Someone please tell me why Bush has such a staggering lead in popular opinion polls following last night’s debate. He clearly evaded two issues brought up: the failure of the hate crimes bill to pass in Texas, and the fact that Texas is ranked so low in terms of health care coverage for children.
Where exactly did Gore screw up, if at all? I know these opinion polls are flawed, but God, are Bush supporters more likely to click that button for their man?
Personally, am I the only one who thinks Bush (especially when he was watching Gore speak) looked a Lot like Chevy Chase?
I almost expected him to do that pretend-talking-mocking thing that Chevy would do behind jane Curtins back!
WOuld’ve been funny.
You watched the debate? At the same time ST Voyager had an episode featuring Jeri Ryan (7) in nearly every frame? Fools!
I agree with you that the popularity votes on the debate are disturbing. I felt frissons [serious shivers] when Bush talked positively about the death penalty in Texas given recent debates on this topic. I was also really turned off by his constant nose sniffing - sorry, either you blow your nose or take something that dries your nasal drip up. [Granted his father did throw up on the lap of the Japanese Prime Minister a way back.] His lack of response defending his idea not to intervene in nation-building activities showed a shallow understanding of how the US promulgates democracy and civil action. But I was really shocked that he did not respond to his record in Texas on the hate-crime bill and access to medical care for young children, pregnant women and low income families.
I applaud Gore’s serious efforts to avoid coming across as a smarty-pants, however he clearly showed a deeper understanding of important American issues and a greater grasp of his proposed methods to respond.
Bottomline: I think we Americans have been ignoring our society’s greatest issues [since the Reagan Admin] such as health care, public health, education [don’t forget that the Republican party has been arguing the dissolution of the Dept of Education], environmental issues, the promotion of democratic society and improvement of free market economies worldwide, civil rights and responsibilities - ah the list is endless.
What I gleamed out of the debate last night was that Bush’s contention to give power to the local level is not consistent. He kept on saying that we need standards in education and, if the local govt/states don’t get it right, they will have to pay the consequences. OTOH, he wants to have a smaller federal govt. The federal govt cannot inspect food quality [more than 50% of much of our food is imported], the govt cannot track consumer rip-offs a la Firestone tires, the govt can’t insure that our hospitals are safe where everyone has access to quality care, the Federal govt cannot assure equal primary education for all. I can’t see his agenda working. I don’t think that Bush’s domestic agenda addresses real issues for most of us.
Yep, that got me wondering too when Bush said of the killers in his state, “Know whats gonna happen to em? They’re gonna die!”, like he enjoyed the idea a bit too much.
Over the last few weeks the polls have pretty consistently demonstrated that more voters agree with Gore’s positions than Bush’s, but that more voters like Bush.
That’s what happened last night.
This may give a whole new context to the old saying “I’d rather be right than President.”
There were at least two points in the debate when Al Gore asked Bush a question (one basically asking if it was correct that, if Bush had been prez, he wouldn’t have stopped the genocide in Rwanda) and Bush just did not follow along at all. He went off on a tagent about “nation building” and failed to adress what was asked of him.
Granted that Gore can be long-winded and hard to follow at times, but I had several beers in me and had no problem understanding the questions.
IMHO, and greatest attempt at objectivity. He didn’t evade those issues:
Regarding the hate crimes bill, he specifically stated there was no need for additional hate crimes bill because those offenders received the death sentence and you can’t double that punishment. (Actually one of the three got a life sentence, so you should deduct exaggeration/honesty points like Al Gore lost in the first debate)
Regarding the low health care coverage for children in Texas, he established that they had spent X.X dollars (I didn’t write down the number, millions or billions) in uninsured coverage for children until the CHIP program could take effect. He admitted that it was not the most efficient way to address the problem. He also said that the state of Texas was improving their child insurance coverage faster than the nation, which was later confirmed by the analysts.
Excluding their positions on the issues, here is how I saw it:
Governor Bush was very laid back. He seems to suffer from rosatia, so you could tell the two times he got emotional over something because his face turns a little red under the make-up.
Vice President Al Gore, for about the first half of the debate, sat upright with his right eye cocked. He looked like he was just waiting for a chance to pounce on an attack by Bush, but it never came and he finally relaxed towards the second half.
