10/04/00 11:25 a.m.
Al Gets in His Own Way
There he goes again.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

is own worst enemy.

It certainly didn't take long for Al Gore to drop another whopper. Jim Lehrer's very first question was: "Vice President Gore, you have questioned whether Gov. Bush has the experience to be president of the United States. What exactly do you mean?" Gore's response? "I have actually not questioned Governor Bush's experience . . ." Oh, right. Of course, the canny individuals at the RNC immediately e-mailed many examples of places where Gore has indeed questioned Bush's experience. Which, of course, raises the question: Why can't Gore just come out and say, "Yes, I do question the governor's experience; I've been a public servant for 24 years; he has been in it for only six. I respect that the governor has done a good job in that time — and that he was a businessman before that — but I believe the American people want someone who's faced the tough questions over a longer time." That would not have been a "personal" attack; it would have been a reasonable, defensible point of view — Gore could then let the people decide.

But instead Gore had to dissemble and say that he has only questioned Bush's "proposals." It's this type of needless deceptiveness that always undermines Gore's definite command of policy.

Of which, he certainly possesses.

Based simply on a mastery of details — allowing for reasonable partisan exaggeration — Gore came out on top in this debate. Bush was strong when the issue was education and (to a slightly lesser extent) Social Security, but generally on every other topic, Gore was the aggressor and Bush was on the defensive. The "fuzzy math" line was cute, but Bush should have been stronger on defending his tax cut, especially Gore's charge that it was so large that it made Bush's other proposals impossible.

Gore also had the interesting rhetorical technique of combining an answer to one question with a bullet point about another issue. In doing this, he anticipated Lehrer's question on education by about five minutes. He did something similar with Social Security. Thus, he gave the impression of being someone who sees how different parts of policy overlap into a comprehensive whole. On the other hand, resorting to the convention speech tactic of mentioning people in the audience just didn't work this time. It's not as if all the cameras are going to seek them out (I watched CNN which did not pan the audience). Bush, meanwhile, should avoid name-dropping: "The other day, I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwarzkopf, who stood by my side and agreed with me." It's one thing to say that the two Gulf War heroes agree with you; saying that they were right by your side sounds like you want their credibility to rub off.

But while Bush struggled to stay with Gore, the vice-president allowed his own personality to get in the way of his superior debate skills. He interrupted Bush several times. Far worse, he practically told the moderator to shut up on at least one occasion. It was a tactic that probably turned off some non-ideological viewers. Civility counts for something. If nothing else, Bush generally seemed more polite, even as he was getting hammered. Ironically though, the governor seemed more "tight" — especially at the beginning — than did the cliched "stiff" Al Gore. Bush probably didn't want to look either "lightweight" or smirking.

Of course, the debate demonstrates why Bill Clinton is still the unparalleled current political major domo. The different sides of Clinton were occupying two podiums Tuesday night. Clinton can be as policy-wonkish as Gore, but he conveys it in a far less condescending manner. He can also be as "regular guy" as George W. Bush, while also appearing thoughtful. But, Bill Clinton is always aware that the camera may be on him. Bill Clinton is always comfortable on stage. Furthermore, he would not have been caught in split-screen effect practically sneering at his opponent.

So, Bush did OK, but Gore "won" the first debate, in the sense that he dominated — though not by the margin he could have, if it hadn't been for his smarmy, dismissive style. On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that this was Gore's best format. Bush prefers the Larry King Live sit-down-at-the-table format. He excelled against John McCain in that manner. So, considering he was going up against a debate master, in a format he didn't really like and in the debate city he least wanted to be in (Boston, home of the Kennedys), Bush did not fall down on his face and held his own.

There's much room for improvement, but Bush was certainly not knocked out with this performance. He has room to grow. However, the question remains, "Does his opponent?" This debate showed that this election will ultimately be decided less on who George W. Bush is, but who Al Gore may be. He says that he is his "own man." But, from the very first question, it proved impossible for Gore to restrain himself — be completely honest.

And that's why this debate won't appreciably change the poll numbers.