|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 208 of 406:
| 
Oct 16 21:53 UTC 2000 |
#205> the VP candidates did this even more overtly during the course of their
debate.
|
bru
|
|
response 209 of 406:
|
Oct 16 22:04 UTC 2000 |
I thought Bush won as well. Gore tried to control his reactions (huffing and
pufing), but eh thru daggers instead and came across as somewhat petty. They
are not going to solve the "worst polluter" arguement. Keep in mind a
democrat was governor before BUsh and he has done better in some areas. Also,
Somebody has to come in last.
|
senna
|
|
response 210 of 406:
|
Oct 17 11:23 UTC 2000 |
Not very well, they didn't. I guess i haven't explained it too well.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 211 of 406:
|
Oct 17 18:32 UTC 2000 |
Can anyone honestly say that the debates are a place to hear the
issues? They're are to see who can answer questions quickly under
pressure, who can clearly get his point out in a limited amount of
time, and who is the least flappable in public. This silly mess about
being likable is honestly a result of the collective viewing public
allowing themselves to be spoonfed national politics over the last
twenty years. Bush is only as good as his coaches. Gore may sound
smug and a little cagey, but anyone that say that you want a completely
open man, who isn't cagey and is acquainted with chicanery has no idea
what it takes to manuver in the world of national and international
politics. Bush wares his brain on his sleeve instead of in his head.
He'd be eaten alive at a conference between Isreal and Palestine, or
even among countries that share English as the native alnguage. You
don't take your coaches with you into the White House.
|
jep
|
|
response 212 of 406:
|
Oct 17 18:45 UTC 2000 |
re #199: Shouldn't the issue be about what happened in Texas during
Bush's term in office, and not about the baggage he inherited from his
predecessor, Ann Richards (a Democrat), and also her predecessors?
Neither candidate seems to be talking about it in those terms. Why
aren't they?
I'd be interested in seeing the Grex straw poll. Why can't it be done?
|
gull
|
|
response 213 of 406:
|
Oct 17 21:10 UTC 2000 |
I don't find Gore's exaggerations all that troubling. For one thing,
there's at least a grain of truth to each one. For another they're about
anecdotes, and anecdotes are meant as parables. When a Presidential
candidate talks about So-and-so in Upper Podunkville who can't afford to buy
tires for her wheelchair, he's not saying that, if elected President, he's
going to go help that specific person; it's a way of illustrating with a
story the fact that he feels the cost of wheelchair tires is too high.
Whether the entire story is true or not isn't all that relevant.
Besides, Gore still can't tell a whopper like Reagan could.
|
brighn
|
|
response 214 of 406:
|
Oct 17 21:30 UTC 2000 |
Gore: Whoppers.
Clinton: Big Macs.
|
bru
|
|
response 215 of 406:
|
Oct 18 02:58 UTC 2000 |
Gore only told one whopper so far tonight, and that dealt with how much money
the pharmecutical companies spend on research vs. advertising. He said they
spent more on advertising. Truth is, they pharmecutical companies spent 21
billion on research, and 5 to 8 billion on advertising.
Gore came out of the gate hot tonight. He was ready to fight for people
today. Very confrontational. This may have put him on the wrong side.
Bush was pushing co-opperation, government working together. Gore was not.
Gore also overstepped the rules of the debate several times, seeming to say
the rules don't apply to me, even when it came to rules he had insisted on
in the debate.
Bush may have wo tonight, but it was close.
|
scg
|
|
response 216 of 406:
|
Oct 18 04:34 UTC 2000 |
I found Gore pretty impressive tonight, while Bush still seemed to be spouting
slogans without seeming to understand them. Then again, I support Gore, and
have thought Bush was pretty out of it for a while, so maybe I've got a biased
perspective. Gore certainly said more things that I agreed with, and his
comments seemed to me to be much better thought out.
Bush's mantra that "everybody who pays taxes should get tax relief," and his
elaborations on that going on and on about how this should apply to the rich
as well as poor, rather than picking who gets tax relief, would seem comical
if he didn't seem likely to be the next President. The way he kept saying
this made it sound like tax relief was a service that people pay for with
their taxes, as if he was saying something like "everybody who buys a car
should get a steering wheel." It appeared as if Bush lacked the understanding
that what he calls "tax relief" is really a shift from one tax policy to
another. With "tax relief" what happens is that the amount of tax people are
paying changes. Presumably this ought to be done by examining the amounts
of taxes that various income groups pay, and calculating what an appropriate
amount should be under the new system. This is presumably a much more complex
task, at least if any thought is put into it, than "everybody who pays taxes
should get tax relief."