Bush answered the question that was asked 95% of the time and showed agreement with many things the current administration has done, rarely pointing out what he sees as shortcomings or differences. He only brought out differences, for the most part, when Lehrer directly asked the two candidates to differentiate their views.
Gore started about half his responses with the differences between the two parties’ stances. He spent about a third of his total talking time explaining Bush’s policies and plans. Bush spent the majority of his time explaining his own plans and then got a rebuttal every time Gore threw an accusation at him. I don’t know who got more speaking time, but Bush got alot more time spent on his positions than Gore got on his.
Gore, though he reserved himself quite well compared to the first debate, did go for the ‘wealthiest 1% tax cut’ jab twice (maybe three times) though the question was never brought up, which seems to do more harm than good regardless of its merits. He should find new words to address the same situation that will better portray his view without alienating himself by going back to a tired sound byte.
Bush made very veiled attacks and did not use the term ‘fuzzy math’ a single time.
Gore actually laid back a little too much on his redirect. He never addressed the Bush allegation of gas mining in that ‘pristine’ Alaska preserve that Gore continues to bring up as a flag against environmental destruction for oil harvesting. Maybe he didn’t know about it, maybe it doesn’t exist, but that seemed a crucial allegation to defend against. He asked for a redirect a few times and was denied and let is go.
Gore also asked questions of Bush several times (Bush did it once at the end of the debates also, but impressions had been made long ago) This is a bad idea because
(1) it gives the opponent additional time.
(2) it creates an image that the debater is above the debate and wants to create their own questions… arrogance.
Bush emphasizes working with others, empowering other countries, working with both parties, empowering people.
Gore seems, I am sure unintentionally, to set himself up as a dictator who will rule the world with the power of the U.S. government as his throne. He tried to backtrack off this image a few times, but I don’t think he was successful.
I’m sure, having been Vice President for eight years and a Congressman for another eight he knows that the President doesn’t have the power to wave a scepter to create law. He should portray that realization to the audience. He still comes across as arrogant, something that turns alot of people off.
I had precisely the opposite take on last night’s debate. I was shocked at how poorly Gore did, it seemed like he had not prepped at all for the foreign policy questions and his answers for the first half hour were rambling and semi-coherent, several paragraphs in search of an idea. When the subject matter switched to domestic matters he did better but still seemed overmatched. My wife, who does not follow politics to the extent I do was also suprised at how inarticulate Gore was.
Hmmm.
Guess I have a different opinion than the rest o’ you, so I better chime in.
First, I want to say that I’ve always voted Democrat, I really really really want to vote for Gore this time around, but the more I see of him, the more I like Bush more. If you would have told me during the last Bush administration that I’d be considering voting for his son in a few years, I’d have been tempting to put myself out of my misery to avoid it.
Concerning the hate crime bill: what I got out of the debate is that Bush thinks that ALL crimes need to be punished, and that it doesn’t matter if it’s a black man or a white man who is dragged to death, the people who did it are scum and regardless of their motivation deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. A “hate crime” bill panders to people’s misguided need to somehow explain and make up for heinous crimes. Violence against ANYONE is a crime, and to say that it’s somehow worse for it to be because of race or ethnicity is sidestepping the issue. Our laws need to be strong enough to protect anyone against violence. I think that’s what George W. was trying to say - the laws in Texas are fine as they are, as is demonstrated by the fact that the men who committed this crime have been arrested and face dire punishment for their actions. Another law on the books is simply overhead in this case, and is unnecessary.
'course, Bush can’t come out and say that, because the knee jerk reaction from people who hear a sound bite where Bush says “I don’t support hate crime bills” is going to be bad. The vast majority of voters out there can’t take time out of their busy sitcom schedule to watch a debate, or read a transcript, or think about anything but what they’re hearing in the 30 second recaps that come on the radio in between the commercials and the newest Britney Spears song.
