Oh, yeah. I think their analysis is biased in favor for Bush. (The fact they feel that they need a disclamer saying they’re not is a warning flag for me.) Anyway, I see you and raise you this.
http://www.orvetti.com/electoral.html
They update everyday, so as of the 18th of October, they had the electoral race a dead tie! (269 each). They force every state into a choice.
Oh puh-leeze. We plebes have been electing President for over 200 years and I think we’re doing just FINE as a nation.
You and I have a difference of opinion on what qualities an effective leader should possess. I think that it’s very important for the President of the United States to be charismatic. Why? Because good politicians, and leaders, have to be able to SELL their ideas. To the American public, to Congress (perhaps an opposition controlled Congress), and to leaders of other nations.
I doubt Al could sell an eyeliner to Tami Faye Baker. That makes him an ineffective leader.
Bush may not be the brightest of lots, but he has more charisma than Gore. And that may be the difference between getting programs passed in Congress and a bill getting stalled in committee because Big Al has pissed off the Chairman by rolling his eyes one time too many.
Bush doesn’t HAVE any bright ideas to pass? Well, I trust like any good leader, he’ll surround himself with really talented advisors. His job will be to listen to them. And then to sell it to us.
PunditLisa:
Well, first of all. Gore smiled a number of times, they were just subdued and sly smiles. His brand of humor is definitely deadpan, but that’s OK. Think of it this way - Steven Wright never smiles either, but I doubt that you’d question his sense of humor.
Spiritus:
Brilliant! I’m definitely gonna use that line (unless it’s all rights reserved).
I think it’s just silly for Bush to proclaim that he is sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Texas justice system has never executed and couldn’t execute an innocent person. Unless he participated in the trials and was present during all of the pre confession interrogations and evidencial discoveries, he doesn’t KNOW diddly. There’s enough evidence that a number of people on death row in Texas could not have committed the crimes that they are accused of, yet his position is that “We don’t make those kinds of mistakes in Texas”. That’s cowboy arrogance, if you ask me.
I think Bush is laying it on pretty thick when he goes on about instant background checks for gun purchases in Texas, too. Originally he opposed the law enabling this, but now he’s such a supporter that he believes it’s a foolproof and effective system - in spite of the evidence that convicted felons and murderers have been able to obtain firearms through the system in Texas. Again, in cowboy arrogance, he denies the evidence and proclaims, “It can’t happen in Texas”.
One wonders how the NRA feels about Bush today following the ‘Judas’ he pulled last night denying any relationship or kinship with that organization… although, on second thought, Bush didn’t deny the aliance only that the NRA had ran the add.
I checked the ABC truth squad for untruths by Gore and Bush last night:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/truthsquad001017.html
The score, by my count:
unfacts by Bush = 7
unfacts by Gore = 3
One of the Gore mistakes was he said Texas ranked 50th in health care, when actually they’re only 49th (tiny misrepresentation ).
One of the Bush mistakes was that he claimed that under Gore, federal spending will be “three times bigger than what President Clinton proposed.” The truth is under the projections used in Gore’s plan, it would be the lowest in 50 years (huge misrepresentation / scare tactic).
Yet still, Bush is perceived to be the more trustworthy… Perceptions are a dangerous thing.
Sterling:
Loved the 'dillo!
Um…sure you don’t want to reconsider this statement, once you check a history book or three? I wouldn’t exactly say that “we plebes” have been electing Presidents for longer than 168 years, at most.
and if you consider plebes to include women…try 80 years… 
I said 168 years, and I meant 176 years–circa 1824. My apologies.
Yeah, I wasn’t gonna go there. 
Well shit…guess I better not mention that pesky 24th Amendment then… :ducks:
Oh, I can see the bumpersticker now:
He Doesn’t Have To Be Smart – He Has ADVISORS
We have a serious difference of opinion. Few people deny that Clinton is charismatic. Few people of the time called Harry Truman charismatic. Which would you consider the better President? For that matter, I can think of few things more potentially dangerous to democracy than a leader whose primary qualification is being “charismatic”.
As to how well we have done as a country in electing political leaders, you have perhaps a more idealistic view of American History than I. From my perspective, we have elected more than a few sadists, racists, criminals and just plain scoundrels to the office. What this country has done, quite admirably, is maintain a history of peaceful transitions of power based upon the will of the electorate. Aside from teh Civil War (mostly because I have grown very tired of that particular debate) the only other “bump” in that road came during the multiple terms of FDR. He was, by most accounts, a very charismatic man. He also was very successful at getting things done. Shall I assume that he is your ideal President?
