with what we argued about last week.

And note that this only applies to the Gallup poll (I believe), and does not account for the entire difference in points.

1559. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 6:23:07 PM

Rask,

Indeed, I *did* miss your point. Mea culpa.

But now, looking back at your response, I put it to you that your explanation is pure supposition.

NBC Poll:

Based on the debate, who would you vote for?

Bush 46
Gore 41

That's not the best poll in the world, I grant you (one night poll, possibility that more R's were watching, etc). But I offer it anyway.

1560. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 6:24:28 PM

"But that isn't the case - instead the candidates were dead even at the time of the debate, but the post-debate polls oversampled Bush supporters."

One would imagine Gallup would naturally call equal numbers of Bush-supporters and Gore-supporters given that the race was knotted at the time.

1561. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 6:26:51 PM

"But now, looking back at your response, I put it to you that your
explanation is pure supposition. "

Well, the disparity in voter preferences is a fact. Whether that disparity had an impact on how they perceived the debate is supposition, but quite plausible, IMO.

"That's not the best poll in the world, I grant you (one night poll,
possibility that more R's were watching, etc). But I offer it anyway. "

Yes, but the margin is smaller than that of Gallup. My initial comment was that I thought the disparity in preferences could explain "some of the difference". I'll agree that all evidence indicates that the public believes Bush won.

1562. JJBiener - 10/12/2000 6:28:50 PM

Rask - I'll agree that all evidence indicates that the public believes Bush won.

How would this be different from Bush actually winning?

1563. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 6:30:16 PM

"One would imagine Gallup would naturally call equal numbers of
Bush-supporters and Gore-supporters given that the race was knotted
at the time."

They needed to get results extremely quickly, to satisfy CNN, so they screened their list in advance.

Under more optimal circumstances they just would have selected a new random sample, but winnowing that down to people who watched the debate would have taken too long.

My solution would have been to weight the results based on current poll data, which *still* would have shown a Bush victory. Just a smaller one.

1564. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 6:33:12 PM

"How would this be different from Bush actually winning?"

A lot of the public also believes in Astrology, UFOs, and Bigfoot. Now, I agree that voter perception is what will matter on November 7th, but as we saw last week, voter perception on who won the debate can change if they find out new information.

1565. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 6:35:26 PM

"Well, the disparity in voter preferences is a fact."

You miss the point. You are assuming that Gallup called people in equal proportion to the preferences expressed in the Bush +10 poll.

Not necessarily.

1566. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 6:39:49 PM

"Now, I agree that voter perception is what will matter on November 7th, but as we saw last week, voter perception on who won the debate can change if they find out new information."

Hope springs eternal.

Please suggest what "new information" the public might receive concerning the debate.

Gore's rudeness was immediately apparent; his misstatements were trumpeted the evening of the debate, and the next morning.

So-- where is the anti-Bush story going to come from?

Please take your best guess. What precisely will the public find distasteful or disconcerting about Bush's performance?

1567. Cellar Door - 10/12/2000 6:54:43 PM

"Please suggest what "new information" the public might receive concerning the debate."

No new inofrmation is allowed.

"Gore's rudeness was immediately apparent; his misstatements were trumpeted the evening of the debate, and the next morning."

As opposed to Bush cackling about the Death Penalty like Margaret Hamilton in The Wizard of Oz

"So-- where is the anti-Bush story going to come from?"

Beats me -- the press being corporate controlled and all.

"Please take your best guess. What precisely will the public find distasteful or disconcerting about Bush's performance?"

What the public may feel has never been of anyone's concern.

1568. Cellar Door - 10/12/2000 6:55:09 PM

toys

1569. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 6:59:35 PM

Cellar,

You don't think Byrd's murderer's should be put to death?

You don't take solace in that?

Please. After you all bared you fangs crying for Heavenly Retribution for Matthew Sheppard.

You hate "hate." You don't, apparently, hate crime.

1570. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 7:04:30 PM

BTW, Matthew Sheppard's killers should be flatlined, too.

Fuck the bastards.

It is silly to pretend we aren't happy when bad things happen to bad people.

1571. AceofSpades - 10/12/2000 7:05:30 PM

This is akin to blaming Bush for smirking as he notes that we cleaned Hitler's clock, then Hitler committed suicide.

"How uncaring! How ghastly for him to not shed a tear for poor Adolf!"

1572. jexster - 10/12/2000 8:42:03 PM

William Saletan is God

1573. jexster - 10/12/2000 8:51:26 PM

Embellishments
WASHINGTON (AP) - The International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) said Thursday it had no evidence to support an allegation by Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush (news - web sites) that former Russian Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin diverted IMF loans to his own use.

In an exchange about the IMF and the World Bank during the second
presidential debate Wednesday night, Bush said there had been a ``lot of egregious examples recently'' of foreign aid being misused.

``We went into Russia, we said here's some IMF money. It ended up in Victor Chernomyrdin's pocket and others. And yet we played like there was reform,'' Bush said.

IMF spokesman Thomas Dawson said the agency had no evidence that Chernomyrdin had diverted any IMF loans to his own use. But Dawson said the agency would be ready to look into any allegations anyone cared to bring forward.

Dawson noted that the IMF already had moved in response to allegations about improper accounting of IMF loans to institute new policies including the requirement that Russia and other nations have their books checked by independent auditors in return for IMF support.

``We don't dismiss these issues and when we do hear these allegations, which come up fairly regularly, we take them quite seriously,'' Dawson told reporters at an IMF press briefing.

1574. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 9:56:35 PM

Gee, now Bush is a serial embelisher. I don't think that anyone with any intelligence can assert that a good deal of foreign aid to Russia has been diverted outright, or at least manipulated for the benefit of private parties. Clearly though, Bush is wrong on the facts. Gotcha politics is comming home to roost. Will Bush have enough time to catch up to Gore on the embellishment front? Doubtful.

1575. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 10:03:36 PM

Does anyone have a thought as to why the impeachment and the speaker scandals have been radioactive as a topic? My thinking was that the glass houses notion has hit home with the GOP and the Dems have no more stomache to defend Clinton. I just remember all the dire predictions here both left and right that the voters would remember the events of the impeachment. Have they forgot?

1576. Orca - 10/12/2000 10:04:19 PM

Thanks to Jex for the Saletan link. Certainly this passage says it all:

The point isn't that Gore won the debate. The point is that, as last week's debate showed, the candidate who "wins" the debate, even in the instant polls, doesn't necessarily help himself the most. The key isn't to score the most points or to dominate your opponent, but to deliver the performance that best fits the larger strategic context, leaving the most salutary and lasting impression in precisely those areas where your candidacy most needs help. Bush did that last night. So did Gore.

1577. jonesatlaw - 10/12/2000 10:05:49 PM

ahem... forgotten?
Ah gues ah have mangled a sillahble or two as well.

1578. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 10:59:36 PM

"Please take your best guess. What precisely will the public find distasteful or disconcerting about Bush's performance?"

1) It looks like Gore didn't have a factual gaffe last night. I don't think the public assumed that, and in hurt him. Knowledge that he was telling the truth in his claims about Texas might help him

2) The media truth squads have been out in force since last night, trying to catch Gore in a blunder, and examining Bush out of fairness. Nothing on Gore, but several items on Bush. In his case, it looks less like exaggerating and more like ignorance, which plays to his perceived weaknesses as much as exaggeration plays to Gore's. Post-debate coverage has been quite critical of Bush, as the many links in this thread attest. Keep in mind that Gore didn't take a plunge in the polls last week until Thursday data was included. Wednesday data (the day after the debate) pushed Gore's numbers up a smidge.

I am not expecting Bush to take a big hit, but I didn't expect it for Gore either.

1579. Raskolnikov - 10/12/2000 11:02:00 PM

Basically, I won't be convinced that the public really thinks Bush won unless his numbers improve in the poll results published this weekend.

1580. phydeau - 10/13/2000 12:22:36 AM

Hey Jonesatlaw, evidently you're the proprietor around here, sorry if I've offended, I'll keep my opinions of right-wing wackos to myself.

As far as why the impeachment isn't being mentioned, I offered a theory in post 1487 (sorry, haven't figured out the linking yet) that the R's have smeared themselves with shit and know it and so are keeping a low profile. (Poster boy being of course Newt "We are the party of family values" Gingrich cheating on his wife the whole time he was calling the D's sleazy, then giving his mistress a cushy job in the House she had no obvious qualifications for... wonder why the "liberal" media didn't dig into that obvious appearance of impropriety... guess they were too busy interviewing Clinton's high school classmates trying to find dirt... but I digress.)

And I challenge whether any "Clinton fatigue" has happened. Though many will repeat it incessantly hoping to make it so, his approval ratings have been very high. I think the R's have stopped trying to link Gore to Clinton because they know it will only hurt them. Instead they've focused on nitpicking Gore, and hoping to get away with it probably because he lacks the charisma Clinton has. I don't know, maybe I've missed something... are the R's still trying to associate Gore with Clinton and call it bad, or have they truly given up?

1581. joezan - 10/13/2000 1:10:57 AM

A glorious night for the Bush rally in Grand Rapids.

It was a very festive crowd, with nary a whiff of marijuana in the air.

The Kent County Democrats - all 10 of them - staged a protest, walking along the line of 10,000 people stretched around the Grand Center on Monroe St., then around the Amway Grand Hotel on Pearl, all the way over the Pearl St. Bridge. Apparently, they (Dem protestors) thought their point was better made with several facial piercings, which most of them sported. The piercings, properly filled with cheap tin "jewelry", probably work better than a tinfoil hat for receiving orders from the High Command, though.

I was so proud of my 8 y.o. daughter - as these weirdos walked by pushing Gore/Lieberman signs in our faces, she yelled out at them, un-prompted, What's that say? Gore Liar-man?

This more than made up for the fact that they made us give up our signs at the door. They wanted nothing controversial, and apparently our "WE'RE PRO TRUTH" signs were a tad too nasty.

But that's just the way we Republicans are - we don't like to offend.

1582. jonesatlaw - 10/13/2000 1:32:43 AM

Sweede and phydeau- welcome to the thread.

Phydeau, no offense taken.

1583. jonesatlaw - 10/13/2000 3:22:53 AM

They wanted nothing controversial, and apparently our "WE'RE PRO TRUTH" signs were a tad too nasty.

Given Bush's most recent embellishment concerning the IMF, perhaps they were afraid they were critical of Bush?

1584. stostosto - 10/13/2000 6:33:44 AM

The Economist's take

Xerpt:

"The last time that an incumbent fell behind in the summer, caught up at the time of the debates, and then fell back again in the last few weeks was in 1980, when Jimmy Carter lost. In retrospect, Mr Reagan’s mantra—“there you go again”— was crucial.

No such decisive moment has occurred in either of the first two debates. More than that, there has been no big change in the candidates’ strategies, nor any dramatic change in the external environment that would explain Mr Bush’s surge. So what is it?

The answer comes in two parts. The first is that during the Boston debate, Mr Gore managed to make himself look like a liar, or “a serial exaggerator”, to use the Bush campaign’s phrase. That was the theme of first post-debate debate and affected the second meeting, when Mr Gore, overcompensating, pulled his punches.

[...]

But the debates have also enabled Mr Bush to lessen Mr Gore’s other achievement at his convention: the tying of his candidacy to the prosperity and peace of the past eight years.

This second explanation for the Bush surge is most notable in foreign policy. Half the second debate was given over to a discussion of things like the violence in the Middle East and the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic. For the first time, Mr Bush showed himself to be in command of such issues (the focus groups said they thought he looked presidential). He also managed to present a contrast between his own idea of America “humble and proud” and Mr Gore’s more interventionist, but also potentially more divisive, policy of engagement. "

1585. ycmeehan - 10/13/2000 6:52:21 AM

nytimes: Pundits Often Disagree with Public

1586. ycmeehan - 10/13/2000 6:54:33 AM

Sorry for the large space above. Can't figure out what I did yet.

1587. ranheim - 10/13/2000 6:55:54 AM

It is interesting to me that Bush dare not respond - truthfully at least - to the Democrats blasting him on conditions in Texas.

Bush wants the votes of the Hispanics and cannot respond to Gore "it is you fools in Wahsington that are causing the school and health problems in Texas. The border between Texas and Mexico is wide open due to your negligence. When Mexicans enter our state illegally, we are forced to take care of them. And we are doing this. But, it makes the statistics for our state look worse than they actually are."

Living in LA, we constantly hear complaints about "wetbacks" from native Texans. And the Texans' wrath is not aimed at Bush; it is aimed at Washington.

Bush does his best in responding to Gore/Democratic charges that Texas is 50th in education; has the highest number of uninsured children (health); etc. but really cannot defend himself as he should because he wants the Hispanic vote.

1588. joezan - 10/13/2000 7:09:58 AM

jones:

Given Bush's most recent embellishment concerning the IMF, perhaps they were afraid they were critical of Bush?

Nah.

In fact, you should've seen the sign this poor teenaged girl had taken away. It was a 6-panel cartoon, expertly rendered in magic marker, which featured an hilarious caricature of Gore that any professional cartoonist would be proud of. Panel by panel, the Gore nose grew, Pinocchio-like, until in the last panel it was a full half-foot off the posterboard, which required an extension - at the end of which was a Bush lapel pin. I was moving along too quickly to make out what the cartoon Gore was saying, but the drawings said it all.

The poor kid, shifting her gaze back-and-forth between her friends pleading with her to just come on! and the huge pile of confiscated signs on the floor, was obviously seriously thinking of not going in rather than leave her work of art out in the lobby where it was likely to get mangled.

Good Republican sense won out, and she finally abandoned her art and followed her friends in.

Her

1589. RosettaStone - 10/13/2000 8:12:12 AM

Did anyone other than Laura Ingraham and me notice that when Al Gore talked about homosexual rights in this week's debate, he started lisping?

Is he about to remake himself again?

1590. bubbaette - 10/13/2000 8:20:33 AM

I didn't notice Al lisping, but I did notice that Bush continued to snort and sniff. Permanent nasal damage?

1591. JayAckroyd - 10/13/2000 9:55:36 AM

In 1988 it was "the wimp and the shrimp."

How about "the jerk and the smirk" for 2000?

1592. rubberducky - 10/13/2000 9:56:52 AM

the tit and tat?

1593. Cygnus X-1 - 10/13/2000 11:21:11 AM

Hey jexster, Re Message #1573:
There's no evidence that Al Capone was selling alchohol, either.

1594. Jack Vincennes - 10/13/2000 11:52:25 AM

You Gotta Love Bush
Andrew Sullivan

If last week's debate was an assisted suicide, then this week's was a burial. I counted around 15 minutes when Gore clearly had the advantage--the exchange over health-care in Texas--but the rest of the time, Bush creamed him. Last week, Bush demolished Gore on style; this week, he largely dismantled him both on style and substance. On foreign policy, Gore seemed vague and confused, interspersed with occasional moments of worrying idealism. Bush seemed focused, knowledgeable--East Timor? Chernomyrdin? Kyoto?--and sensible. Condoleeza Rice should get some sort of teaching award. I can't think of a single domestic issue--apart from health-care--where Gore had an edge. Having moved far to the left in August and September, Gore now tried to zig back to the center. It's too late to zig. The resulting incoherence only lends credibility to those who believe Gore will say anything. What I've learned this year about a man I once greatly admired is that, sadly, he doesn't seem to know who he is or what he really believes. He seems to be grasping at straws. Watching him tonight, he seemed tired, depressed, defeated. I think he thinks he's lost. It showed. Bush, on the other hand, exuded confidence. He leaned back and smiled; Gore leaned forward and furrowed his brow.
Take the debate over gay marriage, which I understandably listened to closely. I loathed Bush's answer--don't homosexuals deserve the sacred as well?--but I found it more coherent than Gore's, who was trying to triangulate on an issue which allows no triangulation. (And can someone please tell Gore it's "civil union," not "civic union"?) On hate crimes, the same diffidence showed.

1595. Jack Vincennes - 10/13/2000 11:52:38 AM

When Bush said he had a hate crimes law in Texas, Gore should have pointed out that it doesn't include gays, and that's what they disagree on. But Gore didn't, because he's too scared to make an issue about gay rights in a neutral setting. So he punted. And Bush won that round by seeming tougher on hate crimes than Gore! Neither side made the coherent point, of course, that such laws are pernicious examples of exactly the kind of special rights Bush allegedly decries. But Bush's chutzpah defeated Gore's defensiveness.

Gore has one advantage in debates--he knows how to go for the jugular. But after last week, he was obviously told to be nice. So he was defanged. But without fangs, what else has he got? On charm, likeability, credibility, he loses. On intellect, he wins--but tonight, Bush cleaned up. He seemed--and no, I'm not kidding--more intelligent and eloquent than Gore. So Gore was left flailing.
I suspect that last week was the turning point in this campaign and that tonight sealed it. I saw only one man on that stage who seemed to have the self-confidence, self-esteem, and focus to be president. And it wasn't Gore.

1596. CalGal - 10/13/2000 11:54:19 AM

For chrissakes, do you think you could learn to link? Surely anyone who can master copy and paste can evolve.

1597. CalGal - 10/13/2000 11:55:23 AM

I saw only one man on that stage who seemed to have the self-confidence, self-esteem, and focus to be president.

Even if one thought Gore was trounced, this is purely hack speaking.

1598. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:00:34 PM

Jack Vincennes

Someone struck a nerve.

1599. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:03:10 PM

Jack Vincennes

Having said that, I agree that you should link. A link, with a pithy excerpt, and your excellent commentary, would make a better case. I'll be happy to drive down to DC tomorrow to show you how, if you would like.

1600. OhioSTOPAS - 10/13/2000 12:03:51 PM

Is this the Presidennial?

1601. Jack Vincennes - 10/13/2000 12:05:20 PM

Linking is not half as interesting as not linking, and having everyone shit a brick over it.

1602. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:07:00 PM

OhioSTOPAS
clever

1603. CalGal - 10/13/2000 12:07:28 PM

Well, don't do it in a thread I host. I'm at the point of declaring it a deletable offense.

And no he didn't strike a nerve, Dusty, I'm on record as saying the country will survive whoever wins.

1604. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:10:09 PM

I'm at the point of declaring it a deletable offense.

I didn't realize you had that authority.

1605. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:10:18 PM

Guy Fawkian?

1606. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:11:00 PM

Oops, I meant Guy Fawkial

1607. CalGal - 10/13/2000 12:13:55 PM

I didn't realize you had that authority.

In the "threads I host", dumbfuck.

1608. Jack Vincennes - 10/13/2000 12:17:39 PM

As Scooby says,

Ru-roh.

1609. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:24:47 PM

So you did. Mea culpa. But I suppose further discussion of whether thread hosts have absolute authority ought to occur in the policy thread.

1610. Raskolnikov - 10/13/2000 12:24:55 PM

I have always thought that Jack can't link because he gets this stuff via Lexis/Nexis, or something, not directly from the web.

1611. rubberducky - 10/13/2000 12:26:24 PM

Jack Vincennes: theMote's trouble making Mary Taylor Moore

Rask: nope, he's just a big ole weenie

1612. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:32:17 PM

Napierial

1613. marshame - 10/13/2000 3:31:04 PM

After the interlude...

I'm of the opinion that there are two categories of people in this over-polled election: those who know who they're going to vote for, and those who are waiting to see who the polls say will win, so that they can vote for the winner. So in that regard, the polls do matter.

1614. Stumbo - 10/14/2000 1:44:41 AM

Ran, #1587:

Very nice point; I'm surprised nobody has reacted to it.

1615. JudithAtHome - 10/14/2000 10:09:17 AM

Jack:

You must learn to link now...even I can do it!

1616. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2000 10:56:37 AM

I haven't seen the debates and can only read about them. I'm even unable for the most part to test any of the claims made by either camp. But, sitting here in Namibia, I will say this: I am proud to be an American. The things I do see on the news here or on CNN show the American political scene to be civil and well-run. This, in comparison to most African nations, is an incredible thing to behold. That we actually have a race for the presidency that is so close we don't really know who will win it is beyond most Africans, who are used to the "tribal chief" mentality of leadership. In other words, the leader sits there until he dies.

1617. marshame - 10/14/2000 11:14:27 AM

Victor

Orca posted a link a ways back on this thread where you can watch the debates on video on your PC. I missed the debates and was wanting to know where they were being replayed. He provided the link and I got to watch them in the privacy of my very own computer!

1618. marshame - 10/14/2000 11:25:28 AM

Vic

Found 'em! Check out Message # 731 and Message # 732.

1619. Dusty - 10/14/2000 11:28:47 AM

Good catch Stumbo, I had missed ranheim's Message # 1587

When I watch the second debate, I started wondering the same thing.

I would think that a clever person could come up with an answer, something along the lines of "In Texas, we have an unusually large number of immigrants. We welcome the legal immigrants, they are an integral part of our vibrant, diverse community. But let's face reality. Many of those coming to the US have a lower level of schooling than people who were born in Texas. It takes some time for them to catch up with the other school-children. But, as Texans, we are working very hard to improve the education system for everyone, and we are succeeding."

Maybe Jack V could take a crack at it.

1620. JudithAtHome - 10/14/2000 12:11:17 PM

Dusty:

I think GW has a hard time thinking on his feet. His response, about hoping Gore didn't think he had a bad heart or didn't believe he had a good one, was really lame. He should've been prepared for that question and had a ready response or at least realized he'd need to think fast. He did neither.

Since people seem to think he did well in the second debate, they are more likely to overlook the parts he where he didn't do well at all. So many WANT him to do well they start believeing he did better than he actually did.

1621. Electric Slide - 10/14/2000 12:15:21 PM

As opposed to some women who have a hard time thinking off their feet, JuDY?

And don't call me "Rosetta"!

1622. JudithAtHome - 10/14/2000 12:49:01 PM

I won't call you Rosetta but don't expect me to call you "electric", either. "Slide" I can live with.....

1623. Electric Slide - 10/14/2000 5:11:25 PM

Just call me "Juice," baby.

1624. ranheim - 10/14/2000 5:40:46 PM

The thing we need to do in the next decade is to get rid of political correctness!

Get back to the days when one could say what he/she really meant without some professor or media type making a judgemental call due to the content of the speech.

I'm very confident that all of you live in areas where you hear other blacks refer to "niggers". And this because some ARE niggers!! But, being white, I cannot use that word.

As a white, I, by the current rules of PC, should be able to refer to someone as "poor white trash"; but, that is not allowed by the powers-that-be either. "It is demeaning" say the censors. But, what am I supposed to do if they actually are poor white trash? You see them on Jerry Springer and like programs on a weekly basis. What you see there are niggers and poor white trash.

One of my father's favorite expressions was "the good Lord must love us poor folk; he sure made a lot of us!" But, being a much kinder man than I, he never used language to stigmatize an individual.

I believe that there should be stigma attached to certain conduct. e.g. a young black girl, in the south, having a baby out of wedlock essentially eliminates chances for advancement for both the mother and the child. But, if I should say something about this in public, it is I that am castigated. So, for 30 years I have bit my tongue and said nothing. Out of wedlock births may be going down in your area; certainly NOT in central LA. Why not make this conduct a matter of stigma?

1625. labwabbit - 10/14/2000 6:01:26 PM

Ran

..a stigma has just been attached to you.

1626. Jack Vincennes - 10/14/2000 6:04:22 PM

lab

As was intended.

1627. Dusty - 10/14/2000 6:16:28 PM

Jack V
I hope you catch your homework assignment in Message # 1619
I'm sure you can handle it.

1628. Stumbo - 10/15/2000 4:12:12 AM

Ran, #1624:

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The word "nigger" is offensive enough -- for valid historical reasons -- to enough people to warrant avoiding its use.

"Black trash" is certainly permissible, as is "white trash"; however, I fail to see any substantial difference between the two that would necessitate distinct terms, except in the most specific of contexts. Trash is trash, y'know?

1629. concerned - 10/15/2000 4:29:50 AM

Re. 1620 -

I love how the Lefty Greek Chorus is mindlessly repeating their talking points and insisting that a Harvard MBA is somehow a 'moron' while praising the aupposed intellect of a Vanderbilt dropout and flunkout who also is a pathological liar and a felon.

Pretty pathatic.

1630. concerned - 10/15/2000 4:40:12 AM

...pathetic....

1631. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2000 8:52:52 AM

President George W. Bush on the hotline to Moscow:

Bush: How about you fellers helping us out by mediating some of these hot spots, like I said in Debate No. 1?

Putin: Maybe we would if you hadn't called us a bunch of crooks in Debate No. 2.

1632. Electric Slide - 10/15/2000 9:26:32 AM

It worked when Reagan called them "an evil empire."

1633. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2000 10:19:23 AM

Yeah, that's it. A harsh talking-to brought an end to the U.S.S.R.

1634. Electric Slide - 10/15/2000 10:29:40 AM

Right-o. That, and building Star Wars.

1635. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2000 10:32:28 AM

True, entertaining films like "Star Wars" may have helped illustrate the superiority of capitalism over communism.

1636. ycmeehan - 10/15/2000 10:46:12 AM

You know, Concerned, if you are so repetitious in your opinions people in the Mote won't read your posts. You don't seem to realize that. I don't except people to answer any of my rants because I know that most people here don't even bother to read them, knowing well that it is what I do from time to time when I get particularly enraged about something. Another thing, why don't you link to other posts or newspaper article?

1637. JudithAtHome - 10/15/2000 10:52:13 AM

Slidely Whiplash:

Home schooling yet?

1638. Electric Slide - 10/15/2000 11:00:35 AM

yc: Then I suggest that you, dear lady, aim high. Because my research so far shows that few, if any, people read your precious posts.

1639. JudithAtHome - 10/15/2000 11:02:36 AM

Slidely:

And your research consists of what? Muttering to yourself?

1640. Electric Slide - 10/15/2000 11:14:44 AM

Greatness is a two-faced coin, jUDy--and its reverse is humility.

Might I give counsel to any person, I would say to him/her, try to frequent the company of your betters. In books and online, that is the most wholesome society; learn to admire rightly, not lefty; the great pleasure of life is that. Note what great people admire.

And it is the beat of the bass.

1641. JudithAtHome - 10/15/2000 11:23:18 AM

Slidely:

I don't see how this advise applies to you, though.....

1642. Phyl - 10/15/2000 11:24:26 AM

Ah, the same high quality of personal respect for differing opinions that is maintained in the Politics folders of Table Talk. Same song, same words. "It's Reagan's fault -- no it's Clinton's fault -- no it's Reagan's fault -- no it's Clinton's fault -- " or variations thereof. (My favorite variation, of course being, "You're evil and/or stupid -- no, you're evil and/or stupid -- no, you're evil and/or stupid -- ")

The usual high level of discourse.

1643. arkymalarky - 10/15/2000 11:25:54 AM

I don't know, Judith...as much as he hangs out in here, I'd say that "frequent the company of your betters" is a motto he lives by.

1644. ycmeehan - 10/15/2000 11:26:43 AM

I expect people who answer my posts to read them, Mr. Stone. I know that we had an agreement to stay away from one another. Why don't you respect it?

1645. JudithAtHome - 10/15/2000 11:36:00 AM

Phyl:

There is usually a good deal of discussion going on in here, with sane people making salient points and not hurling insults. Some of that goes on but after all, politics brings that out in us all.

I know you're new here so maybe you'd not have the same opinion of our Politics thread if you read a little of it on a weekday....it's really not the sameold/sameold though I can see how you might think so after reading our exchanges this morning.

And welcome to the Mote, by the way....

1646. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 8:57:26 PM

25 Bush Flubs in the Second Debate.
1.
Bush: "We went into Russia, we said, 'Here's some IMF money,' and it ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket and others."

Fact: "Bush appears to have tangled up whispers about possible wrongdoing by Chernomyrdin--who co-chaired a commission with Gore on U.S.-Russian relations--with other unrelated allegations concerning the diversion of International Monetary Fund money. While there has been speculation that Chernomyrdin profited from his relationship with Gazprom, a big Russian energy concern, there have been no allegations that he stole IMF money." Washingon Post, 10/12/00

2.
Bush:"We got one [a hate crime law] in Texas, and guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death... It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death....We're happy with our laws on our books."

Fact: "The three were convicted under Texas' capital murder statute...The state has a hate crime statute, but it is vague." LA Times, 10/12/00. "The original Texas hate-crimes bill, signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards, boosted penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. As Gore correctly noted, Bush maneuvered to make sure a new hate-crimes law related to the Byrd killing did not make it to his desk. The new bill would have included homosexuals among the groups covered, which would have been anathema to social conservatives in the state." Washington Post, 10/12/00

1647. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 8:57:44 PM

3.
Bush: "Bragged that in Texas he was signing up children for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as "fast as any other state."

Fact: "As governor he fought to unsuccessfully to limit access to the program. He would have limited its coverage to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent. The practical effect of Bush's efforts would have been to exclude 200,000 of the 500,000 possible enrollees." Washington Post, 10/12/00

1648. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 8:58:58 PM

4.
Bush: "He [Gore] is for registration of guns."

Fact: "Gore actually favors licensing for new handgun purchasers but nothing as vast as registering all guns." Salon, 10/12/00

5.
Bush: Said he found Gore's tendency to exaggerate "an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. There was some exaggeration about the numbers" in the first debate.

Fact: "No, there wasn't, and Bush himself acknowledged that the next day on ABC's "Good Morning America" when Charlie Gibson pinned him on it." Salon, 10/12/00

6.
Bush: "I felt during his debate with Senator [Bill] Bradley saying he [Gore] authored the EITC [earned-income tax credit] when it didn't happen."

Fact: "Actually, Gore had claimed to have authored an "expansion of the earned-income tax credit," which he did in 1991." Salon, 10/12/00

1649. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:01:42 PM

7.
Fact: Gore noted that "Texas "ranks 49th out of the 50 states in healthcare in children with healthcare, 49th for women with healthcare and 50th for families with healthcare"

Bush: "You can quote all the numbers you want but I'm telling you we care about our people in Texas. We spent a lot of money to make sure people get healthcare in the state of Texas."