Gore also threw out a lot of statistics and numbers, such as the stuff about women and children’s health, and the environmental concerns in Texas. Statistics without explainations mean nothing - I can go out on the web and find statistics to back up any view I want. Sure, Texas is the #1 industrial polluter in the US. I wonder if that has anything to do with, say, Texas being the largest state in the lower 48? If we looked at per capita pollution, would it still be the #1? These are the things that the statistics hide.
To sum up: I went into the debate really wanting to see something from Gore to make me like him more, but I came out liking Bush a lot more. We don’t more laws - we need to enforce the ones that are already there. We don’t need more Federal government. The states & local government are closer to the people they represent, and should be allowed to govern themselves. Gore’s continual attacks and dogged hold on syntax (“But do you support a HATE CRIME bill, George?!? If you don’t, you must HATE MINORITIES, regardless of if the current laws in Texas are punishing those who commit crimes!”) left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I hate to admit it, but I just may vote Republican this year.
Because everyone has expected the Guhvna to do so poorly, a draw is a win for him.
I didn’t watch the whole debate (only the first 5-10 minutes and the last 30-35 minutes), so I don’t feel as though I can comment on the substantive issues. I would like to offer my opinions on the change in style from the first debate to this one.
In the first one, I saw a dominant, intelligent Al Gore whom I felt won the debate hands down. While opinion polls may have suggested that people were put off by his tone, IMHO, I’d prefer the smart guy when choosing a president. In the portion I saw last night, I saw a man who looked to have been purposefully “dumbed down.”
As far as Bush, in the first debate he looked to me like a deer in the headlights. This time around, however, he seemed calmer, more in control, and more personable. Style wise, I think Bush came off better than Gore in this one, again, based on the portions that I saw.
Yes. For ozone pollution, Houston (1994 estimated population 1,702,086) wins the prize, and it has a lower population than LA (3,448,613, 1994) or Denver (493,559 in 1994, but its pollution problems are mainly geographic) or NYC (7,333,253 in 1994). Much of Texas is ranchland and not populated. States? Texas pop. 19,439,337 in 1997, or 64 people for every square mile. California–32,268,301, 187 people per square mile. New York–18,137,226 with a whopping 333 people living (on average) on every square mile block. Per capita, Texas still tops the opposition–statistics do sometimes tell the truth.
Man, that Jeri Ryan is H-O-T HOT! And in that scene where the holographic doctor was removing her cortical node, SHE WAS COMPLETELY NEKKID UNDER THAT SHEET! Oh man, I have to excuse myself…
Also, keep in mind that much of this debate was focused upon foreign policy. Again, the game of expectations was that Al Gore, Vice President and former Senate member of the Armed Forces Committee, would walk up and down W., whose total foreign policy experience- to steal his father’s quip regarding Dukakis- was eating at the International House of Pancakes. And again, just as in the first debate, W. managed to outperform the expectations by holding his own and looking calm and confident.
In addition, remember that most people don’t listen to a debate completely open-minded and willing to go to whatever the best argument is. They come in with their personal views and biases; a candidate who is inarticulate but who seems closer in outlook to their own personal view will likely come across much better than a candidate who is highly articulate and logical but who advocates a completely opposite view.
I thought Dubya was trying to blink Morse code messages at someone.
Vanilla–I have to disagree–Bush doesn’t look like Chevy Chase, he looks like Alfred E. Neuman (the "What, me worry? guy from Mad magazine). My mother, a life-long Republican now voting Democrat, pointed that out to me, and now I can’t get the image out of my head. That’s one reason I listened to the debates on the radio–neither candidate is the most telegenic guy around. To me, Gore came across relaxed and knowledgeable, and Bush seemed to be leaning over backwards to be agreeable (his campaign can run attack ads, but he’s got to be a nice guy–give me a break). I also think Bush avoided, or failed to understand (maybe as a strategy, I don’t want to think he’s that dumb) several questions, and he had his little scripted jokes (the one where he deliberately mispronounces ‘syllabic’ is wearing thin). Gore cooled it on the heavy sighs–which I found funny the first time around, but which I think hurt him with the crowd that thinks they have to elect the most popular kid. The whole election strikes me as being a high school class officer/cheerleader election–the most likeable guy will win, even if the less popular guy has the most popular ideas. What do people think, that Bush will adopt Gore’s platform if he gets elected?