|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||
|
Newt
Gingrich Bush is clearly comfortable with who he is, which comes across very well in the Marshall McLuhan sense of television. He is actually, perhaps, limited in a fortunate way by his inability to be anyone but himself, which makes his answers real, understandable, and closer to the kitchen talk necessary to get a message to connect. In contrast, Gore came across as unnatural, limited, and as someone trying so hard not to offend female voters that at times he seemed lost. At the least he did not get his message across in any substantial way. Gore now has a very difficult question to answer: If you are trailing, how do you wreck the credibility and standing of the frontrunner without seeming confrontational? As of last night's debate, he does not yet have an adequate answer to this question — and as of right now, this election is Bush's to win or lose. On a side note, the most interesting portion of the evening for me was when Gore answered two or three questions in a row on gun control by starting out with reassuring statements to hunters and gun owners. Six months ago many people in his party were convinced that the gun issue was going to be an effective tool in the campaign. Now that states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Missouri are battlegrounds, he has staked out a position that surely will anger a large portion of his base. I'm told that union leaflets handed out in western Pennsylvania say flat out that on the issue of guns, Gore and Bush have the same position. I also think that as we move to the third debate, in a setting which favors Bush, that he is gaining confidence and experience. This was, after all, only approximately his ninth debate, compared to over 45 for Gore. Again, this poses a huge problem for the Gore camp because their entire campaign plan was based around routing Bush and making him unacceptable for the job. Remember, in 1988 Atwater started on the Dukakis campaign in May and never let up. Their portrayal of Dukakis helped paint the picture of a liberal. Gore's attacks have not been consistent on the issue of Texas, and they are aimed at proving that Bush is incompetent, not that he is too conservative. These are very different campaigns and this tactic could really backfire on Gore in the current setting. My guess is, up until tonight, President Clinton thought that Gore would beat Bush. This may be the first time that the president stayed up all night putting together a strategic plan for this campaign.
Rob Long And he did it with such ease and grace that the lefty news blob called it for Bush across the board. The next five days will show solid gains for the Texas governor. Trouble is, there's way, way too much time for the cycle to double back. Look for more "the Al Gore nobody knows" articles appearing. Look for more Tipper on the evening news. And look, ultimately, for the creaky liberal media machine to suddenly realize that Bush might actually win. When that happens (Monday morning, when the weekend poll numbers roll in) the Bushies had better be prepared for the onslaught. The New York Times, as always, will be a leading indicator. They gave Bush precisely one day of lukewarm plaudits for the first debate, so look to the front page on Friday — Monday morning at the latest — to proclaim a widening Bush lead in the polls "a tightening race," and a commanding Bush lead among all men and married women a case of "Bush has trouble connecting to young people." But next week's media coverage is ancient history. Let's talk about something really current: who won the third debate?
Ronald Radosh Which is the real Al Gore — the nasty, aggressive, hostile and obnoxious Gore of debate I, or the restrained, calm, courteous and respectful Gore of debate II? When Gore said "I agree with that," it sounded like the words his advisors suggested he use after watching the television satire. Gore, of course, expected Bush to flunk what everyone knew would be the focus of the second debate — U.S. foreign policy. With last week's events in Belgrade and the new crisis in the Middle East, the candidates knew what to expect. Bush not only did not fumble anyone's name, but he was able to show familiarity with the major issues in key areas of the world, including mentioning those areas, like Haiti, where he argued, reasonably, that the Clinton policy had been a failure. Most importantly, Bush reasserted a major thrust of American policy since the days of the Cold War — bipartisanship. When Bush praised the Clinton administration for acting correctly in key policies — NATO expansion and the Balkan intervention — he made it clear that a Bush-Cheney administration put national interest and good foreign policy before the scoring of partisan points. In effect, he harkened back to the post World War II days, when Sen. Arthur Vandenburg (R-MI) led the congressional support for Harry Truman's new Cold War policies. And in noting that he differed with other Republicans on the view of America's role in the world, Bush let us know that he was rejecting the isolationist currents that are strong in some Republican ranks, and was solidly behind the internationalist wing. In domestic policy, Bush was able to articulate his arguments, and Gore's admission of errors — while claiming his points were still correct — made him sound like a man defeated by his own words. I thought Bush might have been stronger in delineating differences. On education, he might have mentioned the forbidden word — vouchers — and made a case for them, particularly since even African-American Democrats are now calling them the civil rights movement of the 21st Century. But all in all, Bush forged ahead, and the race is now his to win. Jeffrey
Hart
The reason Gore is tied with Bush or even slipping a little behind is that huge numbers of people can't stand him. While spinning out statistics and scoring conventional debates' points, Gore lost the first debate devastatingly. What voters saw on the split screen while Bush was speaking, was Gore on the other half — not only sighing so loudly that he could be heard, but, while not looking stonily impassive, lurching into mobility as if struck by an electric current, sneering, grinning in a phony way, rolling his eyes, doing everything except stick out his tongue. Hendrick Hertzberg once said that when you look at Dick Gephardt, you want to peel away the rubber mask and see the lizard beneath. Gore makes Gephardt look like Robert Redford or Clark Gable. If people wonder about Bush's gravitas, they wonder more about whether they can stand four years of Gore the humanoid invading their home on the TV screen. People speak of Gore's condescension, that Gore is not a normal human being. Is he a sort of carrot from deep space? In the second debate, Gore was re-wired, almost in the direction of Lord Chesterfield. As Michael Barone commented, he seemed like a muzzled dog. Gore is better on attack than defending. Bush held his own on foreign policy, and when the debate shifted to Texas seemed especially to hit his stride. Gore admitted to fibs (lies) on "details." The real issue about Gore's whoppers is his sense of inferiority. He himself believes he is inadequate.