8.
Fact: Gore said, ""I'm no expert on the Texas procedures, but what my friends there tell me is that the governor opposed a measure put forward by Democrats in the Legislature to expand the number of children that would be covered....And instead [he] directed the money toward a tax cut, a significant part of which went to wealthy interests."

Bush: "If he's trying to allege I'm a hardhearted person and don't care about children, he's absolutely wrong."

9.
Bush: "The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They'll be put to death. A jury found them guilty."

Fact: Two of the three are being put to death. The other was given life. Bush Watch, 10/12/00

1650. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:02:00 PM

10.
Bush: said he favored "equal" rights for gays and lesbians, bu not "special" rights.

Fact: "Bush has supported a Texas law that allows the state to take adopted children from gay and lesbian couples to place the kids with straight couples." Salon, 10/12/00. "Bush supports hate crime protections for other minorities! So Bush doesn't believe that gays should have the same "special" rights in this regard as blacks, Jews, Wiccans and others. Employment discrimination? Again, Bush supports those rights for other Americans, but not gays. Military service? Bush again supports the right to military service for all qualified people--as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay. Marriage? How on earth is that a special right when every heterosexual in America already has it? But again, Bush thinks it should be out-of-bounds for gays. What else is there? The right to privacy? Nuh-huh. Bush supports a gays-only sodomy law in his own state that criminalizes consensual sex in private between two homosexuals. New Republic, 10/13/00

1651. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:03:01 PM

11.
Bush. "We ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling."

Fact: The Texas Department of Public Safety has just this year begun keeping detailed information about the race and sex of all people stopped by its troopers, the sixth year Bush has been in office. Salon, 10/12/00

12.
Bush: "Got caught not giving the full story on Texas air pollution laws. He was correct in saying the 1999 utility deregulation bill he signed into law had mandatory emissions standards.

Fact: "What was missing, as Gore's campaign pointed out, was that many more non-utility industrial plants are not mandated to reduce air quality. The issue is an important one because Texas ranks near the bottom in air-quality standards. Bush instead approved a voluntary program allowing grandfathered oil, coal, and other industrial plants to cut down on pollution." Boston Globe, 10/12/00

13.
Bush: About the Balkans, "I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground."

Fact: "European forces already make up a large majority of the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Kosovo." Washington Post, 10/12/00

1652. Phyl - 10/15/2000 9:06:05 PM

Judith, I thought later that I was probably a bit too snide, myself. I do get weary of the...I don't know....monotonous sameness of it all, no matter which political forum I run into.

But I'll mainly lurk and not post in this thread, so carry on. And thank you -- I'm enjoying other threads in the Mote already.

1653. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:06:56 PM

14.
Bush: "One of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world" and cited Haiti as an example.

"Though approximately 20,000 U.S. troops went to Haiti in 1994, as of late August this year, there were only 109 U.S. troops in Haiti and most were rotating through as part of an exercise." Washington Post, 10/12/00

15.
Bush: "I don't think we ought to be selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. That's why I support instant background checks at gun shows. One of the reasons we have an instant background check is so that we instantly know whether or not someone should have a gun or not."

Fact: "Bush overstates the effectiveness of instant background checks for people trying to buy guns.... The Los Angeles Times reported on Oct. 3 that during Bush's term as governor, Texas granted licenses for carrying concealed guns to hundreds of people with criminal records and histories of drug problems, violence or psychological disorders." Washington Post, 10/12/00 "He didn't mention that Texas failed to perform full background checks on 407 people who had prior criminal convictions but were granted concealed handgun licenses under a law he signed in 1995. Of those, 71 had convictions that should have excluded them from having a concealed gun permit, the Texas Department of Public Safety acknowledged." AP, 10/12/00

1654. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:07:11 PM

16.
Bush:"Said the number of Texans without health insurance had declined while the number in the United States had risen."

Fact: " A new Census Bureau report says the number of uninsured Americans declined last year for the first time since statistics were kept in 1987. About 42.5 million people, or 15.5 percent of the population, lacked insurance in 1999, compared with 44.2 million, or 16.3 percent, in 1998, the agency reported. Texas ranked next-to-last in the nation last year with 23.3 percent of its residents uninsured. But that was an improvement from 1998, when it ranked 50th at 24.5 percent." AP, 10/12/00

1655. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:07:56 PM

17.
Bush:"Some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming?"

Fact: "Bush's dismissive comments about global warming could bolster the charge that he and fellow oilman Dick Cheney are in the pocket of the oil industry, which likewise pooh-poohs the issue. [While] there is no consensus about the impact of global warming,...most scientists agree that humans are contributing to the rising global temperature. "Most climate experts are certain that global warming is real and that it threatens ecology and human prosperity, and a growing number say it is well under way," wrote New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin." Salon, 10/13/00

18.
Bush: When Jim Lehrer asked Bush if he approved of the U.S. intervention in Lebanon during the Reagan years, Bush answered a quick "yes" and moved on.

Fact: "Lebanon was a disaster in the history of American foreign affairs. Next to Iran-Contra, it was the Reagan administration's greatest overseas fiasco. Quoting from the Encyclopedia of the American Presidency: '[In 1983] Reagan stumbled into a disastrous intervention in the Middle East when he sent U.S. Marines into Lebanon on an ill-defined mission as part of an international peacekeeping force.' In December, according to Reagan biographer Edmund Morris, 'two days before Christmas, a Pentagon commission of inquiry into the Beirut barracks bombing humiliated [Secretary of State] Shultz [who had backed the intervention], and embarrassed Reagan, by concluding that the dead Marines had been victims of a myopic Middle Eastern policy.'" Tom Paine, 10/11/00

1656. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:08:32 PM

19.
Bush: "I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported him when they did so."

Fact: The bombing of Serbia began on March 24, 1999, and Bush did not express even measured support until April 8, 1999 - nearly two weeks later. Prior to April 8, 1999, every comment by Bush about the bombing was non-committal. Finally, he offered a measured endorsement: "It's important for the United States to be slow to engage the military, but once the military is engaged, it must be engaged with one thing in mind, and that is victory," he said after being pressed by reporters. A Houston Chronicle story documented the Governor’s statements on the crisis and reported that "Bush has been widely criticized for being slow to adopt a position on Kosovo and then for making vague statements on the subject." Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99

20.
Bush: Discussing International Loans: "And there's some pretty egregious examples recently, one being Russia where we had IMF loans that ended up in the pockets of a lot of powerful people and didn't help the nation."

Fact: Bush’s own vice presidential candidate, Dick Cheney, lobbied for U.S.-backed loan to Russia that helped his own company. "Halliburton Co. lobbied for and received $ 292 million in loan guarantees to develop one of the world's largest oil fields in Russia. Cheney said: 'This is exactly the type of project we should be encouraging if Russia is to succeed in reforming its economy...We at Halliburton appreciate the support of the Export-Import Bank and look forward to beginning work on this important project.’" PR Newswire 4/6/2000. The State Department, armed with a CIA report detailing corruption by Halliburton’s Russian partner, invoked a seldom-used prerogative and ordered suspension of the loan. The loan guarantee "ran counter to America's ‘national interest,’" the State Department ruled. New Republic, 8/7/00

1657. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:09:11 PM

21.
Bush "There's a lot of talk about trigger locks being on guns sold in the future. I support that."

Fact: When asked in 1999, if he was in support of mandatory safety locks, Bush said, "No, I'm not, I'm for voluntary safety locks on guns." In March of 2000, Bush said he would not push for trigger lock legislation, but would sign it if it passed. [Washington Post, 3/3/00;ABC, "Good Morning America," 5/10/99] Bush Let Trigger Locks Bill Die in Texas. When Bush was asked, "when two bills were introduced in the Texas legislature to require the sale of child safety locks with newly purchased handguns, and you never addressed the issue with the legislature, and both bills died. If you support it, why did that happen?" Bush said, "Because those bills had no votes in committee." When asked again if he supported the bills, Bush said, "I wasn't even aware of those bills because they never even got out of committee." NBC, "Today Show," 5/12/00

22.
Bush: "Africa is important and we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade."

Fact "While Africa may be important, it doesn't fit into the national strategic interests, as far as I can see them," Bush said earlier. When he was asked for his vision of the U.S. national interests, he named every continent except Africa. According to Time magazine, "[Bush] focused exclusively on big ticket issues ... Huge chunks of the globe -- Africa and Latin America, for example --were not addressed at all." Time, 12/6/99; PBS "News Hour," 2/16/00; Toronto Star, 2/16/00

1658. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:10:01 PM

23.
Bush: "There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four year terms and that was me."

Fact:Prior to Bill Clements, governors of Texas served, by law, 2 year terms, not four year terms. Alan Shivers, for example, served four two-year terms, or 2 consecutive 4-year terms. The governors who served consecutive two-year terms adding up to 2 consecutive 4-year terms follows. While Bush was elected twice, each of the others were elected four times: Coke R. Stevenson (2 consecutive 4-year terms) August 4, 1941-January 21, 1947. Allan Shivers (2 consecutive four-year terms) July 11, 1949-January 15, 1957. Price Daniel (2 consecutive four-year terms) January 15, 1957-January 15, 1963. John Connally (2 consecutive four-year terms) January 15, 1963-January 21, 1969. Dolph Briscoe (2 consecutive four-year terms) January 16, 1973-January 16, 1979. George W. Bush (2 consecutive four-year terms) January 17, 1995 to present. Texas State Libraries and Archives Commission.

24.
Bush: "We spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the state of Texas."

Fact: The state of Texas came up with less than $1B for this purpose. $3.5 came from local governments, private providers, and charities, $198M from the federal government, and just less than $1B from Texas state agencies. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

1659. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:11:04 PM

25.
Bush: ""Our CHIPS (children's health insurance) program got a late start because our government meets only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President. May come for a shock for somebody's been in Washington for so long, but actually limited government can work in the second largest state in the Union, and therefore Congress passes the bill after our session in 1970 --'97 ended. We passed the enabling legislation in '99."

1660. Cellar Door - 10/15/2000 9:11:17 PM

Fact: Texas governors can call special sessions of the legislature to pass specific legislation at any time. Bush could have done so with CHIPS. "But more important is that Bush could have gotten CHIP sign-ups under way without the Legislature. As governor, Bush could have drawn up plans for enrolling kids, lined up providers and filed an amendment to Texas' Medicaid Plan with the Health Care Finance Administration, which handles Medicaid and CHIP nationally. With HCFA's approval, he could have started enrollment at once.Instead he waited for the Legislature to convene in January 1999. Then, Bush failed to exercise another gubernatorial option to speed things up. CHIP would have been among the first things considered by the Legislature had he declared it "an emergency," as he did with his tax cut for oil producers. Instead, Bush sparred with legislators about how much a family could earn for their kids to qualify for the program. His first proposal was to make CHIP available to families whose earnings are between 100 percent and 133 percent of the poverty level. Those whose earnings are at or below the poverty level supposedly qualify for Medicaid, but Texas' record in enrolling those eligible has been so bad federal courts have twice ordered the state to clean up its act. When even the Republican legislators balked at Bush's miserly eligibility proposal, he raised it to 150 percent, which would have made about 280,000 kids CHIP-eligible. It was well into the 1999 Legislature that the 200 percent of the poverty level eligibility was approved, which expanded the number of eligible kids to 500,000.Now that it is a national embarrassment, state officials are rushing to sign them up, but at last count, only 100,000 kids have CHIP.Bush could have started signing up poor kids 15 months earlier." San Antonio Express News, 10/15/00

1661. Phyl - 10/15/2000 9:18:58 PM

Heh. Judith, I hope you caught my little semi-apology in the midst of CD's.....voluminous information! :-)

1662. Jonesatlaw - 10/15/2000 9:39:46 PM

Cellar- nice summary of Bush's errors. I am sure that some here would take issue with some of the sources and some of the details, but there's no denying the overall picture. Bush is not prepared to deal with the issues. He doesn't know or won't admit to facts concerning important issues while he was Governor. The CHIPs program is a great example. He tells us he's not hard hearted, and I believe him. He wouldn't harm a child directly for the world. Let that child become an abstration, and he'll set it out on a medical ice flow to die and decrease expenses.

1663. Jonesatlaw - 10/15/2000 9:57:03 PM

My favorite Bush answer-"Is it in America's best interests?" as the keystone of his foreign policy.

Well, it's about time that the US president started using our best interests instead of those damn Canucks'. You know, how we push for free trade with China so they can sell those moose and beaver statutettes, and the RCMP ones? We allow them to ship all those beers with little red maple leaves on em down south, and call them "imported" like its some big deal that the water comes out of the north side of lake Ontario. They've been trying to change our whiskey and bacon for years. What's in an all american breakfast from McDonalds? You guessed it- Canadian Bacon. Probably thought that one up in one of their places where there are little red maple leaves on the golden arches like some sort of Canadian Kosher sign.

It goes even farther back. During Vietnam when everyone knew we were winning the war, all the nogoodniks ran away to Canada. They welcomed them with open arms. They kept criticizing our success until our politicians tied the hands of Sylvester Stalone and all our brave fighting men so badly that we had to accept 'peace with honor' under President Nixon.

That's what we need, a brave new foreign policy philosophy-America First then- Blame Canada.

1664. Jonesatlaw - 10/15/2000 9:58:18 PM

1662 last sentence should be "abstraction and"

1665. Stumbo - 10/16/2000 12:33:32 AM

Jones:

"I am sure that some here would take issue with some of the sources and some of the details, but there's no denying the overall picture."

No, it's exactly the opposite. If I'm presented with a long list of items such that a) I can't test most of them without conducting some research, but b) those that I can test without lifting a finger turn out to be flat-out wrong -- I conclude that whoever compiled that list probably doesn't know up from down, and that therefore the whole thing is not worth bothering with.

(The most obviously-nonsensical example is #11. That kind of record-keeping is usually instituted for the purpose of discouraging racial profiling by said troopers.)

1666. Stumbo - 10/16/2000 12:45:33 AM

And a shitload more, such as #24, rely on dubious word-juggling. Bush says $X is being spent in the state of Texas -- yet, though that apparently is indeed the case, this is deemed a "flub" because not all of that is spent by the state of Texas. Gimme a break.

1667. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 1:09:25 AM

Stumbo- the point in the racial profiling item is that he's done nothing for 5 years about it.

1668. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 1:17:33 AM

But now that a bill is pending in Congress to study racial profiling, the matter has hit the public's attention, and Bush and Texas politicians have started keeping records. That is not to say that racial profiling is banned by such record keeping, just that it is to be studied.

1669. Stumbo - 10/16/2000 1:19:12 AM

Jones:

Heh. You're right, that is probably what the writer meant. But, still: if someone's current policy is A, and he says in a debate that we should all do A -- how is that a "flub"?

1670. Stumbo - 10/16/2000 1:23:13 AM

(This, BTW, shouldn't be taken to mean that I necessarily agree with A.)

1671. Stumbo - 10/16/2000 1:31:39 AM

... So, this still leaves #11 as a flat-out-wrong example. (Unless we likewise include every instance of Gore's affirming the cosmic importance of abortion availability as a "flub," as well.)

1672. Stumbo - 10/16/2000 1:40:26 AM

The point being: the criterion for declaring something a "flub" oughta be a wee bit higher than "he said something I don't agree with," never mind "he said something I do agree with, but that he didn't implement as quickly as I would have wished."

1673. concerned - 10/16/2000 2:45:35 AM

Just noticed Cellar's little list of 25 red herrings and subject changes. It's hilarious that the greatest Bush 'error' that the wingnut Left has been able to fasten on wrt the second debate is that two, not three convicted killers in some hate crime are being executed.

That's a real nitpicking, not to say obsessive, correction.

1674. concerned - 10/16/2000 2:50:10 AM

Re. 1663 -

Jones - you are surely overimpressed with cllrdr's quibbling, which is all most of it is. Perhaps that is a symptom of whatever sends you into flights of fancy such as you indulge in in the subsequent post.

Face it. Banana dictatorship style despotic governance such as the WH Rapist and Bore practice is just your style. You wouldn't know what true diplomacy was if it kicked you in the teeth.

1675. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 3:57:17 AM

Concerned- certainly the Blame Canada is a flight of fancy- ripped off of South Park largely.

Sadly, the "America's best interests" is not a flight of fancy. It is akin to asking the Surgeon General what his policy for fighting AIDS is and getting the answer "curing people." Bush's plan for foreign policy is to ask to buy a vowel.

1676. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 9:09:05 AM

#1673 - concerned: How is a statement about a person's life considered 'nitpicking'? Bush is guilty of lying, or at least distorting the facts in the Jasper murderers death penalty statement. The fact that he repeated the wrong number of people given the death sentence in that case indicates either is a) it was an outright lie or b) he is clueless about the judgments an extremely high-profile murder case. Which would you suggest?

Finding fault with Bush is not 'obsessive' unless you are unobjective. We have to remember that both politicians are guilty of lying, exaggerating, or at least twisting the truth to suit their current political aspirations.

I do believe, however, that Gore is the more 'expert' waffler. Anyone want to guess which version of Al Gore we'll see during the final debate?

1677. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 9:28:39 AM

Paradox

Bush made a mistake. In fact, both candidates made several in both debates. Normally, they would be of no moment. Except for one factor for each.

Prior to the debates, Gore's strategy was to question Bush's intellect and his sophistication, the upshot being that Gore was smarter and better-equipped for the top spot. Thus, had Bush made a "Poland is free" mistake in the first debate, he would have been flayed.

Similarly, prior to the debates, Bush's strategy was to paint Gore as an arrogant liar with serious character flaws, the kind of man who would say or do anything not only to be president, but to enhance his reputation. Thus, when Gore exaggerated and condescended in the first debate, he was flayed.

Going into the second debate, the dynamic remained. But months of deriding Bush as barely evolved blew up in the faces of the Democrats, because he matched Gore in the foreign policy questions by a mixture of selective knowledge, clinching with the administration in agreement to avoid any roundhouse punches, and better themes (i.e., no nation building). And Gore committed the cardinal sin of modern politics by seriously apologizing for something which should not have required an apology. He should have addressed it with humor or he should have said, "Hey, I wish I had every fact straight. I didn't. And you'll see that when guys like us are running for office, we're going to miss a few here and there. That's big time politics, and I expect to gte whacked for it. But I think people will hear the big picture and not the little stuff in the end."

The real problem for Gore is that we are in mid-October and his staff is still wrangling with how to present him to the American people.

As for the last debate, we will see pleasantries again, mainly due to the town hall setting. Otherwise, it could become very awkward.

1678. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 9:35:23 AM

#1629 - concerned: I assume you are referring to the Democrats when you refer to the 'Lefty Greek Chorus.' If so, then what is your point about the Harvard education? I doubt that the Democrats would condemn a Harvard education, considering their own candidate has one.

FYI, both Bush and Gore attended Harvard. Bush received his MBA in 1975. Gore received his BA in Government (with honors) in 1969.

After receiving his BA, Gore did 'attend' Vanderbilt, but did not graduate.

Check out the facts at http://www.vote-smart.org (my first attempt at linking, if it fails, my apologies in advance)

Let's leave the emotion out of the debate, and focus on the facts, ok?

1679. Electric Slide - 10/16/2000 9:43:06 AM

Amid reports that Algore's top campaign advisers have begun fighting among themselves, NEWSWEEK correspondent Howard Fineman points out that in the days leading up to last week's presidential debate in North Carolina, the Gore camp violated an elementary rule of politics: lowering expectations for your opponent.

"When there's not much ideological friction, side-by-side character comparisons can be decisive--and Bush has prospered onstage beside Gore," Fineman writes in the lastest issue of the magazine. "By branding Bush a 'babbling bumbler' after the first debate, the Goreans lowered expectations for Bush further--and he impressively exceeded them."

1680. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 9:57:46 AM

#1677 - Jack,

OK, call it a 'mistake' if you want. The FACT remains that he made this 'mistake' repeatedly. If it was said only once, I could see your point. The sheer number of repetitions of that 'mistake' indicates that he is either: a)lying or b) clueless about that particular issue. Which would you prefer? That was not the only 'mistake' Bush made, either. He stated that he was the first back-to-back elected Governor of Texas. That is incorrect as well. Those re two glaring examples. Glaring in the context that, as Governor of Texas, he should know these things. How would you suggest we justify all these 'mistakes'?

Everyone knows Gore lies, exaggerates, is clueless, distorts the truth, makes 'mistakes,' etc. Why is it difficult to be objective when it comes to analyzing Bush's statements?

FYI, I was impressed with Bush during the 2nd debate. He 'crammed for the exam' and demonstrated his ability to illustrate his concept of government. Bush took the lead on delineating himself from Gore and made solid points about the philosophical differences between them. Gore, on the other hand, seemed ingenuine and only talked about the concept of government in response to Bush's lead. I think Bush won the 2nd debate. I missed the first. I will be glued to the TV for the 3rd and final debate.

That being said, I will also analyze both candidates thoroughly to make my final decision. Why is it so difficult to admit that 'your candidate' is human?

1681. Electric Slide - 10/16/2000 10:02:00 AM

ox: A word of advice: Stop trying to be even-handed here. You'll just get beat up by both sides.

1682. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 10:11:38 AM

#1681 - Slide,

First of all, please call me Para if you want a nick-name, not ox. Thanks.

I'm used to getting beat up for being rational. I appreciate the concern, but I can handle it. I know that there are people out there who truly want to discuss the facts and analyze the issues, and that's who I'm looking for. I'll find 'em.

1683. rubberducky - 10/16/2000 10:13:14 AM

Re: Message # 1678, Paradoxical.

Check out the facts at http://www.vote-smart.org (my first attempt at linking, if it fails, my apologies in advance)

cool link. i linked it in Politics Today.

thanks

1684. Electric Slide - 10/16/2000 10:29:04 AM

para: Then you have have found a home. For the most part, the writing here is top flight.

Now, I always find it's more fun to arrive at a conclusion than to justify it. (g)

1685. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 10:54:20 AM

Slide,

Thanks for the welcome!

(laughing) I also like to toss opinions around. I think alot of us are arm-chair pundits.

But what I find more challenging is not the word-smithing, but trying to remain objective.

IMHO, there is too much polarization and emotion in politics, and not enough discussion around the facts and issues the candidates support. The debates offer us a rarely-seen opportunity to line the candidates up side-by-side and compare their philosophies, issue-for-issue.

Political platforms are transitory in nature, so to rely on historical Democratic or Republican 'core values' is risky. I read alot of emotional pleadings denouncing the 'other party,' but we're not electing a party, per se. We're electing a person, who can (and often does) vary in personal 'core beliefs' from their party's platform.

That's why I believe the candidates' facts and issues are so important. Too many people have pre-conceived notions about the candidates simply because of the party system. Too many people aren't listening to what the candidates are saying. Too many people are justifying the comments of 'their' candidate, because of nothing more than party loyalty. That's a scary thought, IMHO.

Enjoy! I've got more mundane things to do, like laundry! Will check back later tonight.

1686. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 10:59:35 AM

ducky,

You are most welcome! I'm sure alot of people here are already familiar with that site (vote-smart.org). Just posted it as a reminder. It's a good place to find an opinion-free analysis of the candidates. A nice refuge from the Jerry Springer-esque mud-slinging.

Enjoy!

1687. Dusty - 10/16/2000 12:36:05 PM

As I read through cellar's list, I could spot several that were flat-out misguided. I mentally composed a post to that effect, but then I saw that Stumbo already made the point more effectively. I'll second his post and add my own thoughts.

I don't follow Texas politics all that closely, and frankly, I'm not following the election as closely as many in this place. But if I can spot several errors in the so-called list of flubs, without even doing any research, one has to wonder how accurate the rest of the list is.

Any Gore supporters want to identify flubs that they accept? I won't bother debunking any that you don't swallow.

Let's skip the "only 2 of the 3 got death". I think everyone knows that was wrong. Any others?

1688. Dusty - 10/16/2000 12:36:34 PM

Paradoxical

Welcome!!!

1689. Cellar Door - 10/16/2000 12:40:41 PM

"flat-out misguided" = "It's not a lie but we'd rather sell our first-born into slavery than admit it."

1690. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 12:47:08 PM

Dusty try 3, 16, 23, 24, and 25.

1691. Dusty - 10/16/2000 12:53:12 PM

Paradoxical Message # 1680

He stated that he was the first back-to-back elected Governor of Texas. That is incorrect as well.

I was surprised when he said that. I wondered if he meant to say something a bit more restrictive, like the first time in x years. But someone pointed out a web site that confirmed the statement. I thought it was associated with the State of Texas, but I don't recall precisely.

Can you tell me why you think the claim is false?

1692. Dusty - 10/16/2000 12:56:35 PM

Jonesatlaw

3 is easy (are you warming me up with softballs)?

Bush claimed that Texas was signing up children for CHIP as "fast as any other state."

Nothing in the "rebuttal" contradicts that statement.

1693. Dusty - 10/16/2000 1:01:05 PM

Jonesatlaw

16 is tougher to answer without doing some homework. The rebuttal concedes that the Texas percentage has gone down, as Bush said. But it claims that the US percentage has also gone down. The rebuttal makes reference to a "new" Census report. Perhaps Bush was referring to an earlier year, or time period. Do we know?

I'll leave this as unproven one way or another, unless someone can clarify the time periods involved.

1694. Dusty - 10/16/2000 1:04:34 PM

Paradoxical

I guess you can ignore Message # 1691 I see that it is answered by point #24.

1695. Dusty - 10/16/2000 1:06:58 PM

Jonesatlaw

#24

Assuming the information in the rebuttal is accurate (which it isn't, because they claim that 4 two year terms are the same as two 4 year terms), then Bush is technically correct, but misleading. He shouldn't have done that.

1696. Raskolnikov - 10/16/2000 1:11:50 PM

Dusty: regarding Bush's terms, it depends precisely what Bush claimed (I don't recall his exact wording). If he claimed that he was the first to be elected to back to back terms, he was dead wrong. if he claimed that he was the first to be elected to back to back four year terms, he was right, but this is pretty meaningless since Texas has only had four year terms since 1978. Prior to that, several Governors served four two-year terms. And since viewers can't be expected to know the particulars of Texas Constitutional trivia, they would obviously assume that Bush meant "first two term governor".

It would be similar to Franklin Roosevelt hypothetically claiming to foreigners that he was the first American president elected to two terms by the men and women of the United States, without explaining that women couldn't vote until the 19th amendment had passed 13 years before he became President.

1697. Raskolnikov - 10/16/2000 1:13:28 PM

Nevermind, we evidently agree.

1698. Dusty - 10/16/2000 1:14:13 PM

Jonesatlaw

#25

What part of Bush's statement is false?

Sure, Texas could have called a special session, but they didn't. If you can provide evidence that every other state in the union, whose legislature was not in session at the time of the passage of the federal law, called a special session immediately, then Bush will still be correct, but I'll concede he was misleading. As to the claim he had the authority to start the program unilaterally, I'll plead ignorance to the intricacies of the internal rules of Texas government. But, at best, that only means that he could have, not that he should have.

1699. Dusty - 10/16/2000 1:21:36 PM

Jonesatlaw

Box score 
 
Claimed Flub	Dusty Decision 
 
#3		Not proven. Not even close 
#16		Open. 
#24		Not a lie, but misleading. -½ point Bush 
#25		Not proven. But maybe someone can do better

1700. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 1:27:50 PM

1701. rubberducky - 10/16/2000 1:31:34 PM

HaHaHaHaHa

1702. Raskolnikov - 10/16/2000 1:36:53 PM

One explanation I have heard for Texas' health care record is that children of illegal immigrants aren't signed up for Medicaid for fear of the INS. Sounds plausible, and it probably wouldn't play well in a debate.

1703. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 1:38:23 PM

A new piece of puffery by Bush's campaign-
On Saturday, the Bush campaign produced a news release with the headline that Mr. Bush was "leading Al Gore among the next generation of women voters," and Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, drew reporters' attention to this development in a conference call today.

The surveys Ms. Tucker was referring to were either commissioned by or conducted among the Girl Scouts, and the respondents were 11 to 17 years old.

1704. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 2:04:40 PM

Bush stated that Texas had done better than the US as a whole by saying that Texas rate of unisured had dropped while the US average went up. The Texas rate did improve but so did the US average. Texas is not doing better than the US average, far from it. Texas went the worst state in the Union on this measure to the second worst state.

1705. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 2:08:43 PM

Unless the other states waited 15 months to start signing up children for the CHIP program, the statement is misleading at best, and false if one looks at the long term. If Bush is saying that the present rate of sign ups is as good as other states, he may be factual if misleading. If he is saying that Texas has signed up more children than other states, he is false.

1706. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 2:14:05 PM

This whole "he's a liar . . . no, he's a liar" thing can only hurt Gore. The muffs were predestined. Gore muffed on a predestined score (exaggerations) which hurt him on the arrogance front. Bush is expected to flub because he's a "Moron".

Remember?

1707. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 2:14:12 PM

The Post's Charles Babington
Debate Referee
Both nominees are largely accurate in their comments about children's health care in Texas, although they don't address each other's main points. Government statistics support Gore's claim that Texas ranks 49th out of the 50 states in providing health insurance for children.

As governor, Bush fought unsuccessfully to limit access to the Children's Health Insurance Program (or CHIPs), a federally financed initiative to provide health coverage for children through state governments. Bush would have limited its coverage to children in Texas with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent.

Bush sidestepped the gist of Gore's remarks, saying, "You can quote all the numbers you want, but I'm telling you, we care about our people in Texas.... We spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the state of Texas."

Bush then launched into a rather confusing explanation of the history of the children's health program: "Our CHIPs program got a late start because our government meets only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President. May come for a shock for somebody's been in Washington for so long, but actually limited government can work in the second largest state in the Union..."

It's the Texas legislature, not the full state government, that meets only every other year in Austin. And it's curious to blame a part-time legislature for "a late start" on an important program in one sentence, and in the next breath assert "limited government can work."

