Wow. Good simulpost, Ike. 
I think this was actually a valid point to be making. He was defending himself against Gore’s charges concerning the number of uninsured in Texas. He was essentially responding: Hey, there are a lot of people in Texas so if 15% - the national average - don’t have insurance it adds up to a lot of people. Add in the fact that we share a border with Mexico and thus have an illegal immigrant problem and yes, Texas ends up with more than its share of uninsured. But I think the real question is not whether everybody has insurance but whether everybody has access to medical care and I think you will find that Texas does a pretty damn good job.
Now if only he could ever say something so clearly.
I thought the other country Texas shared a border with was the U.S.
obfusciatrist, if Bush would have said that about his future staff, he would have plummetted in the ratings. It would be hugely pompous to start naming who your staff would be before being elected.
And I thought that the death penalty question (from the audience, not Lehrer) was fair. I remember that comment from the first debate, and it did look like Bush was quite proud of executing someone (can’t remember the name). But I thought that Bush’s response was very appropriate, and very well delivered. I was also surprised to see that Gore is pro-capital punishment. I didn’t know that.
I also missed Gore’s encroachment on the play during Bush’s turn. Ben Stein said on voter.com that he came across as a bully and hugely inappropriate. Any thoughts anyone?
But I really think that Gore edged out Bush last night. I think at the end with Bush trying to get Lehrer to drop the affirmative action question, and then rambling on about military power during his response to a tax relief question. When he wasn’t on cue, he really didn’t look good. But when he was, he did look strong.
I’ve been a Republican for my entire voting life. In 1992 I discovered the party had changed and not to my favor. I slipped into the Libertarian Party and felt guilty when Clinton won the election.
I did it again in 1996 when the GOP decided I was unable to make my own choices.
This time I have given the Repubicans every chance to welcome me back to the party. So far nothing has shown up to indicate they want someone who is pro-choice, upset with gay bashing, and demands a reduction of spending in WDC.
What I find amusing is that the GOP wants the federal government to control my morals, values and ethics. Thank you no.
I live in Arizona where I can vote anytime. I waited until the last debate before making my choice. I heard all I can take from Dubya. The government doesn’t belong in choosing what our kids watch. If the family values aren’t up to par, then let the family worry about this. The federal government does not have the authority to tell me what to eat, drink, ingest or inject. The size of my family is up to me not a bunch of men wearing black dresses.
I will head downtown tomorrow and vote once more for Harry Browne.
Gore won the debate, he probably lost the election.
Regarding the ‘journalists’, Bush was saying that there are just as many journalists backing him as there are Gore. To point out political opinions of third parties was a waste of time. I thought it was a valid point.
Regarding the specific laws that Gore so amorously quoted, Bush continuously pointed out, though he should have been more direct, that Clinton/Gore have been in office for 8 years and none of these bills that are written are law.
Bush, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to know specifics that by now he should be prepared with… three debates all surrounding many of the same issues. One political analyst said he looked ‘sleepy’. He lacks the enthusiasm that someone running for President should have IMHO. Maybe he should get on the cocaine again (j/k).
I don’t really agree with either of their tax surplus plans, I believe we should pay off the National Debt before any tax cuts or huge spending, then enjoy some huge tax cuts. If the federal government can step in and regulate pharmaceutical companies’ prices, I am for that. You can always provide incentives for R&D, there are tons of them in the tax code.
I agree with Bush on an overall elimination of the Death Tax, but we should pay off the National Debt first, something neither candidate seems pressed to do.
I agree with Gore on more policies than Bush. I like his knowledge of specifics, how his platforms seem to be designed to help those who need it most.
The problem is, Gore’s attitude and his overbearing presence. He tries to force feed his liberal positions. The political analysts remarked about how people got a ‘clinch’ response when he approached them both at the debate and in the focus group in Ohio. What that translates to for me is that he would be completely ineffective as President.
Congress will not be bullied, they prove that with every new President.
Therefore, even though I lean towards Gore’s agenda, as does my wife, we are leaning towards Bush and hoping Congress will do the right thing with the budget surplus, abortion issue and tax cuts. Bush will, at a minimum, be an effective President.
IMHO the low point of the debate for Bush was when he had answered a question about farming. Bush is not a quick thinker on stage. He seemed a little like a robot as he kept chanting: Farmers feed people, we need to help farmers…
The high point was his closing statement. Not only was it a good old American as Apple pie statement, he had a good joke in it.
For those that missed it, his joke was something like this:
And for those of you who support my opponent, I ask that you vote only once…
hehehehe…It was funny.
For Gore…
I think his strength in public speaking is working against him here, and this has thrown him for a loop. Everything he has wanted since he was a child (being the President), is about to slip away from him. His answers were much smoother, but I think a lot of people see him as untrustworthy. His speaking ability only serves to make him look slick.