When the question of sex or violence in the media came up, I didn't like
pro-censorship answers from either candidate, but I expected that. Same for
the death penalty. I don't know if anybody who agrees with me on either of
these would be even remotely electable.
CBS's focus group of undecided voters seemed to favor Bush, saying things such
as that his answers were simple, or that they wanted their tax cuts. I came
to a couple of scary realizations, one being that with the election so close,
it may be those who now consider themselves undecided who will make the
difference, and that the sort of person who would still be undecided this far
into the campaign must either not be very smart, or not have that much
interest in the government.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 217 of 406:
|
Oct 18 05:39 UTC 2000 |
One has to think of each person *in office functioning as president*.
Gore's rather technical and even aggressive style is perfect for
a president. Bush's limp "let's all be happy" style would be a
disaster, and he would be eaten alive internationally, if not nationally.
But, he can always just wave his big stick (nuclear weapons) and show
we're the boss, right?
|
senna
|
|
response 218 of 406:
|
Oct 18 06:51 UTC 2000 |
I had no idea Gore endorsed the death penalty. I stopped cold in my tracks
when I heard him say that.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 219 of 406:
|
Oct 18 07:09 UTC 2000 |
re#216: Why should 'rich' people get charged proportionally more of
their own money they earn in taxes?
re#218: And in 1981 Gore said "I think it is wrong. It is not just
another normal optional lifestyle". In 1984 he said "I do not believe
it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm".
He was speaking about homosexuality.
|
mdw
|
|
response 220 of 406:
|
Oct 18 08:43 UTC 2000 |
Gosh, more reasons for me to vote for Nader.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 221 of 406:
|
Oct 18 09:47 UTC 2000 |
Well. I can't argue much with that other than to point out that Nader
isn't exactly 'honest' when it comes down to it. He may merely have
been technically inept statistics way when he wrote _Unsafe at any
speed_. (As I personally prefer to believe) But he sure never seems to
correct his public views when science contradicts (a minus in my book -
one has to keep and open mind, like with the current "its the tire, its
the truck, its not a truck" thingy). In one sense by voting for Nader or
any other non-viable candidate you are 'voting for the future'. But in
another sense you are sorta 'throwing your vote away' as nobody cares
much about the last elections losers. On the other hand, a few people
remember Anderson (I voted for him) and his views did sorta bubble up
into the mainstream so there is in fact something to be said to voting
for a candidate who more closely holds those views of your own...
To my mind 'he who governs least governs best' is a pretty good rule and
why in the real world with really only two choices I'm voting for Bush.
(There is so little difference between them at this point other than the
reliance on a central federal 'big brother' solution. Bush wants a tax
cut, Al-the-pal wants a tax cut, Bush wants cheaper drugs for old folk
(the AARP vote) and Al-the-pal wants cheaper drugs for old folk, Bush
wants to save SS and Al-the-pal wants to save SS, Bush supports capital
punishment and Al-the-pal supports capital punishment, etc.etc.etc. the
list goes on.) The only difference between the two seems to be the
'battle plan' and as we know no plan ever last beyond 'contact with the
enemy' - neither plan will probably resemble how the game plays out in
the future. Thus it boils down to the overall stance. Do we want a
central federal goverment dictating what we do and what we say and where
we say it, or do we want the people to dictate to its government what it
does. I think the latter is more in line with what our 'founding
fathers' and the mothers and wives behind them intended - otherwise we
might as well vote for Al-the-pal, rejoin the brits and convince them to
and join the EU.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 222 of 406:
|
Oct 18 11:01 UTC 2000 |
One thing that bugs me about GWB's debating style is the "we have that
in Texas" line, taking credit for something he opposes. The "Patient's
Bill of Rights" issue, for example--when asked about that last night, he
said "Well, we have a strong patient's bill of rights in Texas". What
he doesn't say is that he fought it every step of the way, and that it
passed in spite of him. Same deal with the "Hate Crimes" issue in the
last election--"We have a hate crimes law in Texas", not mentioning that
it existed before he came into office, and that he killed an attempt to
strengthen it.
Yes, I realize that all politicians try to take credit for stuff they
didn't do...
|
scott
|
|
response 223 of 406:
|
Oct 18 11:20 UTC 2000 |
Bush just looked *way* too friendly uncle-ish, just repeating the same "we'll
work together" stuff over and over. Definitely not "on" last night.
Gore looked pretty good, but that whole business with agreeing to censorship
and the death penalty just reinforced my dislike of him as well as Bush.
|
bru
|
|
response 224 of 406:
|
Oct 18 12:52 UTC 2000 |
A ook at teh latest rating of the debate by people on MSNBC gave the debate
to Bush by a significant margin.