[sub]BTW, do I get extra points for avoiding the obvious Weimar reference?[/sub]
Damn, damn damn!! Al Gore should be verbally bitch-slapping George W. in the debates. Al Gore had opportunity after opportunity to crush Bush, but didn’t. This is not good for the Democrats, not at all.
I agree. Even I could have administered Bush a sound verbal beating in the debates, with all the openings he was giving, even if I agreed with him on as many issues as Gore does (capital punishment, DOMA, the war on drugs, SDI, minimally regulated free trade, standardized testing). Seriously, it wouldn’t be that difficult to debate rings around the cough Chief Executive Officer of the biiig state of Texas. Instead, all Gore’s doing is making Dubya look warm (if I see that amiable fratboy smirk one more time…). After the second debate, I predicted Bush by seven points. Now, I think it’s Bush by four. He makes Gore look great by comparison, and that’s sayin’ something.
I believe 5[sup]th[/sup] graders could out debate Bush.
I believe the problem is the rules and format.
What type of debate limits followups to the moderator? You get into more trouble trying to question someone on a misstatement (lie) than for lying itself. I believe Bush has turned lying, evading, and misdirection into a grand art worthy of an Oscar.
In fact I wished someone would have yelled out, “With all due respect, you didn’t answer my question” damn the mic.
I have to agree on the charisma issue. In the days of Harry S. Truman, there weren’t a hundred cameras pointed at the President at all times. Charisma is key and the Republicans haven’t put up a charismatic Presidential candidate since… Ronnie.
IMHO, the only reason Clinton made it through all his crises and possibly the only reason the Republicans kept attacking him throughout his Presidency was because he is one of the most charismatic men to ever hold the office. He makes very few slip ups in public and from what I understand, second hand from people who have met him (not just shook his hand, actually spent time talking to him) he makes them feel like they are the only person in the room. That is why he can negotiate with the both sides in the Middle East. I don’t see either Gore or Bush doing anything there.
Al Gore has all the warmth of an alligator suffering from PMS.
While I’d rather have Bush than Gore for a grandfather, I don’t want him for a President.
I may just exercise my right to not vote or maybe I’ll write in Martin Sheen.
Pundit Lisa: I agree!LOL, the Dingleberry bill. Thats what popped into my mind.
Reagan was charismatic, and did get some to go along with him becasue of this. However, I don’t think Bush is as senile as Reagan was, nor as good an actor.
I just read in Time, wouldn’t it be interesting if the electoral votes were 269-269 each?
It is a close race. I just hope they don’t make the mistake of declaring a winner before California voting places have closed like they did back in…when?
Actually…the problem may occur in Oregon which is piloting a mail in vote campaign…there was a story on NPR about how the voting cycle is no longer 13 hours, but several days…
i should clarify the above statement…the mail in ballots are still due on election day…but I imagine it might take longer to hand scan them as they come in…plus Oregon is a west coast state anyway, which will delay results anyway…
Damn…it might help if I get my facts straight so I dont make a complete ass of myself…none of the votes can be counted in Oregon until 8pm election night…even the ones that came in several days earlier…
Here’s an interesting tidbit from the Washington Post.
[/quote]
Gore, to the surprise of some, now plans to buy time to run the full 90 minutes of the third debate on cable TV networks in several swing states.
[/quote]
Spiritus, I agree that charisma shouldn’t be the top quality for a presidential candidate. His platform should be first. On issues alone, I side with Bush some of the time (more state and local control v. federal govt., school vouchers, the death tax) and Gore some of the time (protecting the environment,affirmative action, and gun control). And since there is no hybrid of the two who has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election, that means I have to decide between Bush and Gore. And Bush wins for me because he has more charisma than Gore. Of course, my toe nail has more charisma than Gore.
As I’ve said before, I think an effective leader ought to be able to sell his ideas. I honestly can’t envision Al Gore convincing Arafat to call a cease fire. Why? Because he can’t even convince me to vote for him, and I agree with him half the time!
(In fact, I will lament the day that Clinton has to step down from office because I think he was a better president than either of the candidates will be. But I digress.)
As for who is the better president, Harry Truman or FDR, it depends on how you define “better”? By all accounts, Hitler was a great LEADER because he was able to execute his programs and motivate people to follow him. So was Jesus Christ. Who was the better leader? Depends on how you define it, doesn’t it?