1708. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 2:16:55 PM

But Jones, if Bush is false, he is still not as false as Gore because Bush has a good heart....remember?

1709. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 2:23:02 PM

Judith- I'm ready to break out in "On Top of Old Smokey" and sing about false hearted lovers....

1710. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 2:25:30 PM

Jack- Gore's campaign has really screwed the pooch on letting Bush "nobody here but us chickens" approach. Bush has played Gore up to be the Death Star of debators while he plays a charming, not too bright Ewok, full of bravery facing technologically more advanced foes of the establishment.

1711. Dusty - 10/16/2000 2:37:34 PM

Jonesatlaw

Message # 1703

Agreed that it is puffery.

However, I vaguely recall some claim about high school or elementary school straw polls being a good predictor of election results. Does anyone else recall it?

I don't suggest for a second that 11-17 year-olds are fully informed on the issues. But I wonder if their votes reflect the sentiments of their parents, even when the parents claim to be undecided? Could the reactions of parents to the various politicians get transmitted to children more accurately than their claimed positions?

On a related note, I find it quite unsettling have to debate my son on the candidates. So far, I have had to defend Gore against his outrageous claims, and point out that Bush may not be as good as he thinks. I thank goodness Jack isn't visiting every time I point out that some Gore lie is really valid.

1712. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 2:40:28 PM

Jones

It is beyond campaigns. It is the cackling chorus of the smirking smart set, led by Ivins and her proteges. For every jexster and Judithathome there are representatives on television like Begala or Carlson or Clift or Hunt. And to the extent they blanket the debate with "Bush is an idiot" they grant him gift upon gift. I have talked to some folks who are decidedly apolitical, their first foray into this election was the debates, but before the debates, they knew that Gore was an arrogant, fakey know-it-all (they had no clue about the exaggeration/lie issue) and they thought Bush as a grade above a gibbon. Afterwards, they were like, "He seemed as smart as any of them."

1713. rubberducky - 10/16/2000 3:36:00 PM

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin demanded a formal apology Monday from U.S. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush for accusing him of stealing IMF money, and threatened to sue.

Bush, who in last week's campaign debate attacked Vice-President Al Gore over the Democratic administration's ties with Russia, said some money lent to Russia by the International Monetary Fund had ``ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pockets.''

``Such statements are not only damaging but they are also dangerous to the public,'' Chernomyrdin told a news conference. ''That is why I insist on a public apology. I am sure you (Bush) will present it immediately,'' he said.

Heh

hope he files before the November election

1714. Cellar Door - 10/16/2000 3:38:03 PM

What Chernomyrdin fails to realize is that he's dealing with a Republican. They never apologize for anything.

Right, Jack?

1715. JJBiener - 10/16/2000 3:39:00 PM

Cellar - As opposed to Democrats who only apologize for what other people do.

1716. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 3:41:24 PM

Jack:

If you can't see that Bush is less than Presidential material, you are a far greater threat to this elestion than I....

1717. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 3:44:29 PM

I'm so sorry I got my facts wrong.

He he he he he.

1718. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 3:44:58 PM

Jack:

I wish you would get over the idea that I am FOR Gore; just because I am against Bush doesn't mean I am supporting Gore and I most certainly am not voting for either one. Not that you care as I'm sure you've filed me under the "Cs" in your mind...

1719. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 3:46:09 PM

Juditha

Well, he's no James Earl Carter. I'll give you that.

Anyway, continue to chortle and titter. You might just condescend the man right into the White House during the greatest economic boom of our century.

1720. Cellar Door - 10/16/2000 3:48:54 PM

"Cellar - As opposed to Democrats who only apologize for what other people do."

You mean Gore DIDN'T make an apology during the last debate JJ?

1721. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 3:51:39 PM

Oh yes, I'm sure my comments are just going to whisk him into the office. About as much as yours are going hurl Al Gore there.....

But you must admit, it isn't every candidate who manages to be threatened with a lawsuit by a former Russian Premier; I'll give the boy that much. Maybe he can insult a few of those guys he learned to pronounce last week, too.

1722. JJBiener - 10/16/2000 3:52:08 PM

Cellar - It was a joke. You remember Democrats wanted to apologize for slavery, racism, the Holocaust, Aparteid, etc.

1723. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 3:57:24 PM

Juditha

Your comments are part and parcel of the "Bush is a big dummie" chorus. Every little bit helps.

As for a lawsuit, if we can suffer Paula Jones, we can suffer Chernomyrdin.

1724. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/16/2000 4:00:42 PM

Chernomyrdin should ask Karl Rove for the apology!

1725. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 4:17:24 PM

Bush is every bit the frat boy the pundits originally claimed he was. He is no moron, but neither does he have any intellectual curiosity. Like his father he lacks "the vision thing." His policy- certain tax cuts weighted for the wealthy against uncertain future income. [Yes I know that he spreads them across the board, but when coupled with the estate tax boondoggle the money goes to the top]. His foreign policy- "me too" for the Clinton Adminstration's policy, plus he wants to get our 109 boys out of Hati. Other countries or continents are "important places", which he has no plans on how to deal with. He articulates no real distinction between the current administration and his view of the world.

He is for smaller government and less spending, but has a host of new programs to compete with every Gore proposal for more government and more spending.

1726. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 4:37:22 PM

The candidates are participating in a debate in the Washington Post. I have added the link to the butterscotch bar. Interesting question today.

It asks whether Wicca should be banned in the military, or is it a freedom of religion issue?

Bush response, witchcraft is not a religion.

1727. Jonesatlaw - 10/16/2000 4:39:30 PM

Gore response- freedom of religion is great. Avoids Wicca issue.

1728. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 4:45:34 PM

Bush response - "I have Wiccan chairs on my porch."

Gore response -"My great great great uncle was burned at the stake in Salem, so I know the issue of Wiccans . . ."

1729. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 4:47:19 PM

Jack:

I wish their responses were half as witty!!! That was great....I don't hate you anymore...

1730. JJBiener - 10/16/2000 4:47:20 PM

Jones - It doesn't sound like Bush really answered either. Wicca is a religion. It uses witchcraft, but to say it is strictly witchcraft is inaccurate. In other words, witchcraft isn't a religion (Bush is correct), but Wicca is (Bush avoided answering).

Wicca should not be banned in the military or anywhere else. Scientology is allowed in the military and Wicca makes much more sense than Scientology.

1731. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 4:49:00 PM

Selling Amway is allowed in the military, too...another religion tolerated.

1732. Jack Vincennes - 10/16/2000 4:50:19 PM

Juditha

Good. I was considering putting a hex on you.

1733. glendajean - 10/16/2000 4:57:02 PM

Actually Bush said, "My great-great-great-great-great poppy burned that witch loving Gore at the stake. There's a painting of it in my grandmother's house."

1734. CalGal - 10/16/2000 5:05:08 PM

Scientology is allowed in the military and Wicca makes much more sense than Scientology.

Whether they make sense or not is irrelevant. Scientology makes money.

1735. JJBiener - 10/16/2000 5:16:47 PM

CalGal - I think it is interesting that many Hollywood types who actively support the Democrats also believe in Scientology. I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

1736. Cellar Door - 10/16/2000 5:42:33 PM

Maybe I should get Homosexuality declared a Religion.

Jude Law for Pope!

1737. glendajean - 10/16/2000 5:45:01 PM

I think it is interesting that many Hollywood types who actively support the Democrats also believe in Scientology.

Cellar will have to clarify this, but the only Hollywood types that I've heard that believe in Scientology are Tom Cruise, Kirstie Allie, and John Travolta. Oh, that guy who was teen-age singer, Leif Erickson or whatever.

None have reputations as major Democratic supporters. I think Travlota was recently at a fundraising event, but he also played Clinton as a buffoon in Primary Colors and danced with Princess Diana at the Reagan White House.

Given the goofiness of Hollywood politics, one can easily find examples of their nuttiness. But this isn't one. Nice guilt by association, though.

1738. Cellar Door - 10/16/2000 5:49:18 PM

That's a solid read-out glendajean. In fact Scientology is so discredited, publicity-wise, that Cruise has begun to let it be known through surrogates (ie. press reps making "don't quote me, but" phone calls) that he's begun to "distance himself" from his "religion," and souldn't be seen as its "representative" in any way.

1739. marshame - 10/16/2000 5:53:56 PM

I thought Buddhism was the pop Hollywood religion. You know, like Harrison Ford and Richard Gere?

1740. glendajean - 10/16/2000 5:58:05 PM

I thought fame and fortune and beauty and sex were the Hollywood religions.

Speaking of, the current Advocate magazine quotes Russell Crowe (who does rock music too?) saying that his good friend Jodie Foster influenced one of his songs, about being attracted to someone only to discover they "play for the other team."

A Miss Pat Kingsley is quoted as saying "other team" could mean many things. Thought you would enjoy that, Cellar.

1741. marshame - 10/16/2000 5:59:51 PM

I wonder what Meg Ryan has to say about that. Maybe he's a switch hitter?

1742. RosettaStone - 10/16/2000 6:40:27 PM

I'm glad I'm Roman Catholic. It's the best.

1743. Cellar Door - 10/16/2000 7:07:00 PM

You said it, Rosie. Best sets, best music, fabulous costumes.

But the Book needs work.

1744. Paradoxical - 10/16/2000 7:10:51 PM

OK, I'm all for a nice orderly debate about political stuff, but don't you dare dis *my* Tom Cruise!! (sly wink)

Everyone knows he just married the wrong redhead. And I don't care if he is gay. I could just prop him up in the corner somewhere and stare at him. (ok, it would be more helpful if he were straight, in my case) ...

Back to the debate stuff. I think Tom Cruise would make a much better moderator. The camera could just stay glued to his face while the two candidates jabber in the background.

On other subjects...

Dusty, thanks for the welcome!!

About religion and Hollywood...let's not forget Jane Fonda's recent conversion to Christianity. Now THAT took guts! (applauds)

1745. MsIvoryTower - 10/16/2000 11:35:18 PM

Sigh....

It looks increasingly grim for my prediction. The latest polls put Bush at a slight (statistically insignificant) lead over Gore.

Sigh....

Well, I do have until Wednesday!

1746. joezan - 10/16/2000 11:48:46 PM

Gore Plan to Save Social Security

An analysis of Al Gore's plan to fix Social Security reveals a hoax with gargantuan tax increases. The Democratic nominee proposes to take
the Social Security surplus and pay down the national debt and use the
"savings" in interest on the debt to buy government bonds that would be redeemed as the system begins needing more money than it would be taking in. Sounds good, if you don't know that when those government bonds come due, it will be the government (i.e., the taxpayer) who has to come up with redemption money. It will bring us full circle: with the option of raising taxes or cutting benefits or both. This isn't hocus-pocus, it's fraud."

(Atlanta Journal Constitution Editorial, 10/10/00)

1747. joezan - 10/17/2000 12:02:30 AM

In Michigan, Bush and Gore are in a virtual dead-heat.

That is, until this evening, when Bush received the overwhelming support of the Arab-American Political Action Committee, the most influential political group for the 300,000 Detroit-area Arab-Americans.

While some cited distrust of the Jewish Orthodox Joe Lieberman, many tended to downplay the VP nominee's religion, saying that they have endorsed Sen. Carl Levin, who is also Jewish, in the past.

Say bye-bye to Michigan, Algore.

1748. joezan - 10/17/2000 12:03:01 AM

toys

1749. RosettaStone - 10/17/2000 7:50:32 AM

Postpone, or cancel, the town-hall debate tonight in St. Louis out of respect for the dead Democratic governor.

1750. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 9:23:46 AM

Ralph Nadar says he doesn't pay attention to the polls because they only poll anticipated voters...he is more interested in first time voters and they are rarely asked to participate in polls. (NPR interview yesterday.)

1751. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 9:28:40 AM

Reuters is reporting the debates are still on death or no death which, i'm sorry, is the right decision. condolences should be paid, but we have a government to run, money to waste, and a public to screw over.

1752. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:21:12 AM

How about a nice moment of voluntary prayer?

1753. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:25:08 AM

Cyber-Debate Question of the day-
What is your position on medical research on human fetal tissue for diabetes and other diseases? What about human cloning for production of healthy organs for transplant

1754. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:26:37 AM

The Importance Of Medical Research
Gore would invest in medical research to ensure new cutting edge treatments, prevention and detection tools.

I'm assuming from your question, Ellis, that you or someone you are close to suffers from diabetes. I want you to know that, if I'm entrusted with presidency, I will make improving America's health one of my administration's primary goals. I believe that we need to invest in medical research to take advantage of the new potential for treatments and cures. I will invest in medical research to ensure that scientists have the resources to develop new cutting edge treatments, prevention and detection tools.

Stem cell research will be an important component of 21st Century medical advancements. There are substantial medical benefits associated with using stem cells in research on many diseases, including diabetes.

I support the current Administration's new guidelines that have been developed to secure these benefits. Investing at the federal level to advance this research will help deliver these benefits faster for thousands of patients. I believe that the National Institute of Health has put in place appropriate ethical, legal and regulatory rules to permit researchers to obtain stem cells in a manner consistent with federal law.

I also support the 1994 ban on the creation of embryos solely for research purposes. Only stem cells obtained from excess supplies of embryos created for clinical purposes should be used for this important research. Stem cell donors must voluntarily consent to the use of their cellular material for research purposes.

1755. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:27:00 AM

Gore continued-
In answer to your second question regarding human cloning, I support legislation that will prohibit anyone in either the public or private sector from using cloning techniques to create a child. I also support the Administration’s ban on the use of federal funds for the cloning of human beings. We live in an era of breath-taking scientific discovery. More and more, our future in the world depends upon advances in science and technology. However, scientific explorations must be guided by our commitment to human values, to the good of society and to our basic sense of right and wrong.

1756. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:27:39 AM

Answer from George W. Bush:
Bush Calls For Medical Moonshot
Supports increased funding and tax credits for medical research...

I believe research into the causes and cures of diseases should be a priority in our country. And, that is why I have proposed a permanent Research and Development tax credit to encourage companies to continue research into life-saving treatments.

I understand that medical science and research have led to cures and treatments to many diseases once considered a death sentence. I have proposed a bold medical moonshot that would double funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 2003. Overall, I would increase funding to NIH by $67 billion over the next ten years. I believe that with this new commitment to medical discoveries, researchers will be able to find cures and more effective treatments for cancer, Parkinson's disease, congestive heart failure, and arthritis.

We have the technology and the mission to find these cures, I want to make sure that the resources are available. I oppose federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos. However, I do support innovative medical research on life-threatening and debilitating diseases, including promising research on stem cells from adult tissue, which does not necessitate destroying human embryos.

If elected president I would convene a panel of top scientists, lawyers and ethicists to discuss the ethical questions that will arise from the mapping of the human genome. I worry about cloning. I worry about people taking the place of God. There are going to be some very thorny issues ahead.

1757. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 10:28:45 AM

Jones:

The question from yesterday shows up when I try the Cyber-Debate link...

1758. glendajean - 10/17/2000 10:34:11 AM

The Fibber vr the Fumbler": The Times (London) commentary on the debate.

1759. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:35:08 AM

Judith- My mistake in creating the link- I'll remedy that so it takes you to the homepage for the debate. Thanks.

1760. glendajean - 10/17/2000 10:39:47 AM

More debate preparation. What to do with the stool?

1761. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 11:26:45 AM

Who will Al Gore be tonight? According to NewsMax.com, Al Gore isn't the first high-profile Democrat to fib his way through a presidential debate. In fact, perhaps the most famous exchange ever in recent debate history turns out to have been based on a lie.

It was former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen's proudest moment, when, as No. 2 man on Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential ticket, he vanquished his rival Day Quayle with three simple sentences.

After Quayle tried to defend his own youth by noting that President Kennedy was just 43 years old when he was elected, Bentsen pounced.

"I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Bentsen's attack cemented Quayle's image as a callow youth in the public's mind. Even after four years as vice president, he never quite recovered from the "You're no Jack Kennedy" barb.

But now NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw says it looks like Bentsen simply made up his association with JFK.

Brokaw recently told MSNBC's Don Imus that two weeks after the Quayle-Bentsen debate, he got a call from longtime Kennedy aide Dave Powers who was in charge of the Kennedy Library in Boston.

Brokaw said Powers told him, "We've gone through everything we have on this. And there's no evidence whatsoever that Jack Kennedy ever knew Lloyd Bentsen."

Of course, Brokaw did not explain why he decided to sit on this revelation for 12 years.

1762. Cellar Door - 10/17/2000 11:29:28 AM

"How about a nice moment of voluntary prayer?"

O Satan -- open up the earth and swallow Ace.

1763. Dusty - 10/17/2000 11:31:54 AM

That's very interesting 'lectric.

I'm surprised that someone didn't look into it at the time. If it happened today, both campaigns would be off to the Archives faster than a prom gown.

1764. bubbaette - 10/17/2000 11:33:36 AM

Regardless, I don't think that Dan Quayle's image as a callow youth depended on that statement.

1765. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:36:52 AM

Maybe Bentsen meant he "knew" him in the Biblical sense.

1766. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:40:05 AM

Which brings a whole new meaning to...

"You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."

1767. DanDillon - 10/17/2000 11:40:54 AM

The debate in St. Louis will go on. Respect and condolences for the deceased Mel Carnahan and his family have been paid. How quickly we move.

1768. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:42:52 AM

Cyber debate link is now fixed to take you to homepage of debates. There is an archive of questions and responses going back to 10-1-00. Interesting that Nader is not participating. Such a forum would seem to appeal to the voters he is interested in and would allow him to end run the two party system. Seems that his campaign is more related to preening and ego IMO.

1769. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 11:51:34 AM

Everyone knows Tom Brokaw would have jumped on that story if it had been a Republican claiming it.

With days still to go before the 1988 election, news that he/she had simply fabricated a friendship with a famous American might have been devastating.

I just wish Imus had asked him to explain why they didn't report it in 1988.

1770. concerned - 10/17/2000 12:34:16 PM

I think this debate is where George W. Bush needs to take the opportunity to mention the unresolved DoJ criminal investigations of Pinocchio Bore, being sure to get the words 'criminal', 'felonious', or similar out there.

Bush should not pass up this golden opportunity to remind voters that justice will be better served if Alphalfa is convicted, not elected.

1771. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 12:38:14 PM

Bush should not pass up this golden opportunity to remind voters that justice will be better served if Alphalfa is convicted, not elected.

ditto.

that would most certainly get Gore elected. not exactly what i want, but it's better than Bush.

or, more accurately, to mock Ace:

Al Gore

Hey, he's better than Bush.

1772. IrvingSnodgrass - 10/17/2000 1:45:01 PM

Paradoxical:
I realize I'm a little late in this, but welcome to this thread! I find your objective analysis and critiques of both sides very refreshing. I'm glad you've joined us here, because there are quite a few others who are able to do the same, and it often leads to constructive discussions.

I haven't been following politics much this year, largely because no candidate excites me. I kind of hope they both lose. But I have watched the debates, and find most of the analysis in this thread more meaningful that the talking head blather on TV. It's nice to see your voice added to that meaningful analysis.

1773. JJBiener - 10/17/2000 2:05:40 PM

The debates are going to be right here in St. Louis, and I have to go to Detroit on business. Well, hopefully I will get in early enough to watch them on TV at the hotel.

1774. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 2:05:42 PM

I pray that some citizen will ask the candidates a question that they don't have a canned response to. I would settle for something that requires more thought than pat response of "I will fight for you" and "I'm for smaller government"

Looking at the cyber debates, I was struck by how small the differences were in the responses by Gore and Bush.

1775. JJBiener - 10/17/2000 2:10:49 PM

But, Jones, the phrase "I will fight for you" is considered a substantive position. At least to hear Al Gore tell it. I think experience has shown both candidates that substantive arguments don't result in votes at the ballot box. Despite what political addicts like us might want, voters vote for the person they feel the most comfortable with.

1776. JJBiener - 10/17/2000 2:11:22 PM

Revolutionary Post?

1777. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 2:14:00 PM

i'd settle for the "I will fight for you" phrase as long as it was followed by something other than fluff.

yeah, well, i'll probably rent a movie tonight anyway.

1778. Ronski - 10/17/2000 2:17:30 PM

jones,

Re: Message # 1725 - You are correct to point out that Bush says he is for smaller government but proposes to make it larger. All GOPers grow the government.

The LP newsletter reports that on a popular Maine political website, As Maine Goes, a local Libertarian posted a thousand-dollar bet a few months ago that if elected within four years George Bush would make the federal government larger than it was when he was inaugurated. They also report that not a single Maine Republican has come forward to accept that wager.

1779. RustlerPike - 10/17/2000 2:54:46 PM

Hey - I've got one:

Gore aides admit:

SIGHS DOES MATTER!

1780. Cellar Door - 10/17/2000 3:23:58 PM

And a substantiative position for Dubbya is, of course --

FUZZ MATH ! FUZZ MATH ! FUZZ MATH ! FUZZ MATH ! FUZZ MATH !

1781. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 3:26:36 PM

A rhyming slogan:

VOTE FOR GORE

HE'S NOT A MOR-

-ON.

1782. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 3:27:22 PM

Which reminds me: Welcome back, Jex! Glad you're out of the hospital and hope you're having a full recovery.

1783. Ronski - 10/17/2000 3:34:08 PM

Question for the candidates:

An Alabama court recently overruled a lower court decision overturning the state's ban on sex toys.

Do you support or reject the right of a woman to use a vibrator in the privacy of her own home?

Follow-up questions:

To Governor Bush: If this is a matter best left to the states to decide individually, then why do support a federal amendment overturning a woman's right to choose to abort and also support the federal law, DOMA, which effectively prohibits states from defining marriage? Do you think there is any right to privacy inherent in the Constitution? And if so, where do you think it applies and where not, and why?

To Vice President Gore: Why was it again that you support DOMA?

1784. Cygnus X-1 - 10/17/2000 3:49:48 PM

Ronski, Here's what he'll say:

I support a women's right to use a vibrator in the privacy of her own home. I also suppot a duly elected state government's right to ban the sale of said vibrator within its borders.

I support the overturning of Roe v. Wade because it is unconstitutional. I recognize a right to privacy as defined by the 4th amendment. More importantly, however, I believe all rights apply to the unborn. The right to choose should be the right to choose sex or abstinence, not life or death.

I do not support a federal definition of marriage nor oppose having individual states define their own concept of marriage.

1785. bubbaette - 10/17/2000 3:50:35 PM

I'd like to ask the candidates to describe their position on the war on drugs and discuss what they feel are reasonable trade-offs in the area of civil liberties and the cost of incarcerating so many people versus the benefits (if any) the nation is getting.

1786. Dusty - 10/17/2000 3:55:47 PM

bubbaette

I'll second that

1787. Ronski - 10/17/2000 4:08:59 PM

Cygnus,

Good answer, but I'm not sure Bush's would be as good.

1788. Raskolnikov - 10/17/2000 4:16:27 PM

Ronski: note that I agree with you regarding whether DOMA was a good thing, but as I understand it, this wasn't a state's rights issue, since any state's recognition of gay marriage would have to be accepted by every other state based on pre-DOMA federal law.

1789. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 4:23:06 PM

Rask- Ronski,
I'm not so sure about the ability of DOMA to limit the full faith and credit clasue of the constitution. However, there has always been a tension in the area because of state policy exceptions to the enforcement of foreign state laws.

1790. Ronski - 10/17/2000 4:27:52 PM

Rask,

That is the hope of proponents of gay marriage, that one state's enacting of it will make it accepted everywhere. And that is the opponents' fear as well, which is what led to DOMA. But it has never been clear that full faith and credit would apply.

1791. glendajean - 10/17/2000 4:32:54 PM

I believe that DOMA also instructs federal agencies (such as IRS) to define marriage as heterosexual partners, regardless of state law.

1792. Ronski - 10/17/2000 4:32:59 PM

And conversely, jones is correct that DOMA might itself be declared unconstitutional, at least someday in the distant future (if that is what jones is saying), because full faith and credit might be taken to be as strong as gay marriage proponents hope.

Given that Vermont, the only state to pass anything resembling gay marriage, purposefully refused to use the term marriage, I see endless ways for courts in other states refusing to recognize it, though some more liberal states' courts may.

1793. Raskolnikov - 10/17/2000 4:34:26 PM

Article IV:

"Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other
state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof. "

1794. Ronski - 10/17/2000 4:35:31 PM

glenda is correct. The law does indeed define marriage, rather than leave it up to the states, out of the simple fact that marriage provides many federal benefits.

The truth is that federal law subsidizes heterosexual marriages at the expense of gay couples.

1795. glendajean - 10/17/2000 4:44:35 PM

Here's the wording from DOMA:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

1796. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 4:45:19 PM

Ronski- I want to thank you for that, we need all the help we can get out here on the prairie.

1797. Ronski - 10/17/2000 4:49:08 PM

Not according to Garrison Keilor.

1798. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 5:10:47 PM

Ronski-
He's having a better year than I am.

1799. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 9:15:29 PM

Angry Algore just tried to invade George Bush's "space," and the big W gave him the greatest look in the world. Then turned his back and talked to the people.

1800. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 9:32:19 PM

So a NEA teacher got to ask a softball question to Gore. Independent voter, my eye.

1801. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 9:41:12 PM

Gore's doing well. No more Mr. Nice Gore tonight!

1802. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 9:45:48 PM

He's scary.

1803. robertjayb - 10/17/2000 9:46:31 PM

.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Gov. George W. Bush, who promises to make prescription drugs more affordable, signed legislation making it more difficult for Texas doctors to prescribe a cheaper generic version of a popular blood-thinning drug.

The legislation was sought by DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical, the drug giant that manufactures the name-brand drug and tried to persuade states to block the new, generic competition. Just three states, including Texas, adopted laws.

Texas has since reversed course, now agreeing with the Food and Drug Administration that generic warfarin is just as safe and effective as name-brand Coumadin. A spokesman for Bush defended the law, saying the governor was protecting patients.

``When we're talking about drugs that have the potential of life or death, we ought to have an extra safety measure for patients,'' said Dan Bartlett, spokesman for the Republican presidential nominee.

1804. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 9:52:54 PM

The Governor managed to get through a long answer about strategic military planning without using the word "nuclear".

1805. Cellar Door - 10/17/2000 9:55:30 PM

1802. Electric Slide - 10/18/00 2:45:48 AM
He's scary.

Don't blame Gore for you're being such a wuss.

1806. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:04:05 PM

Bush says the inheritance tax should be completely eliminated because assets shouldn't be taxed twice?

In fact, much of the value of an estate is value that has not been previously taxed, e.g. increased value of stocks, real estate and other assets.

A phony rationale.

1807. ycmeehan - 10/17/2000 10:05:03 PM

The only way to describe the conduct of Bush in this debate and the others is that he's been well briefed not to answer a specific question so as not to be on record and he wanders off into a rambling and evasive discourse .

1808. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:08:28 PM

How come the Gore folks ain't celebrating?

A clear win for Gore. But then, we knew this format -- "But what federal money can you give to *my* narrow constituency?" -- *would* favor Gore.

Bush shouldn't have agreed to this format.

1809. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:09:40 PM

I just got in. If it's gone this way throughout, Gore kicked ass.

1810. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:11:33 PM

Gore just hit a long ball with campaign finance reform. Bush has no response to the issue.

Bush sounds like Rodney King prepped him for this debate-"Can't we all just get along"

1811. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:13:25 PM

Cal: It has, and he has.

1812. Fraaankster - 10/17/2000 10:13:42 PM

Boy, that was a loud snivel and sigh by Gore just a second ago when Bush started to respond to the question regarding diversity.

Back to baseball.

"Affirmative Access" ?

1813. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:14:01 PM

Gee Ace, as opposed to the "what tax scam can you give my corporation or trust fund?"

1814. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:15:38 PM

Affirmative Access a.k.a the servants entrance.

1815. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:15:38 PM

Too bad there's no heirs of dying billionaires in the audience to ask Bush a sympathetic question.

Where's Anna Nicole Smith when we need her?

1816. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:16:19 PM

My god, Bush's answer to the affirmative action must have his handlers squirming.

1817. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:16:28 PM

Bush is whining about the rules now.

1818. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:16:47 PM

affirmative action question, that is.

1819. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:18:15 PM

Fill in the blank: Tonight, George W. Bush demonstrated the following reasons to vote for him:_________________________________

1820. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:18:25 PM

Cal:

One of them is loading a tranquilizer dart gun even as we speak.

1821. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:18:56 PM

Doesn't he look much older? Bush, that is.

1822. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:20:05 PM

Bush is wandering across the political landscape like a drunk dancing in a minefield.

1823. Fraaankster - 10/17/2000 10:20:42 PM

I'm sorry, but Bush is hyper-ventilating at the moment.

Give the guy a baseball question -- now !!!

1824. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:20:47 PM

Bush is melting down. I have no idea why.

I think he just gave away the presidency.

1825. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:21:24 PM

Oh, I take my job seriously. I don't care if one of 'em got a life sentence, we're gonna fry 'em all.

1826. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:22:49 PM

I think that Ace is right. Bush was an idiot to agree to this format.

I also think this debate gave people a lot of reasons to vote for Gore on issues alone.

Bush just said we'll live in a world that fits his philosophy: stay drunk til we're 40 and then buy a baseball team?

1827. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:23:36 PM

Bush flubbed the death penalty question- good lord, he didn't anticipate that?

1828. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:25:36 PM

"Bush flubbed the death penalty question- good lord, he didn't anticipate that?"

How did he flub it?

I imagine he "flubbed it" by restating his support for the Death Penalty.

1829. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:27:13 PM

I think he sounded as if he knew he would be asked. It seemed very forced.

On the other hand, that line just now about "a lot of people didn't think I would win--including my mother" was pretty funny.

1830. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:27:52 PM

Bush looks like the Church Lady.

He attacks Gore for not keeping his promises and tacitly admits that the GOP congress is part of the problem because there is too much partisanship in Washington.

Won't anybody claim the GOP congress?

1831. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:29:35 PM

If Bush had a watch, he'd be looking at it.