He looks so desperate that it is pretty funny to see him squirm. I think his two worst moments were:
-
When he jumped out of his chair, cut off Bush and yelled “MY Turn!!” (yes he did that)
-
When he snuck up on Bush from behind and Bush acknowledged his presence in a way that showed he didn’t belong there.
I pretty much get sick to my stomache when I see Gore, so I would have a hard time picking out his highlights. He is a smooth talker, and I even I can tell that he comes off as more polished.
[hijack]
I heard last night that at some point since the first debate, when one or both candidates were (mirabile dictu) actually discussing the exclusion of third-party candidates from the debates, that Bush made a comment something like: “it would be ridiculous to let in people with only 5% support—you’d have fifty people up on the stage.”
Yes folks, you can have up to fifty candidates with 5% support apiece—revealing a positively Quaylean grasp of elementary mathematics! Can someone confirm or deny the truth of this story before I go around gleefully repeating it? (I may be a yellow-dog liberal but as a Teeming Millionth I do have an obligation not to check the fight against ignorance by spreading misinformation. Unless I’m really tempted, maybe… :))
[/hijack]
Bush 7 Gore had different purposes in the debate…the easiest way to find their purpose is to listen to the phrase that they repeated the most.
Bush: “If I’m fortunate enough to earn your vote”
Gore: “We have a big disagreement on this issue”
I think Bush is trying to “close the sale”, feeling that the win is within his grasp, that he has to appear both humble and “presidential”…I wonder if it’s a bit presumptive to take such a tack with 3 weeks left.
Gore is going back to his convention populist themes of pointing out that “he” will fight for the interests of “middle class working folk”…while Bush will protect the interests of “powerful forces”
So I guess the real question for me is, who accomplished that mission, not who won the debate on points.
By a small margin…I think Gore accomplished his goal more than Bush did. Of course, one could say that the fact that Gore had to go populist again might suggest he is slipping in the polls again…
I thought Al Gore won this one. Bush had made so much progress in the last debate, but he completely blew it this time. He came off as a whiner (almost whimpering at times); he seemed clumsy, confused, and downright wobbly; his posture was slumped over - making him look devious, at times; he had absolutely no edge; he failed to articulate clearly; and he laughed uncomfortably at his own jokes… especially the ones that no one else was laughing at. Many of his responses dodged questions with slimy double-talk… “Affirmative Access”? Gimme a break.
Paraphrasing Pink Floyd: His lips move but I don’t get what he’s saying…
It’s beyond me, how the American public at large can label George W Bush as likable. I find him kind of creepy. Mind you, I don’t find Al Gore particularly personable, but at least I can respect his assertive style and I ALMOST find him likable… at times.
The things that other folks are slamming him for in this debate - being agressive and breaking the rules - well, those are exactly the kinds of qualities I want in a President. I don’t find it overly rude - I think of it as “results oriented”.
obfusciatrist wrote:
That may be, but I didn’t notice it because I was too preoccupied with the notion that every sentence from Bush started out with the words “I want to…” and many of them seemed to be in direct opposition to his personal record as Texas Governor and his previously stated policy.
spooje:
That’s not true. What Gore said was, that while being sentitive to the first amendment, if the media didn’t stop using false advertising and pandering objectionable material to minors, his administration would push to have the laws more rigorously enforced in these areas.
vanilla:
Yeah, I love it when Bush uses those excuses… too bad Texas can’t have it as easy as other states like, say California or Florida or New York… I’m sure they have none of these growth and immigrant problems…
**beagledave
**
Please reference this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41799
The bottom line is that this election is going to be a landslide for Bush. Gore will be lucky if he breaks 100 electoral votes.
Last nights debate sealed the deal. Gore had to deliver a knockout punch, and he he only gave us more of what we have been seeing for the last 8 years. Stick a fork in him, he is done. Barring pictures of Bush nude with farm animals, he just has to play prevent defense to be President in January.
Freedom2 said:
You know, threads stay around this place for a loooong time…
Yeah…I thought of that of that last week when I posted the Bush Landslide thread. But since I have already come out with what I think is going to happen, I may as well keep going. I figured there were several people around here who made a mental note to resurect that thread on 11/8 if Gore won.
If Gore wins on Nov. 7th, I will just have to add avoiding the SD for a awhile to the rest of my misery.
<< Yes folks, you can have up to fifty candidates with 5% support apiece—revealing a positively Quaylean grasp of elementary mathematics! >>
Don’t go too hog-wild on this one. The tricky word here is “support.” Support usually means that you get signatures on an affadavit or something, and people can “support” more than one candidate. They can’t VOTE for more than one, but they can SUPPORT many. Thus, it would be possible (albeit unlikely) to have 50 candidates with 5% of the population “supporting” each.
Well, I still say it is fair to mention Cheney, I think it is pretty clear that he will be part of a Bush administration. But beyond that, I disagree with you. How is it arrogant to say that “if elected I will do what I can to bring Colin Powell and Condaliza (sp?) Rice into my administration . . .”