Andrew J. Bacevich In terms of offering a conception of America's role in the world, that's all there was. And it wasn't good enough. Throughout the remainder of the proceedings, Bush struggled to distinguish between his views of foreign policy and those of the Democrats. The prevailing impression that he conveyed is that he was largely in agreement with the actions of the Clinton-Gore administration — except when it comes to using U.S. troops for purposes of "nation-building." (Bush even commended the administration for having done "the right thing" in Rwanda — the right thing having been to do nothing in the face of genocide. Considering all of the rhetoric that the administration expended about its "new" appreciation for Africa, why give Clinton and Gore a free ride on that?) 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. One can only regret that the format of presidential debates does not allow for tag-team rules, with both candidates for both parties at the table. If Bush had been able to pass on foreign policy — "Say, Dick, why don't you field that one?" — he and his candidacy might have fared better.
Michael Ledeen I'm no expert on the book of Matthew, but I think Gore inverted the quotation about treasure and heart. My recollection is that Matthew warned that your heart will follow your treasure, and so you'd better not lay up your treasure on earth, but in Heaven. Dubya's answer to the last question, about Gore's lies, was outstanding, a masterful tour de force in which he managed to underline the gravity of Gore's behavior without mean-spiritedness. Gore's response was very weak. Gore's best moment was the attack on Texas health care, which shows that he made a strategic error by trying to be so goody; his best shot was to try to show that Dubya isn't up to the job, but instead he was trying to show that he himself was really a nice guy. He can't win that way, Dubya is infinitely more simpatico. If the debates are half as important as the pundits say they are, Gore is in terrible trouble now.
William Murchison When a visibly relaxed Bush said he didn't believe in "command and control out of Washington, D.C.," Gore allowed that he didn't either. Neither did the vice president favor "energy taxes;" he liked tax cuts, albeit not for "the wealthiest of the wealthy." With Bush, he understood the role culture plays in fostering gun violence. Here's a candidate who knows what trouble his last performance got him into — "big-time." Bush hit some good conservative licks on "nation-building'' by U. S. troops (against), tax relief and limits on government (for), and marriage ("a sacred institution between a man and a woman"). As these things go, Bush helped himself by not hurting himself: most of all on foreign policy, his weak suit. Gore took no new ground, and went defensive when Jim Lehrer asked about his tendency to fib. Twice now, in debate, he has failed to blow Bush out of the tub. Just one more chance…
Debra J. Saunders 2. Bush's reservations about nation-building resonated with a public wary of America becoming the world's policeman. Al Gore simply fails to reassure that he would be hesitant to send U.S. troops into the wrong war. Bush's healthy skepticism about IMF loans, his insistence that the IMF shouldn't bail out bad bank loans, and his complaints about IMF loans to Russia also hit home. 3. Bush is right to prefer strong punishment — to wit, the death penalty or long prison sentences for racist murderers — over yet another hate-crime law. He rightly pointed out that additional federal and state statutes can't speak to violent bigots with the force of sure, swift, and final punishment. (Bush was wrong, however, when he said all three of James Byrd's killers were sentenced to death row — two of three were.) 4. Bush was willing to talk about his hits on Gore with Gore sitting next to him. Gore punted on this; he couldn't stand by his negative attacks with Bush sitting next to him. So Gore denounced personal attacks even as his website featured a Bush-English Dictionary. It was a weasel moment. 5. While Gore claims to still believe in global warming and all that he espouses in his book Earth in the Balance, he no longer is credible on this score. He's been peddling cheaper gasoline. He won't speak out against the SUV exemption for federal fuel economy standards. If he truly believed in global warming, he could not hold to these positions. Even the pretense of conviction is gone. |
||
|
||
|