1832. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:30:11 PM

"4 minutes and 10 seconds left . . . 4 minutes and 9 seconds left . . ."

1833. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:31:35 PM

Bush flubbs by stating the bald faced lie that he's reviewed those cases carefully. The office appointment books released by the Governor office indicate that he's spent an average of less than half an hour on some death penalty cases.

I'm not proud of the death penalty? If you do it so fairly, and you have no doubts, and its stopped crime, why aren't you proud of that?

1834. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:32:34 PM

"He attacks Gore for not keeping his promises and tacitly admits that the GOP congress is part of the problem because there is too much partisanship in Washington."

This simply isn't true. The CLinton/Gore administration has not had its proposed SS/Medicare reforms rejected by an intransigent Republican Congress.

Rather, they have not made a single proposal for reform in eight years. Despite the fact that SS/Medicare reform was a *central* Clinton/Gore promise in 1992.

How can you claim the Congress has thwarted Clinton/Gore on these issues when they have failed to propose *any* reforms whatsoever?

Please explain, Jones.

1835. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:33:27 PM

Jones:

Congress cannot "block" what the President and Vice President do not even bother to propose.

1836. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:33:36 PM

Exactly. He should have said he was proud. Happy? No. Proud? Given that he supports the death penalty and feels that justice is served by speedy execution of sentence, he should feel proud that his administration is serving the people effectively.

But too many people reported he was gleeful last time, so he can't be proud.

1837. OhioSTOPAS - 10/17/2000 10:34:33 PM

A sound drubbing, from beginning to end.

1838. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:35:10 PM

My god, listen to Rather. Is he high?

1839. jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 10:35:27 PM

I can't Ace, ask Bush- he seems to think that a bipartisan approach is what's needed. Why isn't a republican one what's needed? He doesn't believe his party will control congress or doesn't he think that enough of his party will follow his leadership?

1840. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:36:03 PM

Incidentally, I agree with the pundits that the questions were excellent.

1841. Al D - 10/17/2000 10:36:45 PM

I've known people like Gore, "I,I,I, I..." but I don't associate with them.

1842. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:36:48 PM

He sounds like Bob Euker in Major League.

1843. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:37:12 PM

I'm listening to CNN. What is Rather saying?

1844. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:38:03 PM

Hey, Wolf's group of undecideds for the first time said Gore won.

1845. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 10:38:11 PM

CNN undecideds say Gore won....by quite a few....

1846. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:38:52 PM

The first thing out of his mouth was, 'There you have it, proof that the candidates can walk and talk at the same time.' It got stranger from there.

1847. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 10:40:21 PM

For everyone who ragged Gore for sighing, how did you like Bushs snickers? And I don't mean his candy bars.

1848. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:41:50 PM

Heavens. That's sad.

Something I thought after the last debate--it is a mistake to assume that winning the debate means winning the election. But I really think Gore helped himself tonight. The couch potatoes will see no need to get out and vote for the opposition.

1849. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:43:30 PM

What are the stats on that -- as far as people winning the debates and losing the election?

1850. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 10:44:01 PM

"A sound drubbing"

No. In fact, Gore did better because he was who he is. What he did best, however, is not allow himself to be out-themed. Fred Barnes has a good article at RealClearPolitics.com on how the people who watch politics are generally skewed in terms of determining who won a debate because they think in terms of points or witticisms. In terms of points, Gore won. In terms of witticisms, Bush won. But neither matter as much as the sense the audience gets as to the geunineness and soul of the candidate. Hence, in the first debate, Gore outpointed Bush, but lost because he gave a sense that was off-putting. He lost the second debate because he aollowed himself to be poll-driven into a fog. He won this debate because he was who he is, and thus, he exuded a certain confidence. Will people like who he is more than Bush? It remains to be seen, but at least he gave himself the opportunity to compete by letting loose (though his physical approach early on where he moved toward Bush was pretty weird).

1851. Fraaankster - 10/17/2000 10:45:16 PM

Did I miss it ? Were there any questions on Starwars ?

I understood the questions were screened ? True ? Why wouldn't that surprise me ?

Why I could never vote for Gore: Sparky says it best

... back to the game!

1852. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:46:05 PM

Jack,

Stop spinning. Bush was drubbed.

If you really don't think he was drubbed, please convince me, because I'm depressed.

1853. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 10:49:24 PM

Bush did well in the second debate and admitted he didn't like the format of this one; said he liked it least, anyhow. Gore loves this sort of venue and it showed...he was more at ease with people. For someone who wants to return "the people" to government, Bush seemed very ill at ease among them.

1854. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:50:03 PM

Bush had some jokes, all of which were funny, but they don't necessarily contribute to his chances.

1855. Al D - 10/17/2000 10:50:48 PM

You know, there are at least two people on the Mote that can win any debate they get into, and I don't need to mention names, but, perhaps, they are not the ones who would win votes. Gore dominated the debate, that is for sure, but how much more do you think people like him after tonight?

1856. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:51:14 PM

Agreed. Gore's performance was strong. I don't agree with Gore on the issues, but Gore's arguments for his proposals were first-class, whereas Bush barely argued for *his* proposals.

Basically Bush just said, as usual, what his conclusions are. He did not offer a persuasive argument as to why an undecided voter should agree with his conclusions.

This has been his pattern all along, and it's frigging enough to make you pull your hair out.

1857. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:51:31 PM

Someone just said that Gore broke several rules throughout. But I think that's just as well--he did the least well on the second debate, where he played nice.

1858. AceofSpades - 10/17/2000 10:51:44 PM

Agreed with Judith, I meant.

1859. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 10:54:36 PM

Al:

I'm not so sure it matters if Gore is liked; he seemed prepared and people will like that in him. He didn't get flustered and stayed calm. That counts a lot for some people...

Bush is better at joking and sounding like he's bemused by it all but that doesn't necessarily equate to seeming Presidential.

1860. CalGal - 10/17/2000 10:54:46 PM

Another thing--if some undecided voter only watched one of the three debates, he might end up liking Bush more after the first one or the second one. But he probably wouldn't have been horrified by Gore--he just wouldn't have liked him.

But if someone just pulled their head out of the sand to see the third debate only, they would not have liked Bush much.

Although who knows what the "real people" think?

1861. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:54:48 PM

CBS poll: Gore won. (Duh.)

1862. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 10:55:33 PM

Ace

Console yourself by your last post. You are immersed in this stuff. Step back and reject your sense of what a "drubbing" is. Bush lost the first debate on traditional measures. But, in fact, did he? No. Gore was activist after a zombie-like performance in the second debate. It was the right choice.

Bush didin't argue for his proposals because he was coached to theme it in, and theme it out, not to talk a bunch of numbers. Gore talked numbers, but blended them into a coherent theme. Thus, he won. But folks in the know will say, "Hey, Gore clearly won." Big deal. The real test will be "Who do I like more?" and "Who sounds like my kind of man?"

1863. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 10:57:07 PM

Juditha

It is critical that he is liked. Unlikeable people are named Dukakis and Mondale and Carter (he became very unlikeable by 1980) and Dole Hence, his consistent "I will fight for you."

1864. angel-five - 10/17/2000 10:58:47 PM

People don't usually vote for people they don't like. If nothing else, they don't get off the couch.

But, then, don't listen to me. I don't like Gore and I'm going to vote for him.

1865. Al D - 10/17/2000 10:59:07 PM

When Jack speaks, people listen.

1866. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 10:59:59 PM

Well, Jack, clearly we know your answer to that question and I just hope you are pleased with your choice. I've vowed to be less strident with my remarks in here but I like a man who can tell me the reasons to believe he can "make it work" rather than one who just says he can and wants me to take it on faith that he will.

1867. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:00:14 PM

Or, Jack, you could have just pointed to Message # 1848 and said, "what she said".

Still, I think it's important to realize that it's not just that Bush did badly--he did very badly, and I'm not sure he wanted to lose the last of the three. Especially since he's supposed to be the common man sort.

1868. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:00:23 PM

angel

Exactly. No one here should be listened to (save for me, who can transcend the shackles of my knowledge to tap into the vein of the common man).

Gore won and he helped himself. Bush lost, and he did just fine.

1869. angel-five - 10/17/2000 11:00:30 PM

Davis:

It's because he's drunk, and heavily armed. Wouldn't you listen?

1870. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:00:57 PM

Unlikeable people are named Dukakis and Mondale and Carter

And Nixon.

1871. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:02:07 PM

Bush lost, and he did just fine.

Sorry. While I agree it has nothing to do with who wins or loses, but he didn't do just fine.

1872. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:03:14 PM

Cal

Nixon has been overdefined as the hulking, brooding creation of years of caricature. In the sweepstakes between he and Humphrey and he and McGovern, he was a regular charmer.

1873. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:03:38 PM

I've had one of the worst days of my life today and the weirdness just keeps on coming...Ace agreed with me upthread.

1874. angel-five - 10/17/2000 11:04:21 PM

No, he wasn't a charmer. McGovern just couldn't sell his product.

1875. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:05:06 PM

Jack,

I don't think he was a charmer, and I liked the guy.

Besides, by your own declaration of the past year, Gore is going to win. So clearly, you think it's possible for the unlikeable to win.

1876. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:05:26 PM

angel

Don't be too hard on McGovern.

"Free biscuits with an Eagleton, er, a Shriver" is a tough pitch to make.

1877. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:06:18 PM

What she said.

1878. angel-five - 10/17/2000 11:08:57 PM

Right. George McGovern should have tried selling ice to the Inuit first.

1879. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 11:09:53 PM

ABC poll says Bush won 53 to 42.

NBC focus-group hands up was 6 to 4 Bush winning.

1880. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:10:00 PM

I was thinking more of Humphrey, who was considered likeable above all. Granted, he had dreadful baggage--but then, so did Nixon.

But just as Jack earlier declared that only Presidents that are comfortable in their own skin can be effective Presidents--but yet rates Tricky Dick as one of the top five Presidents of the century--I fear that he is exaggerating a tad when discussing the value of his favorite Presidential attributes. Namely, born with a ton of money and no need for ambition.

1881. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:10:09 PM

angel

Was he the one who insisted on going to all 50 states? I thought that was Ford.

1882. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:11:12 PM

CNN poll: of a group of debate viewers favoring Bush 52-44, 48% thought that Gore won.

1883. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:12:22 PM

Cal

I'm flattered at your constant attention to my record, but I only want to say, I'm a uniter, not a divider. I've worked with Democrats and I've worked with Republicans. I've found accountability and responsibility. It's time. They've had their chance. I want to give your money back to you.

1884. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:12:36 PM

Anyone who says Bush won wasn't watching the same debate. Of course, here in Texas our local news has practically crowned him king...

1885. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:13:06 PM

Ace

Cheer up. If the salve of instant polls won't heal you, nothing will.

1886. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:14:11 PM

I just have to add that Bush has indeed worked with Democrats; he just hasn't signed any bills they've passed...(joke)

1887. Al D - 10/17/2000 11:14:13 PM

Interesting. On MSNBC 2 who favored Bush swiched to Gore, but 5 who favored Gore switched to Bush. Out of 36, 30 found Bush more likeable. They did not care for Gore's behavior in the debate.

1888. Electric Slide - 10/17/2000 11:14:34 PM

ABC said that Gore scared people when he tried to get in their face to tell them how much he wanted to do for them..

1889. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:15:04 PM

Juditha

Unshackle yourself from the constraints of your gauge. I think Gore won, but I'm an Inside-the-Beltway mutant. Ohio thinks Gore gave Bush a "drubbing." But he's late stage syphillitic (I hope I'm not speaking out of turn Ohio, but we are here for you).

1890. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:15:05 PM

CBS poll-(how good could it be this fast?) says that 87% of voters who watched this debate were not more or less likely to vote for either one because of the debate. 12% said they were more likely to vote for one or the other because of the debate. 1% must have switched to baseball.

In a close race, with Gore winning this debate, it has to make things even tighter.

1891. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:15:33 PM

I'm come on here to find Ace wailing like a school girl.

What's this world coming to.

I agree with my esteemed colleague Jack Vincennes.

Gore had his best night.

Bush was not bad.

Not big enough for Gore...unless there's enough spin by the media who want to keep the horserace going and like to project an air of impartiality.

Note: I refrained from saying "liberal media."

1892. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:15:38 PM

Al D:

Those same people didn't care for the kinder, gentler Gore in the last debate, either...

1893. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:16:12 PM

jones

The pre-packaged focus groups seem to be saying that Jughead beat Archie. Go figure.

1894. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:17:34 PM

Jack,

Well, if I didn't point out your record, people might think that you were a working lad who understood the needs of the common man who invented the Internet and nailed Ali McGraw.

1895. Al D - 10/17/2000 11:18:00 PM

Judith
Bush claims to have the support of 23, more or less, of Democarat pols. Is that a lie?

1896. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:18:11 PM

Gore has one more chance to win this debate- go back to Washington suddenly, confer with POTUS the Joint Chiefs and the NSC and bomb the hell out of somewhere that Ossama Bin Laudin has been hanging out.

1897. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:18:51 PM

BTW, I can't do anything else it takes to be president other than romance young interns, but I would demolish Al Gore in a debate.

Several other Motiers could, too.

That guy leaves his chin wide open, but he hasn't run into anyone ready to swing at it.

And I can manage better than Joe Torre, too.

(Pops a cold one and oozes deeper into the sofa.)

1898. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:19:00 PM

And I didn't know Gore had served in Vietnam. I'm glad he pointed that out.

1899. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:19:24 PM

Al's not Archie.

He's Reggie.

1900. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:19:57 PM

Jones

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good stuff.

1901. Al D - 10/17/2000 11:20:20 PM

First, they would have to get CNN to let them know where he was.

1902. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:20:21 PM

Al D:

I've no idea how many Democratic Pols Bush has nor do I care...My business is on the street tonight due to the inept management of the buildings owner so I'm somewhat distracted...

1903. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:20:24 PM

Um, Indy?

Bush is Reggie.

1904. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:21:31 PM

Well folks, if you think Bush looked bad on TV, try him on text. Might change your opinion, or maybe not. Text up and running in the butterscotch bar.

1905. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:21:40 PM

Gore is a capable, number-crunching, fact-intensive, smart, stiff, self-aggrandizing board. Bush is a middling, genial, charming, self-effacing fuzzy generalist.

We got that loud and clear tonite.

1906. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:23:30 PM

I dunno. I think Bush fumbled a lot. But it might be that his uh uh uhs just grate on me more than most.

1907. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:24:40 PM

CalGal:

No, they don't....

1908. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:25:14 PM

Cal, I thought Bush was Jughead.

My bad.

This was the kind of debate that someone's basic political persuasion probably colored your response. Gore was definitely in liberal spending mode, Bush in "the government is your enemy" mode. So each side has more to feel good about in their candidate.

I think it'll play well for Republicans, whereas some who've had their heads handed to them on a platter by El Clinton the past two elections might be a little gun shy.

Trust me, folks. It worked for Reagan, it'll work for Bush.

1909. Al D - 10/17/2000 11:25:29 PM

I worked with Gore years ago. Oh, that wasn't his name back then, it was Charlie Brown. He was a big, loud mouthed guy, heard all over the plant, with every word calculated to advance his status with the bosses. They all loved him, but the guys whose backs he walked up on dispised him. Gore is an asshole, and we all know it.

1910. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:25:36 PM

Hey, some chick on TV just made the same point I did about the couch potatoes seeing just this one debate.

1911. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:26:08 PM

Gore did do some screwy things. The interruptions, the erect stand-to, the physical approach to Bush (which he wisely abandoned), some eyerolls and sighs, the insisting on finishing his answer just so he could say laud more of what he had done as a leader, the not answering the question on cynicism and letting Bush rib him.

Bush's "vote once" was also pretty damn funny.

But at no time did Gore look like he was a Jew wandering aimlessly in the desert. Bush got lost on the turnpike several times.

1912. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:30:46 PM

Jack: Gore had several no responses at all.

How about his answer to why he's especially qualified to handle the Middle East?

I though Bush's was terrible until Gore fumbled around and never addressed it specifically.

IMO Bush's biggest flub was the tax cut question by the single woman. He should have knocked that out of the park. Gore lists all these intricacies...Bush should have just said, "If you're making X dollars, you don't pay any federal taxes. If you're making $60,000 (or whatever) you get $5,000 (or whatever)."

Period.

Instead, he apparently misunderstood the question to be, "Mumble around a while about some things we've already talked about."

1913. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:31:06 PM

Bush says that "vote once" all the time. I didn't think that was all that funny, but the one about his mother was amusing.

1914. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:32:21 PM

No, Bush's biggest flub was affirmative action--although I doubt it will matter much. Still, he looked like a fool. After that, his death penalty answer was weak.

Of course, I missed the first hour--I imagine I'll see the rest of it tonight.

1915. Jack Vincennes - 10/17/2000 11:33:11 PM

Okay.

I've shared enough wisdom.

Back to the Bat Cave.

Goodnite.

1916. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/17/2000 11:34:10 PM

1917. MsIvoryTower - 10/17/2000 11:36:11 PM

Well hacks,

I see the partisan sides are up and running strong.

For the record,

I think Bush looked and sounded quite bad. He lived up to his nickname of bumbling.

Gore was very aggressive with his body language, which I liked, but apparently some groups in Ohio didn't. Cokie Roberts (that font of Americana wisdom) said it made them "cringe".

One fast focus group take was that Bush had the night, but CBS's instant poll showed Gore winning the hearts of America by 45% to Bush's 40%; 15% remained unmoved by either. Margin of error was + or - 4pts. So, not statistically significant.

My personal opinion, since we're being so hackish here, was that Gore swept the floor with Bush. Bush showed his true colors, and wasn't even very likeable (but then I'm only one of a small group of voters who didn't vote for him as Governor).

One thing is clear, my prediction of a 10 pt Gore lead is shot to hell and back. This remains a tight race to the end, I think.

1918. Indiana Jones - 10/17/2000 11:38:28 PM

Gotta catch the last of the Yanks.

Cal: A lot of his answers were weak. But he's not getting anything on affirmative action anyway. And the death penalty question was a no-winner (though it's his own fault because of last week).

Telling people specifically how much money you're going to give them is good, especially after Gore's dissertation.

And another point he should have made is that a tax cut is undoable: we raised taxes in '94 to help balance the budget. We can raise them again if his cut is too big.

But we'll never get rid of Gore's bonanza of programs once it's in place. Not even if there's a recession.

The federal government just doesn't work that way.

1919. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:42:20 PM

I am surprised that Bush is running away so hard from the GOP congress. Gore set the trap for him tonight with the references to particular bipartisan sponsored bills that the GOP leadership opposes. He may be ready to run the last few weeks against a do nothing GOP congress, and saddle Bush with them. Bush has put all his eggs in the Bipartisanship Basket, and Gore will hammer him with the charge that Bush can't even rely on his own party for support.

1920. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:43:06 PM

If Gore follows the Truman strategy for the rest of the campaign, Bush is toast.

1921. MsIvoryTower - 10/17/2000 11:43:17 PM

And another point he should have made is that a tax cut is undoable: we raised taxes in '94 to help balance the budget. We can raise them again if his cut is too big.

Uh no, I'd say that's the kiss of death. Telling people that if you screw up it's not so bad because it's reversible doesn't go over well when it comes to asking for the money back.

A well proven truism of politics is never run on a platform of tax increases.

1922. CalGal - 10/17/2000 11:46:37 PM

Jones,

Bush isn't toast. But given that even after the second debate, which he clearly won, his polls didn't do all that spectacularly well, I don't see how his performance here is going to cause people to change their mind.

1923. Cygnus X-1 - 10/17/2000 11:49:31 PM

I'm for universal healthcare, but the government shouldn't run it.

Duhhhhhhhh...... Me too. And while we're at it, universal luxury cars, home theaters, gourmet meals, and having my cake while eating it too.

1924. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:52:50 PM

CalGal- the debate won't make him toast by itself. It is the fact that he as much as admits that he doesn't support GOP policy from the Congress for the last several years. Gore tries to pin him to the GOP congress. Bush parries by indicating his own plan, not in concert with the Congressional GOP, and his emphasis on bipartisanship. Gore then asks, if you have a majority in Congress, Governor, why do you need the other party? Can't you run the Republican party and get Congress to do what you want with your majority? He gets Bush comming and going- either he's stuck with the fireater Republican majority: no patient's bill of rights, no drug plan for seniors, no new spending programs for education, or he admits that the administration has been right to oppose them.

1925. MsIvoryTower - 10/17/2000 11:55:45 PM

Jones

Bush is trying to distance himself from the GOP Congress by referring to those "Washington types", but that assumes the nation has developed a case of amnesia, wiping out the memory of his father's 8 years as Reagan's VP and subsequent 4 year Presidency.

Are we to understand he never schmoozed the Washington scene during that time? Or maybe he was too drunk to remember those days....

1926. Jonesatlaw - 10/17/2000 11:58:54 PM

Ms IT- he has done his best to forget the impeachment, but wants to restore dignity to the WH. Its a tough sell if he gets hammered with the GOP congress.

1927. angel-five - 10/17/2000 11:59:17 PM

Don't be silly. No one goes to Washington for coke. The action's all out Langley way.

1928. MsIvoryTower - 10/18/2000 12:01:04 AM

Angel

Was he a cokehead or a drinker? I thought the latter, but I could be wrong.

1929. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:02:05 AM

I will predict that the polls tomorrow will have Bush 46, Gore 43, Nader 7.

1930. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 12:03:34 AM

AlD- you're a brave soul. I don't know that you are wrong, but its hard to predict a race this tight.

1931. MsIvoryTower - 10/18/2000 12:03:35 AM

Al,

I don't think so, not after tonight. Bush may be able to hang in close proximity to Gore, but I think Gore will regain the lead by a slim (insignificant) margin.

1932. MsIvoryTower - 10/18/2000 12:04:43 AM

However,

I do know what "political wishful thinking" is about...

1933. CalGal - 10/18/2000 12:05:33 AM

Ms,

Bush is an alcoholic, although there seems little real doubt that he probably used coke recreationally as well.

1934. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 12:07:02 AM

Watching CSPAN after the debate I thought that more of the "undecided voters" in the inner circle were milling about Gore and his entourage than Bush. That could indicate some attraction to Gore because of the debate, or that the selection was not as evenhanded as presented. Bush's body language and actions seemed much better in his one on one exchanges with the people surrounding him. This was true even when one of the exchanges involved a woman who looked very skeptical of whatever Bush was saying to her.

1935. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 12:07:49 AM

1934- I meant that Bush looked much better than he had in the debate.

1936. Greystoke - 10/18/2000 12:08:09 AM

My Dad is going to vote for Buchanan because of his views on immigration. He lives in Florida in the Winter.

I tried to tell him that he can vote for Gore and still hate Cubans, but he is unconvinced.

1937. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:11:39 AM

Bush is an alcoholic, although there seems little real doubt that he probably used coke recreationally as well.
My guess is that you make this statement as an alcoholic yourself. It has been my experience that recovered or recovering alcoholics are often quite judgemental about people who drink. Usually, they mostly make those judgements about people they know quite well. So I also assume you know W well. If not, perhaps you should not make broad assed statements.

1938. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:12:26 AM

The last post, of course, was to the great Mote debater, CalGal.

1939. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 12:13:43 AM

"ABC poll says Bush won 53 to 42. "

No. These were the voting preferences of the voters after the debate. Jennings specifically said that it looked like Republicans were more likely to have seen the debate. The "who won" question showed a 43 to 43 tie. Which, given the skewed preferences of the sample, is telling in itself.

1940. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:19:22 AM

You are aware, I imagine, that Jennings said that when the Republicans won the House in '94 that the voters acted like angry 2 year olds? Anything that jerk says is crap.

1941. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 12:20:24 AM

My take: I was simultaneously elated that we were seeing pit bull Gore again, and cringing that this would play very badly in a town-hall setting.

I think Jack is right about the benefits of Gore "being himself", and I think he just needs to realize that he should live with the fact that he isn't all that likable of a guy.

I'll be surprised if Gore pulls ahead as a direct result, but at least he now has the ball back.

1942. CalGal - 10/18/2000 12:21:22 AM

Al,

You seem to think that was a coherent post? Possibly you've turned to the wine yourself a bit early.

In any event, complex thought seems to be an alien concept to you, so I won't waste time answering other than to knot your brain with this single comment: I didn't judge Bush in the slightest in that post.

There. When you've figured that out, come on back and I'll grade you.

1943. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 12:25:38 AM

"You are aware, I imagine, that Jennings said that when the Republicans won the House in '94 that the voters acted like angry 2 year olds? Anything that jerk says is crap."

But he is right in this case. The skewed voter preferences in ABC's polls were way out of line from even their own most recent poll. Of course if your sample skews Republican they will also be more likely to think Bush won. The guy who agrees with you is usually more convincing as he has less work to do.

1944. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:26:29 AM

Jack, apparently, was right.

Most everyone is saying that Bush either won or tied, and that the net effect is a boon for Bush. This includes, for example, Peggy Noonan & Chris Matthews, who flat out called Bush's first debate "horrible."

Well, I give up. I have no understanding of the American electorate. I thought Bush was trounced; apparently, at worst, he was merely outpointed, and at best won outright.

1945. angel-five - 10/18/2000 12:28:54 AM

I think it's pretty obvious that Bush lost the debate. We'll see in three days, though, when the sound bites have made the rounds.

1946. angel-five - 10/18/2000 12:28:55 AM

I think it's pretty obvious that Bush lost the debate. We'll see in three days, though, when the sound bites have made the rounds.

1947. CalGal - 10/18/2000 12:32:26 AM

Most everyone is saying that Bush either won or tied,

????

Not on CNN.

1948. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:36:12 AM

Angel,

Gore apparently lost. You may not believe it, and I may not believe it, but I have watched all the instant reaction and polling, and it was either a tie or a Bush win.

Keep in mind, dude, that you think Gore is piling up points with the American people when he gives full throated support to Affirmative Action. You cheer him, you say "You go, girl."

60% of the public does not. 60% of the public prefers Bush's tepid, tenative pseudo-support of AA, because that's precisely their view, too.

Go down the list: You think gun control is oh-so-important. You cry "Hurray!" when Gore talks up gun registration.

But you fail to consider that 40% of American homes are gun-owning homes, including most of the population of the swing states of Michingan, Ohio, & Pennsylvania, which is why Gore keeps reasserting that he will CERTAINLY NOT!!! put any restrictions on "hunters and sportsmen."

Once again, you're a very, very left-leaning liberal, and you simply have no concept of what "Middle America" thinks.

Living in New York City, I am myself over-liberalized, and I barely understand Middle America, either. So much so that I've been flabbergasted watching undecided voters say how Bush made the sale with them tonight.

But I am a lot closer to the center than you'll ever be, and half of what you score as Gore knock-downs are in fact points for Bush.

1949. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:37:37 AM

Cal,

On MSNBC, their 36 undecided voters gave the debate to Bush. Five Gore voters switched to Bush (Two bush leaners switched to Gore).

Thirty of thirty-six found Bush more likeable.

Two thirds said that Bush's performance made them more likely to vote for Bush, while only one third said the same about Gore's performance.

1950. CalGal - 10/18/2000 12:39:32 AM

Ace,

So exactly the opposite can be said of CNN, where several voters switched to Gore. Two different snap polls that skewed Republican still showed that Gore won.

None of this means anything, and it doesn't mean that Bush will lose.

Also, if you were expecting the public to throw up their hands in disgust and loathe Bush, then I agree that your expectations were unrealistic.

1951. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:42:21 AM

In addition, Christ Matthews and Brian Williams just pointed out how that Bush won the war of the sound-bites.

The fifteen-second snippets which will be replayed throughout the week seem to favor Bush.

PLUS, the wildcard: Gore made several very large exaggerations and/or misstatements. He asserted drug companies spend more on advertising than on R&D. THis is not only untrue; it's not even close. Drug companies spend $5.8 billion for advertising & marketing (and much of that includes the "cost" of free samples for doctors), and over $21 billion for research.

Gore claimed that he does not plan on spending "three times what Clinton proposed to spend in 1992." According to Lisa Myers, Gore is incorrect, and Bush is quite correct about that factoid.

Gore claims, AGAIN, that Bush's plan will keep kids in bad schools for three years, while he will close down bad schools "immediately." In fact, Gore's plan calls for giving schools adjudged as "failing" TWO YEARS to right themselves before a shut-down will occur.

Finally, what Lawrence O'Donnell calls the "quote of the debate": Al Gore claims, contrary to the facts and contrary to the impression of the American people, that "*most* public schools are *excellent*." Emphasis mine.

1952. angel-five - 10/18/2000 12:45:19 AM

Ace:

Back to earth, dawg. Why do you think that I think much of anything about Gore's stances on gun control or Affirmative Action?

We won't get into the 'Angel's a radical liberal/no Angel's not' pissing match tonight, 'cos I doubt I'm going to convince you. You latch onto those parts of my political beliefs that are liberal and ignore the ones that aren't. FWIW I think that Bush's simple statements about trigger locks are worth four or five of Gore's national identity cards. As far as Affirmative Action goes, man, tell me something. Have the majority of my posts in this forum and the one before it relating to AA been critical, or not? I HAVE made a lot of statements about AA, and you seem to think you know what I think about it, so you should be able to tell me that.

1953. CalGal - 10/18/2000 12:46:25 AM

Well, it's not contrary to the facts, actually. Also, many parents who think "public education" is in terrible shape will quite often say good things about the school they send their kids to. So he might skate through that.

1954. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:50:15 AM

"Why do you think that I think much of anything about Gore's stances on gun control or Affirmative Action?"

Genius,

Those were what we call "examples." All down the line, you agree with big-government solutions and despise the thought of (shudder) tax cuts for working Americans.

The American people are more responsible to tax cuts. Much more than you are even capable of understanding.

Your leftist agenda causes you to nod righteously at much of what Gore says, whereas "Middle America" doesn't quite like the sound of an administration spending three times what Clinton proposed in 1992.