We expect the candidate to tell us what they will do if elected, but they can’t tell us who they will try to appoint if elected? That seems a bit rediculous and I don’t think the voters would punish such an action.
I agree it is a fair question, but not a fair debate question. The way the question was worded made it unfair for Gore to address it. Essentially, Gore was being asked to address the question: “Does Bush derive pleasure from killing people?” Gore did take the high road and simply said: “I support the death penalty.”
**
I think “bully” is a strong word, but he was certainly aggressive. Gore pranced all over that stage, sometimes when he was supposed to be sitting on his stool. Gore had a much greater awareness of the stage. I think that probably played very well in person, making him seem very involved with the audience. But on TV it was a bit annoying watching him spin around and walk across the stage.
I’ll parry by noting that I was mildly annoyed with the frequency with which Gore began an answer with “I see a future where . . .” or “I have a vision of an America that . . .” That clause was usually followed by some feel-good utopian vision (example (from memory paraphrase): “I have a vision of a world at peace where America is a guiding light for democracy and equality.”
In all fairness, did anyone hear GWB say this last night? I heard him say things like we should be better informed on the content of TV/movies so that parents can make better decisions. Whereas Gore said things (through my Republican-leaning hearing aids) like getting Hollywood to be more responsible and telling them not to put out as much crap. Of course Browne was conspicuously silent last night.
Was I in the bathroom during this discussion? (Or is this a reference to abortion?)
I’m not so sure, Dex. For the debates, they go by poll numbers, I believe. You can only “support” one person in a poll.
Is there a legitimate cite for the 50 people statement?
Personally I think Browne, Nader and Buchanan had an undeniable right to be included in at least ONE of the debates.
How do they handle this type of situation in other countries where they have more than 2 parties?
I thought this was an attempt to reach out to the black vote. He reminded me of MLK’s “I have a dream” speech.
This tactic annoyed the hell out of me bc I see a future with Gore as President to be a future with an enormous federal gov’t trying to micromanage every tiny little detail of your life. I also think Gore is fundamentally corrupt, so any future with his continued leadership would be marching in the opposite direction of my version of Utopia.
Is it possible that he was just exaggerating for effect? (I don’t think either Gore or Bush are getting enough leeway in this regard.)
I do it all the time: “Honey, if we stop at every garage sale on the way home it is going to take us three years!”
Admittedly, I could say “Honey, if we stop at every garage sale on the way home it is going to take 4 hours, 23 minutes (plus or minus 12 minutes) longer to get there.”
But the selection of 5% was a problem, because if the rule was “everybody polling 5% get into the debate” there would still be just the two of them up there. IIRC, Nader is - at best - polling 4%.
Rather than a polling rule, I would like to see the rule changed so that anybody who is on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance at an electoral majority is allowed to participate. This would encourage grass roots support of third party candidates and might bring enough focus on the stupidity of many states’ ballot laws that there may be pressure for reform.
A few things that worried me (from the transcript):
Bush:
The main reason I’m worried is that sometimes he just doesn’t seem to have a clue (juveniles can have guns?) and at other times he can’t effectively express the clue he does have (“It’s not the way America is all about”, “[They] are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it” – what??) Is English this man’s native language? And as for the quote on the death tax- I’m pretty sure he was trying to say that 100% of the people won’t get the death tax, since he is supposedly in favor of eliminating this tax by 2009. Sure, we’ve all made little slips and spoonerisms before, but on a major issue like that? I just got the impression that he wasn’t even aware of what he was saying otherwise he would have caught it and corrected himself.
I was listening to the debate passively, with my attention divided. Because of this I thought that I had mis-heard some of the above goofs, so I checked them against the transcript and sure enough they were genuine.
When Gore charged Bush with spending $1 trillion of the Social Security surplus twice, Bush floundered,
accusing his opponent of trying to best him with a “high-school debating trick.” I think Gore’s gamble paid off. Bush looked worse for not having answers ready than the vice president did for being too aggressive.
I was not put off by Gore’s assertive personality; I see it as a necessary trait for anybody holding a high political office. I don’t want a US President sitting at a summit meeting or mediating an international crisis with political and foreign dictatorial lions, tigers & bears sitting all around the table and have our leader represent us with the soft, uncertain voice, fumbling for words & leaning over to whisper questions into his advisors’ ears. Bush would be steamrolled in a situation like that. Just try to picture him handling the current mideast negotiations, spewing out statements like those above. That would, I believe, just be an embassasment for W., and the US.
About the “I have a vision” bit from Gore…my wild ass guess is that he is attempting to counter that notion that some have that Gore does not realy stand for anthing, that he is a political windsock…By saying what his “vision” is and how he is different from Bush, he is trying to show his core values.
Whether he actually accomplished that is another matter altogether 