Which is a fact. How do I know this? Because Gore's camp has begun trying to rebut that fact, and has been trying to cast him as a devotee of small government.

I assume they do so for a reason.

Cal,

Most American schools are not "excellent." Most American schools are, at best, adequate.

1955. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:50:32 AM

CalGal
Perhaps you should get a T.V. that has more than CNN, and then your view of the world might have more depth. You don't think making an assertion that W is an alhoholic is a judgemental statement? then if it is a statement of fact, and not of opinion, please give me chapter and verse of the facts. You are constantly asserting bullshit as gospel, so I should ignore you.

1956. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:52:38 AM

CalGal
Please do not take this personally, but the beginning of wisdom is the realization that you don't know everything. You, my dear, have a long way to go.

1957. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:53:42 AM

Incidentally, Cal, if Americans think that most public schools are "excellent," it seems to me they won't much like Gore's notion of spending billions and billions more taxpayer dollars on them.

Gore's premise is that America's schools are *NOT* excellent. Not most of them, not even a nice-sized fraction of them. He proceeds, correctly, from the premise that most American schools are inadequate and in need of change and improvement to the tune of a hundred billion dollars or so.

Which makes it curious as to why he asserts, when rhetorically convenient, that most American schools are "excellent."

1958. labwabbit - 10/18/2000 12:53:48 AM

...Socrates.

1959. angel-five - 10/18/2000 12:54:08 AM

Really. Ace is the one who claims to be afraid of shooting large pistols, I'm the one who learned how to hunt when I was old enough to hold a shotgun steady. But, because I'm a liberal zombie, I think that Gore's stance on gun control is not only all good but it's going to play well in Peoria?

You sound like a man that's trying to convince himself that Bush really did okay and using a caricature of me as a prop.

1960. Al D - 10/18/2000 12:57:55 AM

Raskolnikov
Please explain how anything you said was in response to my post. When a so called reporter makes a statement that is so obviously a biased opinion, he looses credibility as a reporter. What he says from then on must be understood as the partisan hack that he is.

1961. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:58:54 AM

Oh, Angel. You're sooooo cool because you shoot guns.

"You sound like a man that's trying to convince himself that Bush really did okay and using a caricature of me as a prop."

You *are* a caricature, Angel. You are DaveM, minus the structural consistency, and plus a few fifty cent post-graduate-lite vocabulary builders.

As for "trying to convince myself that Bush really did okay": I must admit that my initial take was much like yours. But I, unlike you, apparently, am capable of admitting that perhaps I am sometimes wrong, and perhaps my analyses are occasionally faulty.

And I am telling you that if the post-debate polls & discussions are any indication (and they HAVE been, for both previous debates; they've been PRECISELY predictive of the next-weeks' chatter and consensus opinion), then the next weeks' headlines are:

IT'S A DRAW!!!

GORE CONTINUES STRUGGLING TO CONNECT WITH PUBLIC

etc.

1962. angel-five - 10/18/2000 12:59:13 AM

Those were what we call "examples." All down the line,
you agree with big-government solutions and despise the
thought of (shudder) tax cuts for working Americans.

More proof that Ace is just talking to cardboard cutouts. I'm in favor of some forms of governmental intervention, so therefore, natch, I'm just all about big government. C'mon, Ace, why don't you just cut to the chase and go off on one of your patented 'You're a filthy fucking liberal, you're a liberal, you fucking liberal, you just want to spend all our money, you fucking liberal cunt' tirades. It's where you're headed anyway.

1963. Al D - 10/18/2000 1:01:02 AM

Govenror Cuomo was asked if Gore had a soul and he said he wasn't sure.

1964. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:01:36 AM

The biggest boost Gore will receive from this debate is he's got his groove back. After the first two, he was like a Pinocchio with his strings cut. Now he's back to "I'll fight for you, Al," which was the persona that had been making strides. And as we've heard innumerable times, the national dynamics (economy, peace) are such that they favor Gore. Having New York and California pretty much sewn up is a huge advantage.

I still think, however, that Bush is going to win. He has the lead now and has more money to spend from here on out.

When I was younger and more lefty, I would have looked at this race in horror and thought, "There's no way this guy (Bush) can win. Just look at him. Just listen to him." I wouldn't have been able to fathom that the American public would choose Bush over hard-working Al your pal.

But now I'm older and I hope can see things more analytically. I have no great affection for Bush, so my judgment shouldn't be colored on that score.

And I think Bush is going to pull it out.

1965. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:03:14 AM

shrug Guns aren't cool, or uncool. People aren't more or less manly, lucky for you, Ace, because they do or don't shoot guns. I'm just making the obvious point -- that you bring the concept of 'tokenism' to new heights when you go on about these things and start talking about what your liberal opponents think.

1966. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:10:28 AM

Angel:

I will say one thing: Most pundits adjudged Gore's convention speech an absolute dud, and uninspired recitation of the same laundry-list of liberal promises that Clinton has made in three State of the Union addresses previously.

And yet that speech played very well with the American people, apparently (though Gore's big advertising campaign at the same time might have had a bigger role in Gore's rise from the dead).

So the pundits *can* be wrong. But from what I have heard so far, the debate has been adjudged a tie or slight Gore win or slight Bush win. Everyone seems to agree that Bush helped himself, and that Gore possibly *hurt* himself again.

We will see. I don't trust my own gut on these things -- I am inevitably wrong -- so I look for the Media Party Line. And the Media Party Line says something quite different from what you say.

1967. CalGal - 10/18/2000 1:11:09 AM

Davis,

You don't think making an assertion that W is an alhoholic is a judgemental statement?

No. It is not a judgmental statement. It doesn't matter whether it is an opinion or an assertion of fact. It may be an incorrect assertion--although I would be surprised. But regardless, it is not judgmental.

Glad to have cleared that up. Well, not glad. But at least your post was reasonably coherent.

Although your notion that someone with CNN doesn't also have access to all the other channels is pretty absurd.

BTW, it is woefully inappropriate for an ass such as yourself to be lecturing on the attainment of either knowledge or wisdom.

Ace,

I'm not a public school hack. But they do fine, given the task they are handed.

1968. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:12:05 AM

Indy:

Indeed, Bush & the RNC have a *shitload* of money. Gore and the DNC spent like drunken sailors in August to bring Gore just ahead of Bush, but, going into the all-crucial home stretch, Bush & the RNC can outspend Gore & the DNC by something like 2.5 or 3 to one, right?

1969. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:15:19 AM

"But they do fine,"

"Doing fine" is not quite the same as "excellence."

"given the task they are handed."

Teaching children? Good god, you make it sound as if we're asking public schools to cure cancer. They merely have to teach kids.

This is funny. Thirty years ago no one was complaining about how bad public schools were, nor were teachers catterwauling about what a soul-crushing duty they'd been charged with.

Now, apologists and teachers bemoan their fate. Teach children! Egads! It's so hard!

1970. vonKreedon - 10/18/2000 1:16:48 AM

I thought that the debate was closer than most of you all, though I did think that Gore achieved a substantial victory. But then the focus groups, except for CNN, give the debate to Bush and possibly a decisive victory!?! I'd be shocked except that this pattern is all too familiar; I've more in common, intellectually, with Ace than with our mass culture.

1971. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:18:42 AM

Ace: I've been reading that Gore will be pulling his ads in Ohio and one of the other swing states...forget which.

He's going for it all in Florida.

Unless this debate moves the polls, in which case he may not think he needs to make such a gamble.

If the polls move in the next few days, I don't think it will be in response to the debate because I just don't see it one-sided enough (or watched enough) to do that. Even I, a total political junky, was much tempted to watch the AL playoffs instead.

Two pieces of info for what they're worth: TT lefties seem more boisterous about the debate than Free Republic righties; the Iowa Election Market shifted dramatically in Gore's favor immediately after the debate.

I don't think much of the latter because it's a low-volume market and my suspicion is mostly eggheads play it. It reacted similarly after debate #1.

1972. vonKreedon - 10/18/2000 1:19:14 AM

Ace - The weird polling fact is that when parents are asked about the state of public schools they tend to respond that they suck, but when asked about the specific public school attended by their child(ren) they tend to be quite positive. I know this is true of my wife and I, we are disturbed by what we see as the general state of public education and thrilled about the school that our son has been attending (started in K, now in 2nd grade).

1973. vonKreedon - 10/18/2000 1:21:16 AM

TT lefties tend to be off their nut and not a good judge of reality. On the other hand I tend to think that the mass public response to debates tends to be off their nut, so I may be wrong about the response from TT and FreeRep.

1974. CalGal - 10/18/2000 1:22:43 AM

Ace,

The "job" public schools are handed is teaching a diverse population where they aren't allowed to cull out the dummies. That's not true of the European and Asian schools we're being compared to.

Compare like to like I hear we do quite well.

1975. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:23:32 AM

Angel,

God, I can hear your twittering voice right through your pansified postings.

Let me explain, one more time:

You *agree* with Gore more than Bush. This cannot help but color your opinion as to who "won."

This is not as big an insult as you consistently try to portray it. Please stop whining.

I really wish the hard-leaning lefties would stop claiming they're NOT lefties.

No debate can proceed when the whining lefties keep screeching, "But I don't agree with *every* left-liberal position! Not *every* one! Stop calling me a liiiiiiiiiiberal! I'm merely a centrist progressive who believes in Wicca, free love, and reparations for blacks!

"But I've shot a gun! Seriously!

"Stop piiiiiiiiigeon-holing meeeeeeeee!"

For Christ's sakes, grow up. I do not know every jot and tittle of your political agenda, nor do I care to. But your are, on the whole, a liberal (and a fairly left one at that, the occasional "maverick stance" nonwithstanding).

Do conservatives bitch and moan constantly that "Weeeeeeee're not reeeeeeeeealy conservatives! You can't stereeeeeeeotype us like that! Waaaaaaaah!"?

Do we?

No. We know who we are. We know that we do not agree with every aspect of "The Conservative Agenda," whatever the fuck that is, but we are grown-up enough to admit that yes, in life, people make broad assessments of people, and we fit inside the broad parameters of "conservative."

We do not cry like puling, puking babies whenever someone "stereotypes" us. At most, we make a correction ("Actually, I'm pro-choice, but the main point is....")

Waaaaaah.

Don't call me a conseeeeeeeeervative. I'm really a "maverick, independent" thinker, and I have lots and lots of points of disagreeeeeeeeement with Republicans. Waaaaah.

1976. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:23:52 AM

Well, that's why a lot of people talk about our nation's supposed educational woes as 'the manufactured crisis'. We're an anti-intellectual society and education's a perennially easy target for politicians and people looking for a scapegoat for wayward American youth. We focus in on negative examples that make the news and ignore most of the rest. Our experience with the schools in our own district tend to be more favorable as a result than our perception of American education as a whole -- which isn't to say that it's in terrific shape, just that the 'crisis' in a lot of ways isn't real.

1977. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:24:11 AM

Indy:

Ohio and Louisiana.

1978. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:27:39 AM

And so the rant begins.

Ace, ask yourself if this isn't just a little too energy inefficient a response, in response to being corrected about two of my views. You say you don't know my views, which is right, and you don't care to, which is fine. So, if you don't know them, don't proceed to run off at the mouth about what they are and then pitch a bitch fit when you turn out to be wrong.

1979. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:31:39 AM

If you don't grasp the difference between 1) calling someone a liberal even though they do have some moderate or even conservative ideas (and I do, though I'm mostly liberal and in some instances strongly so), and 2)saying someone's a liberal and therefore they believe this and think that and are doing the other because, well, because they're just a fucking liberal, after all, it stands to reason -- then American education certainly failed you.

1980. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:31:46 AM

vK:

I thought Gore won due to my not-so-secret belief that 90% of Americans are pot-smoking, heroin-shooting, Welfare-sucking, Nanny-state-loving, military-hating drag queens who want to marry their "special friend" Christopher. This is why my initial take was so similar to Angel's -- he believes the same thing.

It takes a dose of reality from real pundits to remind me that Reagan and Bush won three presidential races straight for a *reason.*

1981. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:36:11 AM

In case you didn't understand it, 1) is fine as far as I'm concerned, and 2) is what you do.

1982. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:36:37 AM

Angel,

No, the rant ends. I made a rather simple point ("Your belief that Gore won is obviously colored by the fact that you agree with him, and strongly disagree with Bush, on 90% of the issues") and you ignored that non-controversial point to whine about being "stereeeeeeeotyped."

Once again, Angel, I don't know you very well, and I don't want to. I do not have a scorecard containing your various policy positions. Nor do I want one.

Please get over the "I'm the most important person in the world and you will do yourself a favor by learning every single nuance of the unique, special ME" complex.

That complex is for children younger than 10 years old.

You will just have make do with the reality that you're really *not* all that special, and certainly not unique. You will just have to learn that you fit inside the broad parameters of "left-liberal," and you will have to learn not to go into a hissy-fit when someone misstates your "unique, special opinion" on one position while making a larger point.

Now scoot back over to the International thread and lecture us all how the Soviet Union would have fallen sooner if the US had just been "nicer" to the reds.

1983. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:40:38 AM

CNN poll:

Who agreed with you more on issues you care about:

Bush 51%

Gore 45%

Who was more likeable?

Bush 60%

Gore (Don't know, but obviously 40% or less)

1984. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:42:19 AM

See, Angel, that's what I mean.

You tend to believe that Gore is scoring big points by elucidating a left-liberal agenda. As I've said upthread, I often share this belief, and I shared it earlier tonight.

But the country is much more responsive to a conservative agenda than either you, or I, tend to give it credit for.

1985. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:43:22 AM

Two points. Moreover, the only two you mentioned. It's hardly a hissy fit to point it out in a short amiable post -- though it is to go off on a long hysterical tear because you've been corrected.

Like I've said before, I don't give much of a fuck what your personal idea of Angel-Five the poster happens to be like. If you post something that's wrong, though, I'll correct it, like I did.

As far as thinking Gore won the debate because I like Gore more -- then how's that explain you?

1986. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:44:49 AM

Message # 1984

There's probably something to that, framed that way.

1987. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:48:38 AM

a5:

Re your last post:

That's precisely what I said from the get-go, but you chose to go on an off-topic hissy-fit over steeeeeeeeeeeeereotyyyyyyyyping you.

1988. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:49:06 AM

"As far as thinking Gore won the debate because I like Gore more -- then how's that explain you?"

See my post to vK, three or four posts up.

1989. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:50:54 AM

This post:

I thought Gore won due to my not-so-secret belief that 90% of Americans are pot-smoking, heroin-shooting, Welfare-sucking, Nanny-state-loving, military-hating drag queens who want to marry their "special friend" Christopher. This is why my initial take was so similar to Angel's -- he believes the same thing.

1990. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:55:15 AM

Ace:

The post was Message # 1952. It was short, amiable, and to the point. All you had to do in response was say 'Well, then, let me rephrase -- you agree in general with what Gore's saying, if not those specifics' and that would have been all she wrote.

1991. angel-five - 10/18/2000 1:58:02 AM

See, Ace, it's posts like that which are your saving grace. I mean, you may be intellectually lazy and prone to paint your opponents in whatever shades are handiest for you in order to simplify them (and fuckit if it happens to be totally wrong) -- but you do have a sense of humor. I'd like to think it's a saving enough grace that when the revolution comes we'll be able to rehabilitate you.

1992. Al D - 10/18/2000 1:58:46 AM

BTW, it is woefully inappropriate for an ass such as yourself to be
lecturing on the attainment of either knowledge or wisdom.
Where was the lecture? Is that the best you can do, to call names? Well, you win,CalGal, my sweet, I am an ass, so you need not pay any attention to anything I say. Please keep kissing Ace's ass, though.

1993. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:01:23 AM

"All you had to do in response was say 'Well, then, let me rephrase --you agree in general with what Gore's saying, if not those specifics' and that would have been all she wrote."

Actually, I did, when I wrote:

"Those were what we call "examples." All down the line,
you agree with big-government solutions and despise the
thought of (shudder) tax cuts for working Americans."

1994. angel-five - 10/18/2000 2:05:28 AM

I don't know how fruitful it'll be to point this out to you, but those aren't close to being the same thing.

Nevermind, though, if in saying that you're claiming you just meant that I agree with Gore in general, there's nothing to argue but semantics.

Having a glass of shiraz, and signing off.

1995. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:07:18 AM

What's funny is that you AGAIN criticized me on that reformulation, despite the fact that you admittedly:

-- favor big-government/wealth-redistribution solutions, as I said AND

-- despise tax cuts, as I said.

Funny. According to you, you're a liberal who:

Is against Affirmative Action.

Is against gun control

Is against big-government wealth-redistribution

Is FOR tax cuts.

Amazing. If you really believe those positions, I concede you're not a liberal at all, but rather a conservative.

of course, you *DON'T* believe in any of those positions. You believe in big-government, but you just don't like it when someone says you believe in big-government.

or rather, you would say, "Well, I believe in some (read: most) big government programs, but I don't like some others (read: such as the military, or the DEA)."

It's this fucking nonsense that sets me batty. I don't care if you disagree with three or four minor government programs. On the whole, you support MOST big-government solutions, whereas I oppose MOST big-government solutions.

Yes, maybe you don't like this one or that one. And YES, maybe *I* favor this big-government program or that one.

But we are talking in broad strokes here, to mix metaphors. As I have said before -- I don't care about every jot and tittle of your stupid political agenda. And I absolutely reject the moronic, solipsistic notion that I must memorize every jot and tittle, every special "nuance" of your positions, before I can safely categorize you as "left-liberal."

1996. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:12:50 AM

Debate Watchers Rate Candidates (All Snap Poll Results)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al Gore and George W. Bush were rated about even in their third and final debate, according to debate watchers in network snap polls.

When asked who won, 41 percent said Democrat Gore and 41 percent said Republican Bush in an ABC News poll. In a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, 46 percent said Gore did a better job, while 44 percent said Bush. A CBS News poll gave Gore a slight edge at 45-40, just outside the error margin.

Debate watchers leaned toward Bush by about 10 points before the debate and didn't change their support, according to polls by ABC News and CNN-USA Today-Gallup. The Bush-leaning debate watchers would suggest more Republicans watched the debate. The error margin for the polls was 4 percentage points.

1997. mgleason - 10/18/2000 2:13:50 AM

It is to laugh. All this talk of 'left-liberal agendas' puts me in mind of a piece by that well-known liberal, Michael Barone, on Richard Nixon.

On domestic policy he also talked right and moved left. As historian Joan Hoff writes in Nixon Reconsidered, he "exceeded the accomplishments of the New Deal and the Great Society in the area of civil rights, social-welfare spending, domestic and international economic restructuring, urban parks, government reorganization, land-use initiatives, revenue sharing, draft reform, pension reform, and spending for the arts and humanities." He embraced many of the goals of the new environmental movement and institutionalized it by creating the Environmental Protection Agency. He transformed American Indian policy from one seeking assimilation to one seeking tribal preservation. Nixon created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and supported the National Endowment for the Arts. He instituted racial quotas and preferences through his Labor Department's "Philadelphia Plan"–favorite targets of conservative Republicans ever since. In 1970 Nixon pushed hard for Moynihan's Family Assistance Plan, which would have provided a guaranteed annual income for welfare recipients; it was defeated, amazingly enough, by liberals who argued that it was not generous enough.

If a real 'left-liberal agenda' reared its head in this campaign, we'd all shit the bed.

1998. angel-five - 10/18/2000 2:17:38 AM

Before I nod off, I'll direct your attention to Message # 1979 and Message # 1981. If you genuinely think this is all about being called a liberal, you haven't been reading. There's a difference between calling me a liberal -- which as I said is just fine -- and saying that because I'm a liberal I believe in x, y, and z. Or that because I believe that government intervention can be a helpful thing I'm all about big government. Like I've said before, you can categorize me however, map me out however, but when you start telling other people that your map is the territory itself -- in specifics, mind you -- then I'll correct you.

Now, I'm really off.

1999. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:17:47 AM

mgleason:

Well, "left-liberal" is a relative term. There are certain leftists who claim that the media has a "conservative bias" -- meaning the media is more conservative than they are.

But that's just silly. There are some leftists who outright Communists.

"Left-Liberal," as I use the term, is defined in relation to the country's political center, not to Karl Marx.

Richard Nixon was a "conservative" back in 1968 and 1972 --but today he is deemed, as Pat Moynihan called him, "the last of the Great Liberal Presidents." And he *was* a liberal -- very liberal.

He was just less liberal than his opponents, who were frightening.

2000. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:22:02 AM

"There's a difference between calling me a liberal -- which as I said is just fine -- and saying that because I'm a liberal I believe in x, y, and z."

Oh, for god's sakes. I didn't say you believed in x, y, and z. I used the examples of AA and gun control to illustrate where your POV diverges from Middle America's and hence colors your belief as to who "won."

Are you claiming you are right-of-center on these issues? Puh-fucking-leeze.

A liberal like you think he's being a "maverick" when he makes the modest admission that maybe, just maybe, quotas and plus-factors ARE unfair and perhaps not all that helpful, but yet decides we still must have quotas and plus-factors because, well, we've got to.

In other words: You want "credit" for having a fairly trivial conservative epiphany even though you quickly dismiss it.

"Or that because I believe that government intervention can be a helpful thing I'm all about big government."

Jesus Christ, again. "Geeze, I don't believe in ALLLLL government intervention. Just most government intervention--- you know, GOOD government intervention. I'm certainly not in favor of EVIL, BAD government intervention."

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

2001. concerned - 10/18/2000 2:23:00 AM

Re. 1967 -

The assertion that George W. Bush was an alcoholic at any time in his life is, to put it mildly, unproven, and any such political hackery deserves the same regard as the claim that this Harvard MBA holder is a moron.

2002. mgleason - 10/18/2000 2:26:39 AM

AceofSpades,

Watergate aside, Nixon's second term would have been interesting indeed, had not George Wallace occasioned the fateful shift to the right. Nixon even had a plan for socialized medicine.

2003. vonKreedon - 10/18/2000 2:29:36 AM

Well, regarding the debate performances, I still don't understand why Gore has not run hard against the Repub Congress. Damn it when is he going to hold them responsible for the lack of progress (yeah yeah, on some specific issues the Clinton WH may not have even submitted a bill; meaningless political details)? And when will he make use of the public's polled and demonstrated taste for splitting the Congress and the Executive between the parties? Given that the Dems will not be able to take the Senate, Gore needs to ask the public if they really want four years of unfettered Republicanism.

And why doesn't Gore just hammer Bush with the fiscal responsibility issue? Gore is going to budget a significant portion of the supposed budget surpluses for paying down the debt. Bush is going to cut taxes for...well you know the numbers. If our economy should turn sour only the Gore budget is in a position to respond without ballooning the debt. It's a hammer Al, use it.

2004. Al D - 10/18/2000 2:32:09 AM

There are Liberals in the tradition of Jefferson, and there are the commie loving Liberals of the '30's-'80's. They are still extant, except now they call themselves the Green Party. If all the Hollywood, commie loving Liberals voted there heart, Nader would get 15% in Calif.

2005. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:36:48 AM

mgleason:

Well, it is beyond dispute that Nixon was borderline Socialist. It must be remembered, as you pointed out, that he *seriously considered* Pat Moynihan's Guranteed Minimum Income-- "The Dole," as they call it in England.

And I'm not sure the Guaranteed Minimum Income only applied to Women with Dependent Children. I think it would have applied to anyone.

It's very odd, and very funny, when hardcore liberal Nixon-haters forget this. Sure, he bombed Vietcong bases in Laos and Cambodia ("illegally"-- sure), sure, he covered up some White House involvement in Watergate.

Sure to all that.

But liberals seem to forget that, in terms of policies, he was pretty much offering them 85% of what they wanted.

In this way, he's much like Clinton. We Republicans *hate* Clinton (and we do hate him; don't let us tell you different) due to his lawbreaking and horrid military adventurism. But then, Clinton is about as sweet a Democrat as we ever could have hoped to have.

2006. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:40:13 AM

"Damn it when is he going to hold them responsible for the lack of progress (yeah yeah, on some specific issues the Clinton WH may not have even submitted a bill; meaningless political details)?"

Ha, ha. You are claiming it is a mere "meaningless detail" that Clinton and Gore failed to even propose Social Security or Medicare reform?

How can you claim the Republicans "blocked" them from reforming these programs -- as they promised, again and again, in 1992 -- if they never had the guts to PROPOSE such reform in the first place?

And when will he make use of the public's polled and demonstrated taste for splitting the Congress and the Executive between the parties? Given that the Dems will not be able to take the Senate, Gore needs to ask the public if they really want four years of unfettered Republicanism.

And why doesn't Gore just hammer Bush with the fiscal responsibility issue? Gore is going to budget a significant portion of the supposed budget surpluses for paying down the debt. Bush is going to cut taxes for...well you know the numbers. If our economy should turn sour only the Gore budget is in a position to respond without ballooning the debt. It's a hammer Al, use it.

2007. vonKreedon - 10/18/2000 2:47:55 AM

Ace - It's meaningless because there are programs, such as health care, that the admin did propose and have blocked by the Repub Congress. It's meaningless because it the charge of obstructionist Congress resonates well with the voters, meaning that it can be packaged as blithe sound bites and plays on the demonstrated repulsion over the impeachment(also meaning that if I'm wrong about the resonance thing then all bets are off). Meaningless because in political image terms the fact of some missing bills is meaningless.

2008. Al D - 10/18/2000 2:51:10 AM

Great line by one of the talking heads, "Gore talked about the Dingal bill, which most thought was a Christmas song."

2009. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:52:39 AM

"It's meaningless because there are programs, such as health care, that the admin did propose and have blocked by the Repub Congress."

1) This was neither SS nor Medicare reform, two central promises of Clinton/Gore in 1992.

2) This bill was killed by Democrats-- Democrats controlled both houses of Congress when this bill was proposed, in case you've forgotten. Republicans gained Congress BECAUSE of Hillary-Care; Hillary-Care did not die DUE to a Republican-controlled Congress.

"It's meaningless because it the charge of obstructionist Congress resonates well with the voters,"

Not if Bush is sitting there waiting for you to claim that the Republicans "blocked" non-existant SS/Medicare reform proposals.

meaning that it can be packaged as blithe sound bites and plays on the demonstrated repulsion over the impeachment(also meaning that if I'm wrong about the resonance thing then all bets are off).

More than 60% of Americans now say that Clinton *should* have been impeached. A bare majority (51% or so) say he should have been convicted.

"Meaningless because in political image terms the fact of some missing bills is meaningless."

Ludicrous. You can't claim someone obstructed your reforms when you never proposed them. The American people are dumb, and the liberal media pliant, but the people are not *that* dumb nor the liberal media *that* pliant.

2010. Al D - 10/18/2000 2:53:24 AM

Did you people realize that if were not for the farmers of America we would have nothing to eat? Wow, the guy is a veritable wizard. By the way, does the Wiz ever post anything meaningful? Probably I missed it.

2011. OhioSTOPAS - 10/18/2000 6:17:57 AM

As compared to Bush's profound comments on farming?

2012. OhioSTOPAS - 10/18/2000 6:24:08 AM

I admit I am surprised by reports of polls showing viewers equally divided as to who won the debate. Was there even ONE question where Bush gave a more articulate, thoughtful and informed answer than Gore?Gore did everthing but slap Bush's face and ask him, "Who's your Daddy?"

2013. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 6:29:57 AM

concerned:

re:Message # 2001

Please insert White House rapist, rape, and Bill Clinton into your your post where the words alcoholic, drinker, and George Bush appear. Thank you so very much...

2014. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 6:31:48 AM

Ohio:

I think Gore should ask "Who's your Daddy?" of Bush from here to election day, and I think he should do it often.

2015. Uzmakk - 10/18/2000 6:53:45 AM

Watched the last portion of the debate last night. My most memorable emotion was a sense of embarrassment.

2016. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 6:55:00 AM

Uz:

For whom?

2017. Uzmakk - 10/18/2000 7:05:32 AM

Both of them. Personally I can't believe any politician's confessions of believing anything with "all his heart". The embarrasssment comes from both men being put into a position where they must both tell bald faced lies. I watch them do it, and it is embarrassing.

2018. joezan - 10/18/2000 7:18:35 AM

Ohio:

Bush is whining about the rules now.

I assume you're referring to when he stopped talking after Lehrer told him to -after Gore interrupted and hogged up the last few seconds, and then criticized Bush for not further violating the time rule by answering him.

No Controlling Legal Authority, I guess.

He wasn't whining - he

2019. joezan - 10/18/2000 7:30:09 AM

Gore looked like a man who wants to be president very badly, and will say anything to get there. He promised the world to everyone on just about every issue. You'd have to be an idiot to believe he would - or could - deliver on 1/4 of the crap he promised. He did appear to be more in command, though - of both the debate and the issues.

He did better than Bush - as well he should, considering he's done over 1,000 of these town hall things - but managed to come across as thoroughly unlikable.

I don't think he hurt himself, but if the polls don't show a big spike for him in the next few days, he's a goner.

2020. Paradoxical - 10/18/2000 7:35:20 AM

Spin, spin, spin.

I checked just before the debate, and we were on post #1877 or something. Now I check back the next morning, and we're on #2017???

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have the time or inclination to wade through that much bull shit. I started to read it, then realized it was mostly gossip typed during the actual debate. Example: "omg, Can you believe what Rather said?" (Didn't reference it specifically because it was about 100 posts ago, and it was totally inconsequential.) After the first 25 or so posts, I gave up. A waste of my time, and, a waste of yours, IMHO. It sounded like the kind of crap I saw when I went to CNN's debate chat room. Just alot of wackos spewing forth and no one really having a conversation about anything of substance.

I typed in 2500 in the go to post box, and found #2017. I went back a page and realized that most of those posts were referencing previous posts. *sigh* I won't bother to read them. I'll check back tonight, and hopefully, things will have calmed down some.

I was so hoping to log in to The Mote this morning to find a stimulating discussion. What I found gave me a headache. I have come to appreciate this site for bringing together usually intelligent people talking about things of substance. I am disappointed.

For the record, I thought Bush scored points on making the concept of government understandable to the most people (not that I agree with all of it). Gore won on most style points...it is his venue, afterall. However, I thought it was unacceptable of Gore to invade Bush's space. Gore was overly aggressive. Bush was overly subdued. I'll vote for Bush, because Gore is a hothead. IMHO, we don't need a hothead dealing with Saddam or any of the other loose cannons in the world.

Have a good day.

2021. joezan - 10/18/2000 7:45:19 AM

Paradoxical:

Oh, please, sir - PLEASE! Enlighten us...

2022. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 8:19:38 AM

Paradoxical:

By "checking in", reading a few posts, deciding not to read any more, then moving ahead about 200 posts and deciding not to read any more, your take on "nothing of substance" is rather suspect. So sorry we are not up to your snuff...but then again, if you don't read us, how would would you know?

I can see why you like Bush...you say "I don't read what you say but it's bull shit" and he says "I can get it done but don't ask me for details"...you both lack curiosity.

2023. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 8:27:56 AM

OhioSA, #2012, Bush never gives a Thoughtful™ answer!

2024. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 8:29:47 AM

VonK, #2003, I agree. But even last night when Gore started pointing to the Bush record, he was accused of "attacking" which seems to have become the watchword of this political campaign, as "liberal" was for the last one.

2025. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:04:44 AM

Thoughtful,

Please grow up. When Bush had the temerity to so much as mention Gore's illegal fundraising, Gore sniffed, "You have attacked my... honor. You have attacked my... integrity. You have attacked my... character."

Gore has sought, semi-successfully, to define "attack" as a mention of any of his various illegalities and lapses of ethics.

Hilarious-- now not only is your *private* life no longer fair game, but your *public* life is also, according to Gore, verboten as well. (At least Al Gore's public life is. Bush's is, of course, perfectly fair game.)

"Thoughtful" is perhaps the most inappropriately chosen monicker in this whole stinking joint.

2026. RosettaStone - 10/18/2000 9:11:31 AM

What people remember the day after is Algore's rude, obnoxious behavior.

2027. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:11:57 AM

Thoughtful,

That was overboard and uncalled for by me. I apologize.

2028. RosettaStone - 10/18/2000 9:16:52 AM

Now, don't go limp on us, Ace. You were absolutely right about CD.

Why is it that most homosexuals hate women?

2029. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 9:21:38 AM

Everyone on the morning shows seems to think it was a draw. Gore scored more points but Bush was more likeable. One reporter said Bushs people were in the press room before the debate was even over talking up how well he did...according to the reporter, that is a sure sign the person hasn't done well.

It hardly matters now...I think the press and the public have decided they want Bush so they will get what they wish for...we'll see if that is what they REALLY wanted after the fact.

2030. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:27:42 AM

"It hardly matters now...I think the press and the public have decided they want Bush so they will get what they wish for..."

Oh, you shouldn't count *my* chickens before they're hatched, Judith.

Gore has an inherenent electoral advantage. I used to think the R's had this advantage, but they don't-- the Dem's do. Gore can win the presidency by winning only 17 states, which means he could win these states by razor-thin margins (example: he's only going to squeak by in California), get creamed everywhere else in the country, lose the popular vote and win the Presidency.

Plus, I still do think that Americans are essentially stupid, lazy, shiftless, greedy, and thieving, which means they are receptive to Gore's "vision."

"we'll see if that is what they REALLY wanted after the fact."

Well, he'll inherent the Clinton/Gore recession, but otherwise he'll do okay.

2031. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 9:33:30 AM

Ace:

I agree with you completely about the mass of Americans...the numbers of uneducated people alone must be staggering. But I think there are so many who like GWs good ole boy persona that it wouldn't matter what he said, they would vote for him. Assuming they bother to vote at all...

2032. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 9:36:53 AM

Ace:

Can we do that? Agree about Americans but not about who they will vote for in their haze of greed, stupidity, and laziness? (You realize we sound like snobs...but you may be including me in your assessment so you sound worse than I...hahahahahaha!)

2033. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 9:42:57 AM

Judith,
No one seems to be discussing the obvious at this time: The small investors continue to buy on balance (mutual funds); the large investors continue to liquidate. Even though the large investors may well vote for Bush, back him up financially, and elect him, they want to be without securities if he makes it. The reason being they're afraid of his appointments and his policies. They believe his election and the endorsement of trickle-down economics will put the country into deficit within a year or two. Of course, THEY can wait four or eight years for politics to change and in the meantime increase their holdings buying cheap.

2034. RosettaStone - 10/18/2000 9:47:17 AM

Other than the adrenline rush of being scared to death by Al Gore's Nightmare on Mass Ave.t appearance lst night, I thought the question about capital punishment in Texas was the best part of the town hall Q&A.

I would like to see it again.

2035. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:49:30 AM

ymeechan:

Where did you get your degree in Economics, by the way?

2036. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 9:50:52 AM

We broke the 10,000.

2037. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:52:29 AM

ycmchan is some kind of economic genius, I tell ya, with this startling theory about the rich backing Bush so that they can drive the economy into dust and increase their "holdings."

Genius. I'm surrounded by fucking geniuses here, folks.

2038. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 9:54:58 AM

Ace, I though that we decided to ignore each other long, long ago. Don't need a degree, I just watch the one-per-cent family I married into make their money and I just listen

2039. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 9:55:54 AM

Well Ace, I can see why you're reduced to sarcasm after Rosettas insight into the heart of Bush.

2040. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:56:11 AM

Pssst: Ycmeehan, the "rich" are liquidating because of various signs of a coming economic slowdown, including (but not limited to) high oil prices, which presages lower profits (higher costs, you know?) and a more sluggish economy (less spending power, more layoffs).

Plus, the threat of full out Mideastern war runs the risk of an actual embargo. You remember what happened in the 70's when there was an oil embargo, doncha? And we only imported 40% of oil back then; now we import 62%.

2041. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:57:12 AM

Judith:

Stupidity is best met with withering sarcasm.

2042. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 9:59:03 AM

"Don't need a degree, I just watch the one-per-cent family I married into make their money and I just listen."

Ohmygod!!!

Anna Niccole Smith...? Pleased to make your acquaintance!

But leave the thinkin' to the menfolk, deary. You just put on the French Maid outfit and do some calisthenics.

2043. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:03:52 AM

(oh, and the Dow is dropping due to bad earnings reports and higher inflation, too.)

2044. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:05:39 AM

Judith:

By the way, your "Who's your daddy?" gambit, while cute, can be easily answered by the following:

"My Daddy voted for the Civil Rights Act. How 'bout your Daddy, Junior?"

2045. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 10:09:13 AM

"My Daddy didn't care much for that 'vision thing'..."

"My Daddy didn't finish the war with Saddam but I will..."

"My Daddy thought I could win in Texas....but my momma didn't."

2046. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:11:01 AM

""My Daddy didn't finish the war with Saddam but I will..." "

Please. You freaking peaceniks didn't even support *expelling* Saddam out of Kuwait, and now you cry that we didn't take Baghdad and occupy the country.

Give it up.

2047. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:16:49 AM

Ace's point on the 17 states is well-taken. The California/New York advantage is daunting. And Gore is gutsy to choose Florida as his Stalingrad. It has always been my feeling that the death blow to Bush is a loss of Florida, North Carolina or Georgia, as Clinton won Florida by 5%, lost North Carolina by 5%, and lost Georgia by 1%. Hence, I would have chosen Bob Graham, Jim Hunt or Zell Miller as VP. North Carolina and Georgia are gone. But take Florida, and it's over, and it is gutsy to pull out of other battlegrounds to go for the jugular.

On the debate, as I said last night, Gore was himself. The problem, however, is that there may be no "himself" to Gore, and, in fact, he may just be an amalgam of people he wants to be - the man who sat by his sister's side and railed at the heavens that he would fight this tragedy to the bitter end; the man who ducked bullets in Vietnam; the man who raised thousands of chickens, built his house with his bare hands, and grew tobacco; the man who was a homebuilder; the man who took the initiative on the Internet; and, the man who played investigative reporter and out people in the hooskow.

So, we get the rolled up sleeves and the man on his knees and the reference to his Vietnam service (not once, mind you, but twice) in a bid to be "himself" (whoever that is).

2048. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 10:17:30 AM

Ace, I didn't see the entire debate so I missed Gore's "attack" attack. I fell asleep around 10...any wonder?

Actually, I thought this third debate was the best of the 3 in that it gave them both an opportunity to appear more human/less programmed. Though when Gore approached Bush on the stage, I thought, "Is he so dumb as to try to pull a Lazio even though he knows how badly it failed?!" I recorded it and hope to watch the end of it tonight.

A big mystery to me is, with all the prep that goes into these things, and with all the money in the Bush family, why was W. wearing a suit that fit him so poorly? It gaped at the neck and pulled at the waist. Hardly fitting.

2049. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 10:18:34 AM

Ugh...Bush just got the kiss of death. Bill Kristol says he has it won.

In other news...

Gore Told To Change Calif. Tactics

Al Gore needs to change his campaign tactics and may have to advertise in California in order to win it, says an adviser for the Democrat's presidential campaign in the nation's largest state. His advice was firmly rejected by Gore's inner circle.

In retrospect, it's ironic that most all the commentary after each debate has been about Al Gore. His performance has been the one analyzed and reacted to, whereas beforehand I think most people would have expected otherwise. After all, we were supposed to know Gore and Bush was supposed to be the unknown.

Bush, OTOH, seemed again and again to have no idea what Gore's proposals were, and to the degree that Gore "won" these encounters, I think that was the most telling. Bush was reduced to almost exclusively counter-punching and seldom seizing the initiative. He did well enough, but he never had the catchy little slam, such as saying that everyone in the room together would receive less money than one rich guy. He seemed to think defending himself and his own proposals was enough. This defensive style of course also helped him win the "Miss Congeniality" portion of the competition.

2050. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:19:45 AM

I'm reminded of the cackling jexster of three weeks ago, yammering about Bush Da' Moron actually advertising in California.

2051. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 10:20:55 AM

Neither candidate has been able to shake the other, so here is what the election hinges on:

Gore--black voter turnout

Bush--support by white women

2052. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:21:42 AM

Jack,

California is just as "in play" as Florida, you know. And California is just as a must-win for Gore as Fla for Bush.

Zogby puts the Calif race at 6 point differential; POA puts it at 4.

POA puts Bush ahead in Fla by 4.

I'd like to commend you, by the way, on your very prescient debate analysis. I just don't read these things right.

Perhaps it's because I'm used to arguing with liberals-- I always believe you have to fight liberals on their own terms, using their own assumptions, etc.

But when you're battling for middle-of-the-road independents, you don't have to do such heavy lifting. Rather than argue against a national health care system, you can simply say, "I am completely against a national health care system." Period. And that wins the point with a majority of the middle of the road, nonideological voters.

2053. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 10:22:04 AM

IJ, what bothered me more was Gore seemed to know Bush's proposals better than Bush did...including Bush's never answering where he stood on certain bills or being unaware that there were more than one on -- was it patients' bill of rights -- before congress.

2054. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:23:34 AM

Although I do think Bush missed a thousand golden opportunities last night.

Nation Review Online documents a bunch of them.

2055. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:26:36 AM

Ace

I think that California would be a coup, but the minority dynamics will eventually sink Bush. Florida is much more vulnerable due to the Jew/senior and to a lesser extent minority dynamic.

As for the middling few and appeals to them in debates, here is that Fred Barnes read.

Misunderstanding the Debates
What shall it profit a candidate if he wins the debate and loses the election?
By Fred Barnes

David Smick, then an aide to Jack Kemp, invited a group of reporters and columnists to his house in October 1980 to watch the debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. "Every one of them thought Carter won," Smick says. So did I. As a political reporter for the Baltimore Sun, I watched the debate in the newsroom, wrote about it, then late that night drove to Philadelphia to cover another campaign story. On the way, I listened to Larry King's old radio show. From all over America, calls showered in. Practically every caller had loved Reagan's performance in the debate and loathed Carter's. Many derided Carter's reference to his daughter Amy's concerns about nuclear proliferation.

The reaction to presidential debates inside the Beltway, in the political community, and among journalists is often wrong. We know now, of course, that Reagan won a smashing victory in the 1980 debate, blew open a close race, and went on to defeat Carter in a landslide seven days later. Millions of voters saw things in the debate that the political cognoscenti missed. It happened again, to a lesser extent, in the first debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush on October 3. Most people involved in politics, including many conservatives, thought Bush's performance was disastrous and Gore won easily. We already know how wrong that verdict was.

2056. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:27:01 AM

So why the disparity in judging presidential debates? Those who work in politics full-time view debates like a boxing match. To decide on a winner, they keep track of the number of blows struck and count up who took the most rounds (or separate issues). In the second Bush-Gore debate last week, for example, Dan Balz of the Washington Post noted that "Gore began to score points with repeated criticism of Bush's record in Texas." Most voters don't see debates that way.

What voters draw from watching a presidential debate is a general perception of the candidates. It's an "impression game," says Michael Deaver, the ex-Reagan adviser. Details, important to the political crowd, don't matter much to average Americans. They don't watch that intently and they're distrustful of the facts and figures politicians spew anyway. "There's a generic skepticism," says pollster Scott Rasmussen of Charlotte, N.C. By larding his debate performances with details, Gore hasn't helped himself.

Even when a candidate seems to be hammering away on a point successfully, he may be creating a bad impression. In the first debate, Gore repeatedly attacked Bush's tax cut as heavily tilted toward the top one percent of income earners. Bush not only didn't respond directly, he appeared unable to. This prompted Gore to repeat his point over and over. Voters must have concluded: Gore hates tax cuts. "You couldn't watch that debate and believe you're going to get a tax cut from Gore," says GOP consultant Jeffrey Bell. Yes, Gore said he favors "targeted" tax cuts. But those are seen as tax cuts other people get.

2057. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/18/2000 10:27:13 AM

2058. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:27:22 AM

Rather than details, what matters are themes and concepts. Watching Reagan's 1980 performance again, I was amazed at how brilliantly he stressed themes. At one point, he uncorked this in defense of his tax cut: "I would like to ask the president why it is inflationary to let the people keep more of their own money and spend it the way that they like, and it isn't inflationary to let him take that money and spend it the way he wants?" Bush is no Reagan, but he got a few themes across in debates one and two: He's not from Washington, he's the outsider, his tax cut is for all taxpayers, he's a conservative. Gore made the mistake Carter made. He talked up program after program. Individually, each might be popular, but the cumulative impression was Gore as a man of Washington and of big government. Or as Reagan said of Carter in their debate: "He seeks the solution to anything as another opportunity for a federal government program."

Everyone knows personality is important. Bush conveys his by constantly smiling and through folksy guy talk, and average folks react favorably. He's not witty, but he's extraordinarily likeable. Gore, at least in the debates, isn't. He toned down his belligerence in the second debate without making himself more appealing. But there's a trait that's far more important than personality. It's temperament. It's a quality of leadership that people notice when they get their first extended glimpse of candidates in debates. Journalists and the political community usually aren't aware of it. They've seen so much of the candidates beforehand that temperament slips under their radar. The press obsesses on how smart candidates are. Voters watching a presidential debate are more interested in temperament.

2059. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:27:40 AM

Oliver Wendell Holmes famously commented that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament." He meant the way FDR carried himself, his sense of ease. FDR was sober without being pompous, serious without appearing to take himself too seriously. In the 1980 debate, Deaver says, Reagan came across similarly. "The impression was, this guy is calm, he has grace, he is reasonable," according to Deaver. The media and the Beltway crowd missed this entirely, thinking Carter was smarter than Reagan and naturally carried the debate.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich thinks you can catch a peek of a candidate's temperament by turning off the sound on your television. Bush doesn't rise to the FDR or Reagan level, for sure, but it's here that Gore has faltered badly. In the first debate, it wasn't just the sighing. It was his exaggerated facial expressions, his nervous moving around behind the podium like a man needing to go to the bathroom, his tearing of sheets of paper, his interruptions. He appeared overwrought. Bush didn't. In the second debate, Gore was bland, passionless, but still a bit ill at ease. Bush looked relaxed.

Another misunderstood factor in debates is expectations. Most voters don't have a strong sense of the candidate before they watch a debate. For them, the campaign has been background noise. For the media, however, expectations are paramount. This explains why most journalists thought Bush won the second debate. The press stereotype of Bush is that he's charming but doesn't know much, particularly about foreign affairs. So when he talked fluently about foreign issues for 45 minutes, he exceeded their expectations. My guess is most voters were less impressed, merely taking the Bush chatter about East Timor, the IMF, and the Middle East at face value.

2060. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 10:27:47 AM

For all the hype, debates are sometimes less significant than we think. Reagan lost both debates to Walter Mondale in 1984 and won the election by 18 points. In the first, he tried to be a detail man and flopped. In the second, he was cut off in the middle of his incoherent tale about driving down the Pacific Coast Highway. In 1988, 1992, and 1996, debates had minimal impact. But this year, with non-incumbent candidates whose style and manner weren't well known to voters, the debates could be decisive. Should Gore win after losing the first two debates, we'll know they were not. If Bush becomes president, though, his performance in the debates will have made it happen.

2061. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 10:27:57 AM

"Perhaps it's because I'm used to arguing with liberals-- I always believe you have to fight liberals on their own terms, using their own assumptions, etc. "

You do nothing of the kind. You wadle in here day after day, and formally announce what libeal"terms" are, then battle your strawman as if your life depended upon it. If anyone deigns to object, you whine to Mommy that they're being mean to you, and shouldn't be allowed in your playpen. WAAA!!! WAAA!!!! WAAA!!!!

2062. glendajean - 10/18/2000 10:29:33 AM

Jack -- it's the conservatives wet dream: the new Reagan.

Actually, this election does have some of the feel of 1980. The often forgotten fact of the 80 election is that it was razor close in various states, close enough that Reagan could have easily lost.

2063. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 10:30:03 AM

1969. AceofSpades - 10/18/00 6:15:19 AM
"But they do fine,"

"Doing fine" is not quite the same as "excellence."

"given the task they are handed."

Teaching children? Good god, you make it sound as if we're asking public schools to cure cancer. They merely have to teach kids.

This is funny. Thirty years ago no one was complaining about how bad public schools were, nor were teachers catterwauling about what a soul-crushing duty they'd been charged with.

Now, apologists and teachers bemoan their fate. Teach children! Egads! It's so hard!

Back in the glorious early 60's the heyday that the critics of public education point to when they talk of order in classrooms, high test scores etc. things were different.

2064. glendajean - 10/18/2000 10:30:50 AM

no, not easily lost. Possibly have lost...

2065. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 10:31:20 AM

to Ace continued-
Most children with Down's Syndrome were packed off to state institutions. Children with learning disabilities were "stupid" not handicapped, and were dismissed from school as uneducable. Kids with physical handicaps were not in public schools unless they were minor. Pregnant girls were expelled. The drop out rate was far higher. Races were segregated and children in "colored schools" were not expected to perform at white levels, nor were they tested as often on the standardized tests that critics point to as evidence of decline.
Schools were not expected to teach children about sexuality, sexual diseases, abstinence, racial tolerance, ethnic tolerence, avoidance of drugs, gangs and violence. They were not expected to teach every kid in high school what was needed to enter college. Many students were tracked in general education which was designed to be the end of academic schooling, and an entrance into technical training or work. These kids never took the college entrance exams.

If we would select a similar cross section of today's high school population to what was the norm then, I would imagine that test scores would be far closer than what appears now.

2066. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:31:23 AM

"I think that California would be a coup, but the minority dynamics will eventually sink Bush."

You know, of course, that no Republican has won without taking California. (Or no Republican in the last fifty years, or something like that.)

Remember -- though I'm sure you do -- Reagan and Bush both carried California. (Then again, Reagan carried New York twice. So perhaps comparisons to the Gipper are invalid.)

2067. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 10:33:04 AM

Ace, don't be silly now. I am better looking than whatever her name is and surely more acceptable in good society.

Insults aside and referring to Message # 2037, what's wrong with that theory? It's been reality since the time of the Pyramids. Actually, it is not theory, it's fundamental stock market analysis. All this year, the Mutual Funds have been running 20% over last year (in volume of buying). On balance these are small investors. In contrast, insiders have been persistent sellers of securities. In short, loading up the sheep who are being led to the slaughter.

Look, you should have left me alone. Now you just gave me the permission to jab at you whenever. Naturally, you will tell everybody how stupid I am while extolling your high intelligence. Everyone is used to your tactics so go ahead. You know, you're an awful sexist and probably not a sexy one at that.

2068. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 10:33:33 AM

Thoughtful: Bush knew the up side of his proposals. He's just not a details guy. He goes with things out of sheer instinct, whereas Gore weighs all the permutations (including poll numbers, mind you).

But what Gore supporters don't seem to realize is those who subscribe to small government, delegated government, etc. don't find a "big-picture view" to be a weakness. That's the reason behind wanting small and local: no one person--not even Al Gore--can manage centrally and efficiently.

Moreover, this business about "certain bills" scores points in debates, but if someone thinks about the context, it's one-sided. Gore has been nothing but a VP for eight years. What is that job? Bush has been a governor of Texas. Would it be fair for Bush to quiz Gore about certain measures before the Texas legislature?

Of course this means Gore has had more time to prepare for the job of president. But that doesn't inherently mean he'll do a better job once in there. Otherwise, we'd always just re-elect incumbents.

BTW, I went back and re-read the transcripts to the 1996 debates and think something can be learned from comparing the two.

2069. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 10:34:23 AM

What Jonsey said in #2065

2070. RosettaStone - 10/18/2000 10:38:29 AM

Until you apologize to Joe, CD, you are a nonperson here.

2071. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 10:38:43 AM

Oops...make that 1992 transcripts.

2072. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 10:44:28 AM

And one other thing, Thoughtful: As far as his own proposals, I'm astounded that Bush didn't have responses for Gore's attacks from the previous two debates by the third. Someone needs a beating for letting the 1% line go by without any slam equivalent to Bentsen versus Quayle or at least "there you go again."

On another point, people have commented about Bush's lack of energy last night. I think he's hurt by no audience feedback. Gore is so motivated in and of himself he doesn't need it, he'll keep plowing right ahead. That's why in debate #1 he didn't pick up on how off-putting he was.

But Bush IMO need to have people connect with him.

2073. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:47:03 AM

Jones,

"Most children with Down's Syndrome were packed off to state institutions. Children with learning disabilities were "stupid" not handicapped, and were dismissed from school as uneducable."

And now they're put into special classes. Indeed, many argue that far too many kids are diagnosed as "special" -- it's just a way to cut out the dummies/misbehevors from the regular classroom.

In any event, these kids' scores are *not* averaged into normal scores, and no one is talking about *these kids* when they criticize teachers and schools.

No one really expects great learning from the mentally retarded. It's nonsense for you to suggest that it's the retarded who are "holding our schools back."

These kids are segregated out of the general school population. Period.

"Kids with physical handicaps were not in public school... minor."

How this affects learning, I have no idea. Are you suggesting that having ramps in a school interferes with learning?

"Pregnant girls were expelled."

Ditto. Apparently a rise in oxytocin levels interferes with learning.

"The drop out rate was far higher."

Ah, something at long last relevant to our discussion. I don't know if your "fact" is true (I sorta doubt it, if only because *you're* saying it), but if it is true, I admit it is somewhat relevant. Depending on what "far higher" might mean.

of course, it is silly liberal "every kid deserves a second chance... and a third chance... and a fourth chance... and a fifth chance ... and a sixth chance... etc" which keeps our schools from booting out problem children. And it is the failed liberal notion of "social promotion" which keeps the uneducatable advancing through the ranks, whereas if they were flunked out, they might quit school.

2074. jexster - 10/18/2000 10:47:56 AM

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 17 –– The bigger man never looked so big as he did inside the debate hall tonight. Vice President Al Gore has a couple of inches and a couple of pounds on Texas Gov. George W. Bush--but it might as well have been feet and tons. With his bold strides around the room, with his large gestures and his booming voice, and especially with his aggressive attempts to pin Bush to the mat on one painful issue after another, Gore seemed to fill 90 percent of the space.

But does that make a man presidential? Bush read Gore's effort to overshadow him and, in an odd way, opted to make himself a little bit smaller. There was something puppylike about him.

Bout sums it up.

2075. jexster - 10/18/2000 10:49:11 AM

But Bush IMO need to have people connect with him.

That from a Bush supporter. I wish I had a nickel for every time a Gore supporter has told me that.

Makes you wonder.

2076. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:49:42 AM

A kid who isn't learning *should* drop out of school. He needs to find a trade and get to working. If he isn't learning, there's no point taking up space in school.

"Races were segregated and children in "colored schools" were not expected to perform at white levels,"

Same today. Liberals call this "affirmative action."

"Schools were not expected to teach children about sexuality, sexual diseases, abstinence, racial tolerance, ethnic tolerence, avoidance of drugs, gangs and violence."

Nor should they be. And all this nonsense takes up, at most, one class out of the eight classes in a school day. I got all my sex education in one quarter, in my Junior year.

It's not like this stuff is taking up half the school day. And it's the easiest fucking thing in the world to teach. The kids already all know it all, anyway.

Basically, it's a class that teaches you how to giggle.

"They were not expected to teach every kid in high school what was needed to enter college."

This is nonsense. This is precisely what the academic track in High Schools always have tried to teach.

"Many students were tracked in general education which was designed to be the end of academic schooling, and an entrance into technical training or work."

Schools still do this. Perhaps the emphasis has shifted to college preparation. But that's because liberals & the liberal Educational Establishment has preached that EVERYONE must have a college education, including salesmen and firemen and seamstresses, and that only a college education makes you a worthy human being.

"These kids never took the college entrance exams."

Irrelevant.

2077. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 10:58:35 AM

", I'm astounded that Bush didn't have responses for Gore's attacks from the previous two debates by the third. Someone needs a beating for letting the 1% line go by without any slam equivalent to Bentsen versus Quayle or at least "there you go again." "

He did have a response. He's had a response in all three debates:
That under his plan, those 1%, who pay 1/3 of all taxes, only get 1/5 of the benefit of the tax reduction. That those 1%, who now pay 62% of the total tax burden in the country, will pay 64% of the (lower) total tax burden under his play.

Bush doesn't hit these facts with the proper cadence to really drive them home. He's sort of like a comedian who mumbles through the set-up and then rushes through the punch-line. But he did respond, all three debates.

This is really one of those situations where Bush would rather not dwell on the numbers. Americans are an envious, thieving people, and they're always receptive to taking money from other Americans, if only to then *burn* that money and take it out of circulation -- just to stick it to those people who are doing better than themselves.

2078. CalGal - 10/18/2000 11:01:20 AM

Ace,

If you wish to change the scope of public schools, fine. But the point remains that if you compare like to like, the public schools are doing as good a job as their counterparts. So in the sense that you mean it, public schools are doing very well.

2079. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:03:22 AM

Broder: Gore Puts Bush on Defensive

2080. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:05:22 AM

No, Cal, actually they're not, and if they are "doing so well" as you assert, I want to know why Gore proposes we spend an additional $100 billion to improve them.

It seems that both candidates agree that the schools are failing; they agree on the diagnosis, if not the prescription.

If you are asserting that your son's school is top-notch, that's terrific, but you do understand that that's merely one school, in what is most likely a fairly well-off area. And that's merely anecdotal, and irrelevant.

Since both major candidates agree with me and disagree with you, I feel fairly confident on this point.

2081. CalGal - 10/18/2000 11:08:51 AM

Ace,

I've made no assertions about my son's school. You're thinking of vK. Myself, I'd rather he go to a private school and he probably will for high school. I loathe public schools. But that's quite different from saying they are doing a bad job, without comparing apples to apples.

2082. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 11:10:19 AM

Ace: He should have been able to slice and dice it in debate 3.

Of course I agree with his point about fairness but would not be surprised to see a Demo ad where Jim Lehrer says, "What about that, governor...does your tax cut benefit the wealthy?"

Bush responds, "Of course it does." <snip>.

When you know your opponent is going to say something ahead of time in a debate, you have to have the biggest bat you can find ready to smack. Something dramatic and visual (at least in the mind's eye). The 50 million number might be a start: "The vice president keeps harping about this 1 percent and ignoring that 50 million families don't get any tax break under his plan. He doesn't think you deserve it because you won't live your life the way he thinks you ought to....At least we finally know who Al Gore is fighting against."

Bush's tax cut is big enough to appeal to our envious nature. That's why I criticized his answer to the woman who asked about her benefit under his plan. Enough Americans are making enough money now that his plan might buy a few. And those people vote.

2083. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 11:12:35 AM

And yes, his cadence is dreadful.

2084. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:14:21 AM

Cal,

Given that the US is in last place among all industrial countries -- even including very poor countries -- in terms of academic achievement in primary and secondary schools, I really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

If last place is "doing very well," well, you certainly have a fairly low standard of excellence.

I, for one, would like to beat Laos at some point. Or, dare I dream, perhaps we could one day place ahead of mighty Brazil?

Comparing apples to apples? How about comparing the shitty education America provides its students with the superb education many Asian and European nations provide?

2085. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 11:15:10 AM

Indy

Niggling details. For the undecided voter who tunes in and only reads the sports page, who looked more appealing and who espoused more popular themes?

Therein, you find your winner, and those factors probably manifest themselves after the mere "Who won the debate?" question.

For example, Gore's lies in the first debate were probably not much of a factor to the casual viewer. But his sighs, eyerolling and interrupting probably had legs.

2086. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:15:48 AM

The Second Presidential Debate Transcript
>
> Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on
>these rules:
>
> I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and
> deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to undecided women
>voters. The
>opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten
>senior citizens
>into voting for him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper
>softly while he
>continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes.
>
> Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the
> name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a
>way that
> strains the bounds of common sense?
>
> Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made
> love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid
>marriage,
>the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election. My opponent wants
>to cut
>taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand,
>want to put the richest
>1 percent in an iron clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like
>Roberta
>Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling
>her internal organs, one
>by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and
>personify problems
>for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.
>
> Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.
>
> Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people,
> crying with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity
>exists. I
>want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike
>my opponent,
>whose mother is not Barbara Bush.
>

2087. CalGal - 10/18/2000 11:16:33 AM

Ace,

If you compare the results of upper middle class kids to those in Europe and Asia, we are doing just fine. And given that the people in Europe and Asia don't really bother educating a diverse population and also cut kids out if they aren't doing well, that's the only way to compare apples to apples.

2088. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:16:46 AM

> Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan
> Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would
>you be
>able to pronounce his name?
>
> Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that
> guy and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would do
>about
>that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And then Dick would
>present me
>several options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick would tell me
>which one to
>choose. You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign
>policy decisions
>every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.
>

2089. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:17:43 AM

Jexster,

For once, a useful post. Very funny. The wag who wrote it should be proud.

I was especially tickled by Jim Lehrer's rules.

2090. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:17:47 AM

> Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.
>
> Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested
> in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim
>of poison
>gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War.
>And when that
>war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that
>any
>undecided woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the
>office of president, I
>pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or domestic, by
>putting it in
> an iron clad lockbox. Because the American people deserve a president
>who can
> comfort them with simple metaphors.
>

2091. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 11:17:52 AM

jexster

"As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage . .."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

2092. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:17:57 AM

> Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security
>
> system?
>
> Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have
> proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000
>to
>every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a
>single penny until the
>year 2250. In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10
>years to
>guarantee that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to
>their homes every
>Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the
>child-proof cap.
>
> Lehrer: Gov. Bush?
>
> Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have
>
> to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether
>I'm
>going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to
>reroof the
>sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.
>
> Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.
>
> Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but
> I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to
>turning the
>White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.
>
> Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing
>
> no one but Republicans.
>
> Lehrer: Good night.

2093. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 11:18:56 AM

"I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to reroof the
sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds."

He he he. Good stuff.

2094. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:18:57 AM

Ace -

A friend just e-mailed that to me. I've no idea where he got it from.
Whoever wrote same should seek job w/ SNL

2095. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:19:13 AM

"If you compare the results of upper middle class kids to those in Europe and Asia, we are doing just fine. And given that the people in Europe and Asia don't really bother educating a diverse population and also cut kids out if they aren't doing well, that's the only way to compare apples to apples."

Nonsense. Are you claiming England doesn't educate its lower classes? Ireland? France? Japan?

This is total bullshit.

The poorest working-class boys in England and Ireland receive a far more rigorous education that upper Middle Class kids in America.

2096. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 11:19:38 AM

"I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me."

I have to belive this will get to SNL, and I cannot wait for the third skit.

2097. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 11:20:51 AM

Jack: But it's another missed opportunity for Bush.

He keeps leaving men on base like the Yankees in game 5.

If he'd come out in this debate confident, relaxed, and funny, he could have put Gore away.

Instead, the Italian campaign drags on. Worse, we don't get any Italian food or women.

2098. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:21:25 AM

Cal reminds me of the Japanese Prime Minister who consoled President Bush: "But Mr. President, the America's schools are not so far behind Japan's. After all, you have all those blacks to worry about."

Well, you know, it is true that the underclass presents special problems, but it doesn't really explain away all of America's deficiencies.

There are poor people in most countries, Cal. In fact, many countries consist of almost nothing *but* poor people.

2099. CalGal - 10/18/2000 11:22:36 AM

Ace,

I'm saying that they don't have to teach a diverse population that often doesn't speak the language, and I'm also saying that they track kids and pull them out when they aren't doing well. And they don't have anything even remotely similar to our inner city population.

2100. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:30:12 AM

"I'm saying that they don't have to teach a diverse population that often doesn't speak the language,"

Germany is loaded with immigrants who don't speak the language. Many, many Arabs for example, who come to Germany as "guest-workers."

"Diverse" seems to be your excuse for our failings. "Diverse" explains all away.

"and I'm also saying that they track kids and pull them out when they aren't doing well."

Once again-- where, exactly? In France? Germany? England? Ireland? Utopian, egalitarian Sweden? Brazil? Laos?

"And they don't have anything even remotely similar to our inner city population."

Some coutries would *love* to consist of our inner city populations. Brazil is a fucking mess. Large sprawls of England look like the Third World, only White, and speaking with funny Cockney accents. A civil war seeths in Northern Ireland. Etc.

You are claiming, when all is said and done, that we can't compare present schools to past schools, and that we can't compare US schools to foreign schools.

Which means that we may only compare our present US schools to our present US schools.

Given this rather restrictive framework, I concede that our present US schools are doing *just as well* as our present US schools. Exactly as well.

I should say also that our present US poor are doing just as well as our present US poor, and that our present Dow Jones Average is doing just as well as our present Dow Jones Average, and that our present naval security around the USS Coles is doing just as well as our present naval security around the USS Coles.

And on, and on. And on.

2101. CalGal - 10/18/2000 11:34:29 AM

Ace,

You should read up on this. Until then, I've said what's relevant, and the only thing preventing any further conversation is that you really don't know what you're talking about.

2102. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 11:34:59 AM

Here's a really great movie about those German "guest workers"

2103. marjoribanks - 10/18/2000 11:35:19 AM

"Many, many Arabs for example, who come to Germany as "guest-workers."

Ace,

Kindly make your (decent) point without resorting to ridiculous bullshit.

If you happen to be talking about Turks or even Kurds, fine. They're not Arabs, ass.

2104. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:35:24 AM

And Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is doing just as well as Generalissimo Fransico Franco.

In other words, he's just as dead as he is, and he's not getting any better.

2105. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:36:36 AM

"If you happen to be talking about Turks or even Kurds, fine. They're not Arabs, ass."

Actually, I thought it was mainly Turks, but I *thought* that many North Africans (who are Arabs) also came to Germany as Guest-Workers.

2106. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:41:19 AM

Cal,

I'm not sure how much I have to "read up" to determine that our present US schools are doing every bit as well as our present US schools.

I concede this. Not arguendo. I flat-out concede it.

I appreciate you informing me that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and I do admire the way you "conclude" various disputes in this manner.

2107. marjoribanks - 10/18/2000 11:42:10 AM

Not "many" by any estimation, Spades. But anyway - carry on.

2108. jexster - 10/18/2000 11:49:35 AM

NYT Debate Analysis - Don't Fuck With Big Al You Wimp

2109. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 11:52:50 AM

What do you expect? It's babyPinch's NYTimes.

2110. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 11:56:23 AM

Slide,

The article doesn't say what Jexster suggests it does.

Jexster is good at re-titling articles to suggest they are slamming Bush. In most cases, the straight news stories he cites are fairly balanced pieces which mention both candidates' strengths and weaknesses.

Jexster just chooses to read "GORE KICKS ASS!!! WHOO-HOO!! YIPPEE!!!" into every fucking article he reads the first paragraph of.

2111. Dusty - 10/18/2000 11:57:53 AM

jexster

Very funny contribution; thanks

2112. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 12:06:35 PM

This is how we will know who's gonna win. Place your mouse pointer on the red square. Then let it wander, Ouija-style. Please post the result.

Bush	Gore	Bush
Gore		Bush
Gore	Bush	Gore

I got Bush.

2113. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 12:07:35 PM

Call me Electric...

2114. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 12:11:47 PM

Christopher Buckley

"In his closing statement Bush said, "To those who support my opponent, please only vote once." That's a warm-blooded guy. In his closing statement, Al Gore reminded us, really one too many times, that he had gone to Vietnam. To this he added that he had been faithful to his wife. Leaving aside what those two statements say about the president he has spent the last eight years serving under, whom he so memorably described as "One of our greatest presidents" -- there are those who may be a teensy bit uncomfortable at such self-promoting manifestations of virtue. That he followed these declarations by shameless -- and unattributed -- plagiarism of Ronald Reagan's 1984 signature campaign line, "You ain't seen nothin' yet" declares his imaginative Chapter 11 bankruptcy. What undecided voters remain may take this the final evidence that, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, California, "There's no there there."

2115. Ronski - 10/18/2000 12:14:31 PM

Rustler,

I tried it, but I got your name instead.

Are you running?

2116. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:15:02 PM

Jack,

Since you were so good at reassuring me earlier, please explain why Bush has slipped a bit in the Zogby and Battleground polls.

Your pal,

Ace of Spades

2117. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 12:15:47 PM

IJ: Bush knew the up side of his proposals. He's just not a details guy. He goes with things out of sheer instinct, whereas Gore weighs all the permutations (including poll numbers, mind you). How can someone be so shallow as to be making critical decisions affecting the nation and only know about the upside. Every action has both positive and negative consequences and it's important to weigh both when making a decision. For example, Bush's large tax cut can easily cause the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent an inflationary spiral, squelching economic growth raising unemployment and damaging investment and productivity. The idea that anyone would make those kinds of decisions on 'instinct' is the most frightening thing I've heard yet about this election.

Bush has been a governor of Texas. Would it be fair for Bush to quiz Gore about certain measures before the Texas legislature?
Certainly if Gore was running to be Governor of Texas or in the Texas legislature.

Of course this means Gore has had more time to prepare for the job of president.
I've not heard anyone complain in the Bush camp that he's not had enough time to campaign or prepare or staffers to prepare him. After all, even he said the TX legislature only meets 4 mos. of the year.

2118. glendajean - 10/18/2000 12:17:55 PM

Jack -- have you been ghostwriting for Chris Buckley? I don't think one can shamelessly steal any lines from Reagan since he wasn't above doing it himself.

2119. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 12:19:27 PM

Ace

Because Gore, for the first time, was actually attractive 50% of the time. He won the debate. I only have the ammunition to explain to you that Gore did not "drub" Bush. But they both had good outings. Moreover, you need to get off the national poll hype. Look at state by states only, and look at:

CO
FL
PA
MI
WI
WA
OR
TN
MO

There is the election.

2120. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 12:20:09 PM

no FAIR deBATE

"Will Somebody PLEASE aDMIT tHIS wAS nOT A bIPARTISAN gROUP?," sAys MSNBC host Chris Matthews

I wonder if anybody else heard Chris Matthews conversation with Lawrence O'Donnell last night on MSNBC.

Matthews went on a mini-rant about the questions from the St. Louis townhall group and even added "these were all shills for the labor unions, teacher's groups and other Democrat organizations."

And the best part: "There was not ONE conservative in that entire room...who picks these people?"

Surprisingly O'Donnell, a liberal, agreed with Matthews.

2121. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:21:56 PM

"Every action has both positive and negative consequences..."

Tell Gore this. He claimed that Bill Bradley's more generous health care plan was simultaneously *more costly* and *less effective* than his own. He claims that he will both "control the price of prescription drugs" without --get this -- imposing "price controls."

Hmmmm. He'll control prices without price controls. Interesting. Sounds much like a man who was told by a focus group that people don't like high drug prices, but that the words "price controls" scare them.

Apparently he doesn't understand the principle himself.

"For example, Bush's large tax cut can easily cause the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent an inflationary spiral"

Please explain how it is inflationary for Bush to return money to the American people, and then for those people to spend that money, but it is not inflationary for Gore's government to spend the same amount of money.

Is there something magical about government spending that makes it non-inflationary?

When a citizen spends a dollar, according to your silliness, it is potentially inflationary. When the government spends that dollar, it is not.

Tell me, Thoughtful--

How does the dollar "know" who's spending it? How does it know when it should cause inflation and when it shouldn't?

A dollar in circulation is a dollar in circulation, Thoughtful. It does not matter whether the government spends it initially or a citizen does; it then gets transferred to another party, who will spend it again, keeping it in circulation, with all its inflationary potential.

I would think this rather obvious. But then, Thoughtful seems impervious to the obvious.

2122. concerned - 10/18/2000 12:22:45 PM

I just want to say, to jexster and you other Bush dissers (you know who you are): thanks for all the 'lowered expectations'. All your lies about and spurious disrespect of Bush helped the public perceive him as kicking Flunky's butt, as he has in reality, in all three debates.

2123. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 12:24:03 PM

concerned is correct. The eggheads and smarmadukes created their own monster (Da' Moron!), thereby reducing expectations and making his job merely to get out of the debates with his shorts clean.

2124. OhioSTOPAS - 10/18/2000 12:29:19 PM

Jack (Message # 2114): That's pretty lame spinning by a pro-Bush commentator, isn't it? After ninety minutes of empty, repetitive sloganeering by Bush, GORE is the one with the bankrupt imagination? (For saying "you ain't seen nothing yet"?)

I can forgive young Buckley, since he wrote this nonsense after spending 90 agonizing minutes watching his hope of getting a tax-free inheritance (how old is William F. now?) slip away. After facing the prospect of losing millions of dollars (assuming getting a reduced windfall is "losing" money), I commend the guy for even being able to write a complete sentence.

But surely, Jack, YOU don't think that tripe is a reasonable critique.

2125. Dusty - 10/18/2000 12:29:59 PM

AceofSpades

How does the dollar "know" who's spending it? How does it know when it should cause inflation and when it shouldn't?

Are you telling me you bought the line that the metallic threads in the new bills were "just" for anti-counterfeiting?

Now you know.

2126. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 12:30:14 PM

Is there something magical about government spending that makes it non-inflationary?

I distinctly remember liberal economists of old arguing that defense spending was highly inflationary.

So, no, Ace, it's not something magical about the government. It has to be something else.

2127. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:30:25 PM

"Because Gore, for the first time, was actually attractive 50% of the time."

Wrong answer, Dope. The right answer:

The changes are well inside the margin of error. They are statistically insignificant. It matters not if a candidate's numbers fluctuate by one or two percent in either direction (as Bush's and Gore's have, in two polls); such minor fluctuations are not significant, and indicate nothing.

Further, Dumbass, both polls were 95% concluded *before* the debate.

"He won the debate."

Wait a minute-- I thought you were saying Bush won the debate. Now you're telling me that Gore merely didn't "drub" him.

Now I'm depressed again. (just kidding)

"Moreover, you need to get off the national poll hype. Look at state by states only, and look at..."

Nope. You're wrong. The national polls dictate the state polls. If the national polls show a tie, the state polls will favor Gore, because Bush has more "wasted votes" (huge margins in Texas and the Solid South which do not help him electorally; Gore has some wasted votes in Mass and NY, but not as many, because his leads there aren't as big as Bush's in Texas and other reliably Republican states).

2128. OhioSTOPAS - 10/18/2000 12:30:50 PM

And when did Ronald Reagan get a copyright on "You ain't seen nothing yet?"

2129. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 12:31:28 PM

which is it, Jack?

"[Gore] won"

or

concerned is correct that Bush was "kicking [Gore]'s butt"?

2130. Dusty - 10/18/2000 12:32:04 PM

OhioSTOPAS

After facing the prospect of losing millions of dollars (assuming getting a reduced windfall is "losing" money)

Maybe to people who think a taxcut is "spending" by the government.

2131. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 12:33:50 PM

Thoughtful: Instinct can be more effective than indecisiveness.

Incidentally, if Gore doesn't rely on handlers for any of his decisions, please explain Gore #1, Gore #2, and Gore #3.

Was he personally responsible for the three versions we saw in the three debates? In which case, doesn't he know who he is?

2132. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:36:24 PM

Dusty:

cutting taxes = "government spending"

"government spending on the poor [EITC, "matching retirement contributions] who do not pay taxes at all" = tax cuts

"investments" = other government spending

"price controls" = NOT price controls

citizens spend $1 trillion = inflationary

government spends the same $1 trillion = non-inflationary

I hope you found this helpful.

2133. Dusty - 10/18/2000 12:38:15 PM

re Message # 2131
I saw it as Papa Bear Gore in debate #1: mean, and gruff.
Mama Bear Gore in Debate #2: meek and agreeable.
and Baby Bear Gore in debate #3: an attempt to get it "just right"

But it still comes across as changing in the wind. I wonder which Gore will show up tomorrow?

2134. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 12:40:34 PM

Keys to Bush victory:

To repeat, Gore must get out the black vote. If blacks stay home, he loses: big-time.

Bush must convince enough white women that he'll at least provide lip service to education and other "compassion" issues. The more he pulls here the better he can offset any large black turnout.

2135. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 12:41:34 PM

"Please explain how it is inflationary for Bush to return money to the
American people, and then for those people to spend that money, but it is not inflationary for Gore's government to spend the same amount of money. "

But they aren't the same amounts, since Gore proposes to save more of the projected surplus than Bush does, as Bush's larger tax cut substantially exceeds Gore's larger spending increase.

2136. OhioSTOPAS - 10/18/2000 12:43:01 PM

Bush's debate performances admittedly were more consistent than Gore's.

2137. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 12:44:35 PM

Ohio: Touche'.

2138. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 12:46:58 PM

"But they aren't the same amounts, since Gore proposes to save more of the projected surplus than Bush does"

1) Wrong. Gore proposes to spend more than Bush's tax cuts. Gore's numbers are unreliable; the nonpartisan Committee for a Fair and Resposible Budget states that Gore spends more than the surplus.

2) By "saving" the surplus, you mean Gore will "pay off our debt." And how does one "pay off our debt"? Simple -- by retiring Treasury bonds. And when you retire a Treasury bond, you PAY the value of that bond to the holder of the bond -- putting those dollars right back into circulation.

2139. stostosto - 10/18/2000 12:52:44 PM

Ace, you're so cute when you pose as an expert economist.

How, do you suppose you are able to pay off those holders of Treasury bills? Could it, by any chance, be by running a budgetary surplus, i.e. spending less than you take in in revenues?

2140. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 12:52:55 PM

"1) Wrong. Gore proposes to spend more than Bush's tax cuts. Gore's
numbers are unreliable; the nonpartisan Committee for a Fair and
Resposible Budget states that Gore spends more than the surplus."

Cite please. This runs counter to everything else I have read.

"2) By "saving" the surplus, you mean Gore will "pay off our debt." And how does one "pay off our debt"? Simple -- by retiring Treasury bonds. And when you retire a Treasury bond, you PAY the value of that bond to the holder of the bond -- putting those dollars right back into circulation."

I know I have seen you say that you believe in Keynesian fiscal effects, such as tax cuts acting as an economic stimulus. Are you now saying that you *don't* believe in such effects, or is this an argument of convenience?

2141. concerned - 10/18/2000 12:56:00 PM

To anybody who takes Alphalfa Bore at his word that he won't spend any surplus, I have a bridge to sell that you'll be very interested in, also.

2142. Ronski - 10/18/2000 12:57:02 PM

I believe the individual who coined the phrase (or at least owned it for a very long time), "You ain't seen nothin', yet," was the late Jimmy Durante (along with "Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are" and "Everybody wants to get into the act.")

2143. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 12:57:38 PM

BTW, Thoughtful, this...

For example, Bush's large tax cut can easily cause the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent an inflationary spiral, squelching economic growth raising unemployment and damaging investment and productivity.

...is sheer alarmist fear-mongering. The Feds would raise interest rates only if inflation had already begun. Is there any reason to predict such action would be necessary? Is there any reason to predict that the Fed would suddenly run amok and over-compensate the rates to the degree you describe?

The Fed uses interest rates to regulate the economy--not destroy it.

Are you saying the economy would be in shambles without government taxation? That is, suppose everyone kept all their money. Are you proposing under such a system we'd have hell-bent inflation, massive unemployment, and terrible interest rates?

I thought economists consider all taxes distortionary of the economy.

2144. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 12:59:23 PM

A major concern for Democrats is that a lot more Republicans watched the debates than did their own party members.

And Bush enjoys an advantage over Gore in "voter intensity" surveys.

"Bush has the lead with people who say absolutely they are going to vote, which is why a low turnout benefits Bush and Republicans in general," says a worried Democratic pollster Jeff Pollock.

2145. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 12:59:23 PM

Ohio

I thought Buckley hit it right on. Obviously, the argument is whether Gore as Gore goes down easier than Bush as Bush. I still think Gore wins, but because of the massive inherent advantages of the economy, and California/New York as a given (he whould be up by 10, easy). If he loses, however, it will be because eggheads crown him the debate king even after his performance sinks into the mind of the independent voter like a wet fart. You may continue to crow, but it sounds like self-comforting machismo.

Ace

You were moaning like a pig-tailed pussy about a "drubbing." I explained that it was not. Now, like some welfare queen, I throw you a bone, you want a steak.

And as much as you and Rask have a hard-on for the national polls, the point is to get to 270.

2146. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 1:07:14 PM

ace, Is there something magical about government spending that makes it non-inflationary?

Of course not. However the plans as put forth by both candidates show that Gore's plan is much more fiscally conservative. Gore's plan shows a tax cut of $480 Billion, a spending increase of $1.1 trillion including an allowance for interest payments and reserves an extra $300B as surplus over and above that generated by social security/medicare. That totals to the $1.8 trillion surplus estimated by the CBO.

Bush's plan starts with $1.6 trillion tax cut, ignores $300B in extra interest payments that will be due as a result of not paying down the debt, then adds on as much as another $1.15 trillion in spending if you believe he will support the programs he has endorsed such as Star Wars. That includes $900B in social security that will have to be made up for the transition costs incurred by his soc. sec. privatization plan which no one yet in his economic camp has addressed.

The transition costs I refer to has to do with the fact that the stream of tax $ into social security is currently paid out to today's recipients. If some of those tax $ are diverted to current workers in a privatization plan, there will be a shortfall of funds to pay today's retirees. The estimate has been as high as $900B shortfall.

Of course all of these numbers have their problems and both camps have used shenanigans in coming up with their own totals and with each others' totals, but there is no doubt in my mind that Gore's plan is more fiscally conservative. Even if it weren't I believe that politically it is easier to reduce future spending on government programs than it is to raise taxes. And by most counts one or the other will have to be done to either plan as most likely those huge government surpluses will not materialize.

2147. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:10:55 PM

Ace, you're so cute when you pose as an expert economist.

What real economists says about Bush's plan

Combined with Governor Bush's support for tort reform, for regulatory reform, and for a monetary policy of low inflation and maximum sustainable economic growth, these proposals represent a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda.

The list includes the Nobel Laureates for 1999, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1986, and 1976.

2148. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:12:17 PM

"And as much as you and Rask have a hard-on for the national polls, the point is to get to 270."

But national polls are an extremely strong predictor of electoral victory. There has only been one Presidential election (Cleveland) in history where a candidate won the polls but lost in the electoral college (two if you count Hayes/Tilden - I don't because of the shenigans around which electoral votes were allowed to count). Since state polls are so sporadically updated, national polls are a better indicator.

2149. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:12:54 PM

"That totals to the $1.8 trillion surplus estimated by the CBO."

Why do you feel you can simply make up crap like this? You are not quoting the CBO's numbers, you are quoting Gore's numbers-- which are not the CBO's numbers.

2150. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:13:15 PM

Even if it weren't I believe that politically it is easier to reduce future spending on government programs than it is to raise taxes.

Ha

Ha

2151. Jack Vincennes - 10/18/2000 1:13:35 PM

Rask

When they all show the race within the margin of error for weeks, it is time to think Cleveland.

2152. concerned - 10/18/2000 1:15:59 PM

From IJ's link:

We enthusiastically endorse the economic plan put forth by George W. Bush. It is based on conservative revenue projections and sensible spending baselines and will create more economic growth and greater opportunities for all Americans.

Nobel Laureate signers of the above:

Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate -- 1976, Hoover Institution
Robert E. Lucas Jr., Nobel Laureate -- 1995, University of Chicago
James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate -- 1986, George Mason University
Myron S. Scholes, Nobel Laureate -- 1997, Stanford University
Gary S. Becker, Nobel Laureate -- 1992, University of Chicago
Robert A. Mundell, Nobel Laureate --1999, Columbia University

Of course, according to jexster and thoughtful, these guys are just a bunch of morons.

2153. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:17:47 PM

"When they all show the race within the margin of error for weeks, it is time to think Cleveland."

A few polling companies will start doing more frequent state polls starting in a week or two. At that time, I will agree with you as to which approach is better.

2154. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:18:01 PM

"I know I have seen you say that you believe in Keynesian fiscal effects, such as tax cuts acting as an economic stimulus. Are you now saying that you *don't* believe in such effects, or is this an argument of convenience?"

I'm not talking about economic stimulus or Keynesian economics.

YOU SAID: Bush's cuts are inflationary; Gore's "paying off the debt" is not.

I SAID: But "paying off the debt" means paying off T-bills, which means taking money OUT of savings in T-bills and putting that money right back into circulation. Whether we inject the money into the economy through tax cuts OR we inject the money into the economy through paying bond-holders for their bonds, we're still putting the same amount of dollars into circulation.

Please explain how a "tax dollar" knows it should behave in an inflationary way, even when it is thirty parties away from its original spender, while a "retired T bill dollar" knows it should not behave in an inflationary way, even when it is thirty parties away from its original spender.

RASK'S BIG REBUTTAL: Are you disputing the economic stimulus effects of tax cuts or Keynesian economics?

ACE: Are you changing the subject for a *reason*?

2155. Ronski - 10/18/2000 1:18:32 PM

National polls are also a pretty good indicator of who is going to end up carrying the tossup states.

I think Gore still has a small chance of winning, but perhaps only if the Naderites desert their candidate deciding that they would prefer four years of Gore to a Bush victory.

I also think the polls will close again a bit in the next week, but right now I think Bush is the favorite. While some people doubt his capabilities, no one is scared that he is some sort of gross incompetent, except a few Democrat partisans. I don't think Bush has quite sealed the deal, but he is getting there.

2156. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:18:46 PM

"Of course, according to jexster and thoughtful, these guys are just a bunch of morons."

No, just Republicans. Economists have political preferences too.

2157. Ronski - 10/18/2000 1:19:53 PM

connie,

And some of them have vaguely libertarian tendencies, which is even worse.

2158. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:22:31 PM

"How, do you suppose you are able to pay off those holders of Treasury bills? Could it, by any chance, be by running a budgetary surplus, i.e. spending less than you take in in revenues?"

Inflation is not caused by a government "budgetary surplus" or deficit. It is caused by too many dollars in circulation *in the entire economy* chasing too few products/services, leading to a higher cost of products and services.

Reagan ran deficits for years without significant inflation. Clinton ran deficits for years without significant inflation. Clinton ran surpluses for two years without significant inflation.

Surplus/deficit is unrelated to inflation, except, perhaps, in a very tenuous and debatable way.

Rask & Thoughtful are claiming that Bush's tax cut will be "inflationary" simply because there will be so many more dollars in circulation.

They conveniently "forget" that Gore plans to SPEND the same dollars, putting them equally in circulation as any tax cut would.

2159. CalGal - 10/18/2000 1:23:47 PM

Rask,

"You ain't seen nothin yet" was Al Jolson, wasn't it? The Jazz Singer.

Or was that "you ain't heard nothin yet"?

2160. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:27:03 PM

I thought it was Bachman Turner Overdrive.

2161. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:29:10 PM

"I'm not talking about economic stimulus or Keynesian economics."

Yes you are. You just evidently don't know it.

"Please explain how a "tax dollar" knows it should behave in an inflationary way, even when it is thirty parties away from its original spender, while a "retired T bill dollar" knows it should not behave in an inflationary way, even when it is thirty parties away from its original spender."

This is where Keynesian economics kicks in. There are more qualified people than me around here (macro isn't my strong suit - my focus was on micro, public finance, and environmental econ), but as I understand it, money injected into the economy through spending (either directly on government projects or by individuals via tax cuts) has a substantially greater short term effect on the economy than money that is saved. (The velocity of money is higher when spent as opposed to saved?)If you want to know the dynamics of how this works, I'll have to punt. But this is why I asked if you were really questioning Keynesian theory, since you have agreed with related points of Keynesianism many times before.

2162. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:29:25 PM

In addition:

Gore's tax cut: $500 billion (or so he claims) over ten years

Bush's tax cut: $1.3 trillion over ten years

Difference between tax cuts:

$800 billion over ten years, or $80 billion per year.

Now, let's compare scale:

The federal budget itself -- ONLY THE FEDERAL BUDGET -- is over $1 trillion per YEAR. The GDP is, of course, much larger.

Are Rask and Thoughtful seriously claiming that a difference of approximately 8% of the federal budget (not the GDP, once again, which is of course much larger) is enough to start an inflationary spiral?

That's positively ridiculous.

2163. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 1:29:36 PM

Ahhh, BTO. Childhood. Real sensations. Exciting things.

2164. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 1:30:37 PM

(That was in reaction to the mention of Bachman Turner Overdrive).

2165. concerned - 10/18/2000 1:30:48 PM

Bore's prospective mishandling of the Federal Budget will be inflationary as compared to Bush's plan since he will be creating a situation in which more dollars are chasing fewer goods, partly by massively increasing Federal spending on stifling levels of bureaucracy and regulation which produce nothing and depress productivity and competitiveness in the private sector.

Plus, as Democrats tend to do, Bore will try to effectively aggravate inflationary tendencies by appointing a Fed Chairman who is prone to overstimulating the economy, much as the WH Rapist tried do with Felix Rohatyn.

2166. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:31:44 PM

The inverse of the savings rate creates the multiplier effect, which causes spent money to "reverberate" through the economy.

But I don't think it is the determining factor here.

2167. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:33:33 PM

"Rask & Thoughtful are claiming that Bush's tax cut will be "inflationary" simply because there will be so many more dollars in circulation."

Not really. Its just that the economy is on the knife edge right now, operating at full capacity. Economic shocks are generally a bad idea in such circumstances. If Bush wants to wait until an inevitable recession before cutting taxes, I doubt anyone would squawk.

I'll say that my concern over tax cuts has much more to do with long term fiscal responsibility (making hay while the sun shines, in preparation for a demographic-drive storm on the horizon), than it has to do with macroeconomic policy.

2168. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:33:56 PM

Rask:

Well, you are still avoiding my point by muddying the waters.

If I give $20 to you in a tax cut, you can either spend it or save it.

For some ludicrous reason (to confuse the issue), you are making the absurd assumption that money injected into the economy through tax cuts will be spent, but money injected into the economy through paying bond-holders will be saved.

In reality, it doesn't matter WHERE the money comes from; people will take their dollars and either spend or save in accordance with their general needs.

All dollars are fungible. You are pretending that dollars received through tax cuts are marked with big letters that make them somehow different than dollars received through, say, a health-care subsidy.

They're all the same dollars, Rask. There are no "good dollars" or "bad dollars."

2169. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 1:35:46 PM

ace, #2149, if you read what I wrote, the $1.8 trillion surplus is the surplus estimated by the CBO and is the base number that both candidates are working with in their respective economic plans. Of course how that money gets divvied up is determined by each candidate. Talk about the inability to grasp the obvious....

2170. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:37:32 PM

Ace: just to help you out (out of sympathy), the size of the Federal government is just north of 1.7 trillion annually. GDP is around 9.3 trillion.

2171. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 1:39:20 PM

Ace - I've looked on the net for anything on the committee for fair and responsible budget and have come up empty. I don't know who they are, but I suspect they aren't bipartisan. If you could provide I link, I'd be most interested.

2172. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:39:58 PM

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Military spending by the government, it is argued therefore, creates inflation because the money remains in circulation in the form of salaries, etc., but no consumer goods are created. That is, engineers and workers build bombs, are paid for it, but bring no purchasable goods or services to the economy.

Because income taxes represent a portion of money paid for goods and services already produced, income tax refunds aren't inherently inflationary. However, if the government took tax money and just burned it, that would be anti-inflationary and likely create a recession. Goods would still be available, but there would be less money with which to purchase them.

2173. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:43:31 PM

Rask,

"Out of sympathy"?

This from the man who asserts that "tax cut dollars" cause inflation but "debt retirement dollars" don't, as if each dollar is marked with a magic red or black X?

2174. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:44:39 PM

Indy:

And, as I understand it, mild deflation is far more dangerous than even high inflation.

2175. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:46:52 PM

"All dollars are fungible. You are pretending that dollars received through tax cuts are marked with big letters that make them somehow different than dollars received through, say, a health-care subsidy. "

Ace: inflation isn't just dictated by the money supply. It is also affected by the behavior of individuals. For instance, whether individuals choose to spend their money, keep in a mattress, or put it in a bank, has an impact on inflation. The same applies to government behavior. As I understand it, money that is saved (whether by governments or individuals) has less of a monetary impact than money that is spent. I think this is because saved money changes hands less often. But we really need to get one of the macroeconomists in here. I am going by recollection from one macro class taken 15 years ago, taught by a rational expectations junkie who gave Keynes short shrift.

2176. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 1:48:12 PM

IJ, my suggestion that the Fed is at the ready to forestall an inflationary spiral is not fear-mongering, but an understanding of how the fed operates. Currently the economy is running flat out -- faster than most economists believe is sustainable. This is despite the dampening pressures of a rising fiscal surplus, a record trade deficit and relatively high (by historic standards) real interest rates. There are signs that inflation has been picking up. For example, today's CPI report came in unexpectedly strong at 0.5%. There are no signs that the labor market at 3.9% unemployment rate is easing.

If a significant tax cut gets passed against the backdrop of strong economic growth, the Fed will work to offset that by raising interest rates.

(Ace, you might want to check out some basic text on money, banking and finance to understand how the Fed can control the money supply despite changes in the federal budget.)

2177. jexster - 10/18/2000 1:48:36 PM

mild deflation is far more dangerous than even
high inflation.

Don't tell Alan Greenspan or any German alive during the Weimar Republic.

2178. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 1:51:15 PM

Gore jumped off his stool, puffed out his chest, and approached Bush--coming dangerously close to what New York debate analysts would call the governor's personal space. For an instant the scene was rife with possibilities. Would Gore try to deck Bush--not symbolically, but with his actual fists? Would Bush fight back? Would moderator Jim Lehrer intervene?

Bush glanced at Gore, smiled, and gave the vice president a quick little nod. It was reminiscent of the moment last December in which Gore, again in hyper-aggressive mode, stuck his hand in Bill Bradley's face, demanding that Bradley agree to one of Gore's hands.

"Al, that's good," Bradley said. "I like that hand." This time, Bush's little look was a cue for the audience to laught at Gore's essential silliness. And Gore hel himself back, perhaps realizing that he had literally overstepped his bounds. He stood at attention until Lehrer gave him the go-ahead.

That moment was the story of Tuesday night's debate. Just as in the first face-off in Boston, Gore's unsettling demeanor set the tone for the last debate, in the process tipping the balance toward Bush.

--Byron York, CNN

2179. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:52:10 PM

Ace: Regardless of whether you think tax cuts or extra government spending are inflationary, surely you agree that the relevant question, as Thoughtful suggests, is what the *Fed* thinks, and how they will respond? I recall Greenspan commenting several times on how the Fed might move to counteract the monetary effect of government spending decisions, although I don't think (for obvious reasons) he has commented on the plan of either Presidential candidate.

2180. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:53:12 PM

Ace: Deflation occurs almost exclusively during recession/depression.

It's also bizarre to think Republicans want to pursue an inflationary agenda. Inflation benefits debtors and hurts creditors.

2181. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:53:42 PM

"As I understand it, money that is saved (whether by governments or individuals) has less of a monetary impact than money that is spent."

And I just told you: This is wholly irrelevant. Even if it is true that money spent is more inflationary than money saved, it has nothing to do with our discussion, for we are not talking about dollars spent and dollars saved.

We are talking about dollars received due to a tax cut, and dollars received due to a government buy-out of the safest savings vehicle.

You will argue that money which comes out of T-bills will go back into the next-safest investment, like, I don't know, Grade A bonds.

Well, yes, perhaps -- and thereby driving up the price of the next-safest investment. As the price of that investment goes up, naturally, so will the price of the third-safest investment, and so on, and so on.

And you don't seem to "get it" that those "rich" who are getting all these "free dollars" tend to SAVE & INVEST much more of their money than they actually spend, and therefore we can expect "tax cut dollars" to also go largely into savings and investments.

Once again:

We are talking about the difference in inflationary tendency of "tax cut dollars" and "debt retirement dollars."

You offer an irrelevant point about "money saved" and "money spent."

Compare:

"Tax cut dollar" ... "money spent"

"debt retirement dollar" ... "money saved"

See? They're not the same terms, though you seem desirous of conflating them.

2182. concerned - 10/18/2000 1:55:02 PM

The fact is that public savings is at historic lows and public indebtedness is extremely high with defaults and bankruptcy increasing. Reducing Federal taxes will allow both of these situations to ease.

2183. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:55:17 PM

"Regardless of whether you think tax cuts or extra government spending are inflationary, surely you agree that the relevant question, as Thoughtful suggests, is what the *Fed* thinks, and how they will respond?"

I think Greenspan understands that all dollars are fungible, and that there are not "good dollars" (social spending dollars) and "bad dollars" (tax cut giveaways for the rich dollars) with respect to monetary policy.

2184. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 1:56:56 PM

Thoughtful: But if not your doomsday scenario, then your basic argument is that the Fed would step in to keep the economy from overheating.

Leading to the response of, So?

You can't simultanously argue that the economy will overheat and suffer a recession.

Please answer one question: Can an economy function just fine with zero taxes?

2185. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 1:57:24 PM

Ace: debt retirement *is* savings, by definition.

"And you don't seem to "get it" that those "rich" who are getting all
these "free dollars" tend to SAVE & INVEST much more of their
money than they actually spend, and therefore we can expect "tax cut
dollars" to also go largely into savings and investments. "

You are a champion bluffer. I challenge you to find *any* evidence supporting your statement that the rich save and invest "much more" than they spend. They might save more than the poor do, but the evidence I have seen is that their marginal propensity to save doesn't come close to being 50%.

2186. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 1:58:11 PM

Thoughtful,

"Ace, you might want to check out some basic text on money, banking and finance to understand how the Fed can control the money supply despite changes in the federal budget."

No, you might want to consider what you said RIGHT THERE. The Fed controls the money SUPPLY. It does not care how the dollars in the money supply come to be. It does not tally "good dollars" and "bad dollars." It simply knows "too many dollars" and "too few dollars."

2187. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 2:04:19 PM

Look....I gotta go....maybe I can come back and play some more tonight, but for now:

concerned -- check your facts on public savings -- don't get them confused with the personal savings rate which is at a record low.

Ace I agree (hard to believe) that the multiplier on savings vs. spending is not relevant to the discussion here, but paying off the debt is contractionary on the economy; returning to deficit spending either by tax cuts or spending increases or whatever combination thereof is stimulative and in this economic environment potentially inflationary. The key difference between Gore and Bush is the size of the sum of their spending hikes + tax cuts. Gore's is smaller.

2188. AceofSpades - 10/18/2000 2:05:24 PM

"Ace: debt retirement *is* savings, by definition."

No, it's not. The government might "save," but we're not concerned with the government's books--we care, for these purposes, about the entire country's books, which includes both the government and the citizens.

If the Government retires debt by paying a citizen DOLLARS, those evil inflationary dollars still exist in the economy. They haven't "gone" anywhere. They haven't been safely taken out of circulation, so that they don't cause inflation.

They are in circulation.

Consider:

You hold my $20 IOU, payable three years from now.

I pay you $18 for that IOU, now, discounted for present value. I then destroy the IOU.

Are there any less dollars in circulation after you pay off the IOU?

Would there be any MORE dollars in circulation if I wait three years to pay you $20 for the IOU?

Answer: No, there won't be.

"You are a champion bluffer. I challenge you to find *any* evidence supporting your statement that the rich save and invest "much more" than they spend. They might save more than the poor do, but the evidence I have seen is that their marginal propensity to save doesn't come close to being 50%."

"Much more" was probably wrong.

In any event, you continue leading us to this same red herring (dollars "know" if they're "savings dollars" or "spending dollars," based on their origin; money spent vs money saved) because you don't want to deal with the fact that you're wrong.

2189. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:06:32 PM

2190. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 2:12:31 PM

Skeet Ulrich?

2191. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:12:45 PM

2192. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 2:14:03 PM

A Smith Brother?

2193. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:14:48 PM

I find it much easier to like a less Ken-doll plastic Gore. The eyebrows are a problem in any case.

2194. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 2:16:46 PM

I like the Father Abraham Gore look...

2195. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 2:18:08 PM

"I think Greenspan understands that all dollars are fungible, and that
there are not "good dollars" (social spending dollars) and "bad
dollars" (tax cut giveaways for the rich dollars) with respect to
monetary policy."

You "think". But several times he has cautioned Congress about the possibility that the Fed might move to counteract the monetary impact of Government fiscal policy. It isn't that there are "good" dollars and "bad" dollars. It is all situational. Something which is fine as a fiscal stimulus when there is a lot of unused capacity can be a bad idea when there isn't.

"No, it's not. The government might "save," but we're not concerned
with the government's books-- we care, for these purposes, about the
entire country's books, which includes both the government and the
citizens. "

Yes, and if Government savings increases, national savings increases. You seem to think that government savings plus private savings equals a constant. Ace, considering that I am not all that qualified, it is hard enough to give an economics lecture to someone who is actually *open* to what I am saying, and I am getting sick of correcting your stubborn insistence of disagreement with over elementary definitions from ECON 101 textbooks.

And I'll repeat, the monetary effects are a minor issue, so I am done with this.

2196. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 2:19:08 PM

Rustler- Now how about a nice GW picture Elvis style?

2197. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:22:46 PM

2198. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 2:26:56 PM

Last point, Britannica's article on fiscal policy.

2199. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 2:28:07 PM

and savings.

2200. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:29:42 PM

2201. concerned - 10/18/2000 2:30:01 PM

Re. 2187 -

thoughtful -

I *was* talking about personal savings. I thought that was obvious.

2202. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 2:30:21 PM

Now that it's been shown that George Bush won all three debates (on points), do you think Al Gore should have tried the NBC and Larry King debate formats?

2203. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:38:31 PM

2204. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 2:39:57 PM

Rustler: what, no Groucho Gore?

2205. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 2:41:19 PM

Time to RIP the thread and relocate to Politics?

2206. Dusty - 10/18/2000 2:42:56 PM

IJ

You mean this isn't the economics thread?

2207. RustlerPike - 10/18/2000 2:43:41 PM

Enough.

2208. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 2:46:31 PM

Dusty: Well...apparently we're all talked out about the debates.

2209. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 2:49:37 PM

IJ: Time to RIP the thread and relocate to Politics?

it is J@L's call, but i'd agree

2210. CalGal - 10/18/2000 2:52:47 PM

J@L, this was an excellent thread and you did a good job.

I still wouldn't mind it if we had a thread for this election as opposed to Politics.

2211. theDiva - 10/18/2000 2:53:27 PM

2203 is my favorite. LOL!

2212. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 2:54:52 PM

CG

i was gonna propose an Election 2000 thread next week. the only real question is keep this one or start fresh?

2213. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 2:55:28 PM

Thank you, diva. I appreciate that,

2214. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 2:57:51 PM

Unless there is a demand from the forum to keep this open, I think that we should RIP this thread. It would be interesting to keep this open for a short period of time for the spin cycle to complete, but I imagine that it could be incorporated into Politics.

I would also be interested in an election thread, with the hope that it would be the inside baseball version of politics. Not necessarily to debate the issues themselves, but how the elections will go, and the reasons for the predictions. An electoral college map that Moties could pick for Gore and Bush would be a fun thing to turn into a pool. I would offer some Omaha Steaks as a prize.

2215. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2000 2:58:02 PM

When we discussed opening this thread it was suggested it would morph into the Election Thread.

2216. CalGal - 10/18/2000 3:00:33 PM

Well, we could RIP it and then create a new one at the same time? With Jones as the host still?

2217. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 3:01:25 PM

oh yeah

duh

you'd think i could remember my own proposal

2218. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2000 3:04:25 PM

I could do it now. Let this one stay up in RIP state for 24 hours? Name of new thread?

2219. Ronski - 10/18/2000 3:04:36 PM

jones,

Btw, you mentioned the prairie yesterday. Now, though a New Yorker, I didn't just fall off the bagle truck, and in fact know the difference between the prairie and plains (my partner is from Kansas, after all, central Kansas).

Just wanted you to know.

I suppose Gore's chances of getting one of those Nebraska electors has diminished, or has it?

I see more chances of a split delegation in Maine.

2220. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 3:07:08 PM

Pelle: Election 2000?

does J@L want to host? i think you did a good job, jones, but then i'm currently being called the worst ever in my own thread by a yipping poodle so take it as you will....

2221. CalGal - 10/18/2000 3:10:35 PM

I thought he said I was the worst ever. What did you do, call him a plagiarist?

BTW, did you get my email?

2222. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2000 3:13:19 PM

I've not followed everything here but it seems there is consensus that jones has done a good job. Let's put him(?) in and change later if he declines.

2223. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 3:13:28 PM

CG

well, it's whomever he wants to get into a pissing match with, i think.

PS shit, i thought i responded - look for a reply in a couple.

2224. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 3:15:18 PM

Ronski- you are far ahead of your neighbors in US geography. Gore's chances for that one electoral vote here have slipped. It's possible, but increasingly unlikely. BTW- I'm in Omaha, which is the far eastern end of the state. We're the western edge of the tallgrass prairie here, but as you go west, it's the shortgrass and the great plains. There was an old tourism slogan "Where the West Begins" about Omaha. "It was turned into Omaha- where the east peters out."

Is your partner a K State or KU fan? If he's a Jayhawk, -"Rock, Chalk, Jaaaayhawk" with my compliments. If he's a Wildcat- then how 'bout them Sooners-that'll teach you to play the Little Sisters of the Poor for the first half of the season and expect to be taken seriously.

2225. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 3:17:25 PM

I'd be willing to host- but seeing as I have just been drafted as an election offcial, I won't be available at crunch time. I'd be willing to share, if someone could cover the day of the election itself.

2226. labwabbit - 10/18/2000 3:18:11 PM

Defamation 2000.

How to Retire in 4-8 years Plan 2000?

Elect[rocu]tion 2000
{reference to any particular candidate is not intended here)

Power Play Campaign

2227. stostosto - 10/18/2000 3:18:17 PM

Indiana Jones:

It's certainly an impressive list of economists. Of the Nobel laureates only Buchanan doesn't ring a bell. Friedman and Lucas are famous for having pioneered the monetarist and rational expectations revolution in macroeconomic theory. Scholes is known for some theorem to do with financial wizardry -- pricing of futureswaptions, or something (and for his role in the Long Term Capital Management debacle), Becker is a libertarian-leaning (like Friedman) microeconomic hardliner who excels in modelling non-economic behaviour, like mating and family life, in economic terms, Mundell got his Nobel for his work in the 60s on optimal currency unions. He has since been remarkable mostly for teaming up with raving supply-siders at the Wall Street Journal promoting the return to the gold standard.

In other words: No surprises there. It's pretty much the usual suspects, and if these guys hadn't lined up behind Bush, something would have been seriously worrying about his plans. Not that they haven't done important work in the field, far from it, but I surmise they would have backed each and every conceivable candidate that the Republicans could think of.

And it's beyond me why you bring this up in response to my assessment of Ace's credentials as an economist.

I would be a hell of a lot more impressed if you could find a list of economists backing up Ace's fatuous statements on the subject.

What with his earlier comments on the M1/M2 as a better deflator than the CPI. I mean, come again?! It really is cute.

As to your question of a zero tax rate. Well, a zero-tax economy might function fine, if you could find sufficient voluntary private funding for such functions as police, judiciary, military, monetary system, and infrastructure.

Normally what happens when the state isn't capable of sustaining such functions is war-lordism and chaos. It's not libertarian fairy-land. Sadly.

2228. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2000 3:21:47 PM

Give me an hour and it will be done. My wife just got home. Any suggestion for a blurb, jones?

2229. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 3:25:08 PM

whatever the blurb is, it can be better than

Debate the debates and debaters!

hahaha

2230. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 3:26:13 PM

Election 2000- what will the voters decide and why.

2231. Ronski - 10/18/2000 3:27:23 PM

jones,

He's a Jayhawk. (And we have several of those little critters in various nooks and crannies around the house.)

However, he will, as a last resort, root for K State when circumstances compel him.

2232. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 3:28:37 PM

He's a Jayhawk..." I knew you were a man of taste.

2233. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 3:30:56 PM

sto:

Not that they haven't done important work in the field, far from it...

Well, considering they've won about half the Nobel prizes for economics over the last decade, I guess so.

It's beyond me why you bring this up in response to my assessment of Ace's credentials as an economist.

It seems rather obvious to me that if you doubt Ace's credentials (which aren't really what the debate is about but rather Bush's economic plan), that perhaps you'll accept the word of genuine economists. Moreover, in all honesty, I really wanted to post the reply to Thoughtful, rather than you, because she was the one who painted the grim doomsday scenario of Bush's tax cut. However, she and I have had a "bit of a rough patch" lately, and I thought she might take the headline of "What real economists say..." as personally insulting. That is, she might think I was disparaging her standing in what I believe she has said is her profession.

Well, a zero-tax economy might function fine, if you could find sufficient voluntary private funding for such functions as police, judiciary, military, monetary system, and infrastructure. Normally what happens when the state isn't capable of sustaining such functions is war-lordism and chaos.

Your argument is then that the economy needs a state to function and the state needs taxes to exist. Fine. That doesn't support the notion, however, that any taxes are necessary to prevent inflation in an economy. So neither does it support an argument against a limited tax cut because a limited tax cut would be inflationary.

2234. concerned - 10/18/2000 3:37:16 PM

Re. 2228 -

Election 2000 - Take Out the Trash or More of the Same Garbage?

2235. Raskolnikov - 10/18/2000 3:42:59 PM

IJ: But the economist page you cite only speaks in vague generalities about the benefits of Bush's plans, and hardly defend the economic logic behind his most controversial proposals. As I said, economists also have political preferences. The mere fact that some prominent economists endorse Bush's general economic platform is unsurprising and pretty meaningless.

2236. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 3:46:55 PM

Another example of why cazart was right about mote management

Any changes in hosts and thread headlines should be discussed in the correct thread so that everyone has the opportunity to debate it. Not hidden away with private emails.

"I want to fight for you," Al Gore told America last night, and I've been converted.

2237. Ronski - 10/18/2000 3:47:12 PM

Zogby today has Bush and Gore tied at 43 percent, averaging polling from Oct 15 - 17.

I would really like this to be close on election day, so that watching the returns is fun.

2238. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 3:50:06 PM

Rosetta

you aren't even worth an e-mail dip shit

2239. OhioSTOPAS - 10/18/2000 4:11:53 PM

You mean Kansas and Nebraska are two separate states?

I thought it was a big wheatfield called Nebraskansas.

2240. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 4:12:10 PM

Rosetta- Do you want to host? Get a consensus of Moties to agree, not "the management."

2241. Ronski - 10/18/2000 4:19:07 PM

Ohio,

You are confusing Nebraska and Kansas with New Hampshire and Vermont, which the tourism authority of the Province of New Brunswick recently declared one state (awarding the name to the former) in one of their brochures, and which the poet Robert Frost also declared virtually identical in his poem, New Hampshire.

Vermonters are keenly sensitive about this sort of thing, it should be noted.

2242. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2000 4:23:20 PM

The Election 2000 thread is up.

2243. glendajean - 10/18/2000 4:25:11 PM

What a conspiracy. Gore wins a debate and we kill the thread.

Just kidding.

2244. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 4:26:12 PM

Rask:

But the economist page you cite only speaks in vague generalities about the benefits of Bush's plans, and hardly defend the economic logic behind his most controversial proposals.

In contrast to the hand-waving argument that a tax cut will "cause an economic meltdown as the economy first overheats and then plunges into recession when the Fed raises interest rates"?

Sure, it's a general statement (although the Web site does have longer papers in PDF) for general consumption. Which "controversial proposal" do you not see supported? They endorse both Bush's SS plan and his tax cut plan, as well as some other specific proposals.

The mere fact that some prominent economists endorse Bush's general economic platform is unsurprising and pretty meaningless.

Do you think these people care so little for their professional reputations that they just endorse anything Republican? Thoughtful has argued that Bush's plan would result in an economic catastrophe. Perhaps you share that belief, but more than 500 other economists, including six Nobel prize winners, disagree. If you want to argue specifics, then do so, but I think as long as we're talking generalities than a general rebuttal is sufficient.

The statement of their support is meaningless to you because you choose to ignore it.

2245. bubbaette - 10/18/2000 4:29:10 PM

GJ

I agree that Gore won the debate. I think that Bush looked the frat boy with his nervous laugh and his would-be conspiratorial glances to the audience (I assume). He was darn near incoherent several times had appeared to have no grasp of the subject at hand much of the time. Much more so than in the previous two debates I was wondering what in the world the Repubs were thinking in nominating this obvious lightweight.

2246. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 4:30:40 PM

Outragious the way threads are deleted and started given out without comment in the correct thread.

2247. Thoughtful - 10/18/2000 4:37:13 PM

concerned, #2201, I *was* talking about personal savings. I thought that was obvious.

2182. concerned - 10/18/00 1:55:02 PM
The fact is that public savings is at historic lows and public indebtedness is extremely high with defaults and bankruptcy increasing. Reducing Federal taxes will allow both of these situations to ease. [emphasis mine]

Want to tell me how it's obvious you were talking about personal savings when you only mentioned public savings and debt?

2248. SnowOwl - 10/18/2000 4:38:49 PM

We get very little coverage of the debates, just small snippets during the news. What I did see last night was surprising though, in the sense that I've read people here saying that Bush is charming.
He certainly didn't appear that way to me. He looked decidedly uneasy
and the constant rapid blinking of his eyes made him look sly.

2249. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 4:39:23 PM

Lars-Erik weighs in.

2250. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 4:46:50 PM

SnowOwl:

Any mention of Bushs eye blinking will bring on the wrath of a few around here who think it is meaningless. I mentioned the other day that the rapid eye movement showed Bush to be nervous and unsure and I was immediately jumped on and told I was cackling...it was meaningful to ME but not to those in the know...heh heh.

2251. Jonesatlaw - 10/18/2000 6:17:28 PM

For fun folks- watch the debates with the sound off. I recall hearing about a study of aphasic patients who watched a previous debate between politicians and laughed their heads off. They could not process language normally anymore because of the damage to their brains, but were still capable of "reading" a persons body language and facial expressions. They were quite capable of detecting deception because they were not processing the words, just the presentation of the person.

I will leave any conclusions up to you.

2252. Indiana Jones - 10/18/2000 6:23:41 PM

Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine practically steals the words out of my mouth:

The most memorable moment of the debate was one that didn't happen. A woman asked Al Gore how his tax cut proposal would affect her as a middle-class, 34-year-old single woman with no dependents. The vice president responded with a litany of if-then statements: IF you put money in a savings account, IF you go to school, IF you have an elderly parent or grandparent you're taking care of, THEN have I got a deal for you. Most middle-class, 34-year-old single women with no dependents just don't meet most of Gore's criteria for good behavior. They get nothing from his tax cut.

It was a perfect setup for George W. Bush's successful ideological theme: that he trusts people to make decisions about their own lives, and believes government shouldn't play favorites, while Gore wants to use the tax code and other programs for behavior modification. "If, if, if," he could have said, "if and only if you do just what the vice president thinks you should do, then you'll get some of your hard-earned money back. Under my plan, you will get tax relief, with no strings attached...."

But Bush blew it. As the vice president's campaign might say, he babbled -- talking first about how Gore's savings subsidies would bust the budget, then for some bizarre reason bringing up Medicare and promising that we'll live in a peaceful world with more educated citizens if he gets elected. Sandwiched in between these random promises was what should have been the lead -- "You are going to get tax relief under my plan" -- with no follow-up explanation.

Exactly!

2253. CalGal - 10/18/2000 6:26:21 PM

Well, they could just save.

But I think Gore could have said, "You don't get anything. Frankly, you're not a demographic I care about. Go get married--or hell, just get knocked up."

2254. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:34:28 PM

Re. 2247 -

Ooops. My bad. I should have said 'private' savings.

2255. Stumbo - 10/19/2000 5:08:46 AM

IJ:

My first thought, when this happened, was that he was trying to avoid getting put into a position where he'd have to quickly compute something in his head, and get crucified if he got it wrong. But, according to the rules, the candidates couldn't ask the audience members any questions, right? So he could've said something like, "I can't tell you exactly how much relief you'll get -- since I don't know how much you earn, and am not allowed to ask -- but..." etc.

CG:

Or feed her parents some Drano, so they'd get sick.

Or exhume them and prop them up in the corner, if they're already dead.

2256. stostosto - 10/19/2000 5:31:34 AM

I saw the last debate last night - they sent it fucking late, but it was interesting, so I stayed up.

Based on that debate I don't see how anybody could be of the opinion that that wasn't a thorough trouncing of Bush. They say Gore has performed weirdly in the first two debates, first over-aggressive, then over-timid, and that so the impression of him over the three debates is that he is a weirdo who changes persona all the time according to his changing ideas of what plays. I don't know about that since I haven't seen Gore before - or Bush.

But based solely on this third debate, it's flat out incomprehensible to me that Bush is in the race at all, to say nothing of being ahead.

He came across as a dwarf, not only politically, but also in stature, intellect, and character. He was obviously hugely uncomfortable with being there at all, and it made one wonder whether he really wants to be president at all. His body language suggested that he'd much rather be schmoozing in the bar but that he bore the heavy burden of having promised a whole lot of people -- his father among them -- that he would go through with this as best he could.

cont.

2257. stostosto - 10/19/2000 5:31:45 AM

I am not talking about substance here. Clearly there is a difference between Bush's and Gore's views, and if you have Bush's views, you will vote for him. Like you would vote for a regular barfly equipped with a set of conservative convictions and platitudes like "I trust the people over the governmet", or "It's about what this nation can do for the people" over him.

But I am mind-boggled that the Republicans really haven't been able to find a better advocate for such views. Bush just parrots them, giggling nervously all the while, and sighing relievedly when the moderator when pleaded to steps in to rescue him from having to answer one of Gore's questions.

Gore was in command of everything in that debate.

He must have done really, really odd in the other two since his numbers aren't better. Or other parts of his history sticks in the public mind like Buddhist temples or whatever.

I can't see it any other way.

2258. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 8:46:05 AM

IJ, I guess we should move the discussion to the election thread....

2259. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:27:43 PM

LEHRER: Governor, time is up, sir.

GORE: Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, sir.

GORE: We have a direct disagreement on this.

LEHRER: Just a minute, Mr. Vice President. I wanted to--you know, the way the rules go here, now, two minutes, two minutes, and then I'll decide whether we go on.

GORE: You looking to get a beating from my cock?.

LEHRER: So what I want to make sure is we understand here is, before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that you two agree on a national patients' bill of rights?

GORE: What I understand is that you're asking to ride the snake? Do I have that right, Jimmy? When I refer to the Dingell-Norwood bill, I'm talking about my huge schlummer. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress, and much like my cock, it attracts bothe Republican bitches and Democratic bitches. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that Republican majority has put forward.

2260. Electric Slide - 10/19/2000 11:29:14 PM

THE TOUGHEST BUSH OF THEM ALL: BARBARA

It's not nice to fool with mother nature.

Former First Lady Barbara Bush said on Thursday she was worried Vice President Al Gore would "hit" her son, George W. Bush, during their final presidential debate this week.

In an interview with ABC News, Mrs. Bush criticized Bore, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, for his aggressive stand during the third presidential debate with her son.

"I thought he was going to hit George," said Mrs. Bush, wife of former President George Bush. "It sort of scared me."

"..SCARED ME."

2261. jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 11:34:08 PM

Electrolux-

Babs is used to being scared for Dubya. She probably kept Poppy from cleaning his clock when Dubya came home full of liquid courage.

2262. joezan - 10/19/2000 11:37:29 PM

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that lately democrats are getting very testy?

2263. jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 11:42:11 PM

Its just you joe. ;-)

Presidential Debates 2000, pt. 1

The Mote | Mote Archive

back to top