Bush 3.81 out of 5
Gore 2.76 out of 5
bush led in all the categories
|
jazz
|
|
response 225 of 406:
|
Oct 18 13:31 UTC 2000 |
What concerns me is that Bush's charisma is such that his falsehoods
and deceptions go relatively unnoticed - does anyone besides me remember the
question about Texas being 49th in male insureds and 50th in unwed female
insureds and Bush being the "health care candidate"? - and Gore's get speared?
|
scott
|
|
response 226 of 406:
|
Oct 18 14:23 UTC 2000 |
According to the CNN polls, it's pretty much evenly split. My guess is that
at this point people's minds are pretty much made up, and they see in the
debates what they expect to see.
|
jep
|
|
response 227 of 406:
|
Oct 18 14:28 UTC 2000 |
re #222: Heh. Yeah, Gore is taking credit for the balanced budget,
which he opposed and Clinton opposed in 1992 and fought against in 1994
because it was a Congressional priority. Same for a smaller
government. Same for welfare reform. Same for a lot of things.
I remember a lot of promises from 1992. "Most ethical administration in
history". (That was a *promise*.) The national health program, which
was the center piece of Clinton's campaign in 1992, and which never
happened because it was obviously such a bad idea. (That was the
biggest Clinton-Gore promise from 1992.)
This election is not about a great shining paragon of a candidate versus
a lesser candidate. It's not about two great shining paragons with
different visions. It's about two pretty similar candidates in terms of
their policies, and two pretty unimpressive men.
I watched the debate last night. USA Today is reporting that 46-44% of
people polled say that Gore won. (5% margin of error.) I'd say that's
about right; he was a little more certain of what he wanted to say, and
a little more forceful -- about 46 to 44 better. Neither candidate
dazzled me; it was much like the 1st debate in that regard.
|
brighn
|
|
response 228 of 406:
|
Oct 18 14:46 UTC 2000 |
#225> GWB is Teflon. Reagan revisited. IT all started with the coke
accusation, and has persisted throughout. But the Dems are out for retaliation
for Clinton's impeachment, so while Teflon may protect Bush during the
debates, I don't see it protecting him long into a presidency.
Then again, if #226 is accurate (and I daresay it is), Gore should squeak
through anyway.
Of course, another thing that has nary been mentioned... shall we talk of the
Curse again? Did it SKIP Reagan, or did Reagan end it? The only presidents
ever to die in office were elected in years ending in 0, and it's been all
but three of those elections: 1800, 1820, and 1980 (it "started" in 1840, and
ran through JFK in 1960). So maybe we're really voting for Cheney v.
Leiberman. ;} (*To save RCurl et alia time and energy, I'll insert his
comments here: What a load of superstitious claptrap. Is there nothing else
people can spend their time on then absurdist fantasies about Presidential
Curses? Honestly. We live in an age of Science, not Delusion.*)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 229 of 406:
|
Oct 18 15:57 UTC 2000 |
"What a load of superstitious claptrap. Is there nothing else people can
spend their time on then [sic] absurdist fantasies about Presidential
Curses? Honestly. We live in an age of Science, not Delusion."
I call this kind of thinking "pyramidology". Various nuts have deduced all
kinds of fantastic ideas from the features of the Great Pyramid. Christian
fanatics find the story of Christ's life in various measurements. Others
find all kinds of symbolism in various ratios of height, base lengths,
internal measurements, etc (none of which are now what they were when the
pyramind was built).
So, what's your opinion, brighn, on this? Do you think "We live in an age
of Science, not Delusion", or not?
|
brighn
|
|
response 230 of 406:
|
Oct 18 16:24 UTC 2000 |
We live in an age of fun. =} You're here for a bit, you die, if the universe
is all science or the universe is all GOD or whatever, you don't have a
significant impact on way or the other and if you do whatever it is that makes
you happy and brings you peace, then groovy, so long as it doesn't fuck my
life up too terribly much.
In the end, I'm probably a Thelemite who doesn't take himself seriously enough
to be a Thelemite, but when I put it that way, John (and maybe one or two
others) are the only ones who know what I'm talking about.
Although that's not quite true either.
|
polygon
|
|
response 231 of 406:
|
Oct 18 16:30 UTC 2000 |
I remember a Republican brochure at MSU in 1980 which said, in effect,
"Don't worry about Reagan. The Curse is in effect, so this election is
really George Bush vs. Walter Mondale vs. Pat Lucey." (Lucey was John
Anderson's running mate.) Having disposed of all the arguments against
Reagan, the piece proceeded to savage Mondale and Lucey.
|
gull
|
|
response 232 of 406:
|
Oct 18 18:44 UTC 2000 |
Re #221: One of the things that really worries me about Bush is that I think
he'd be totally incompetant in foreign relations. His thought processes are
too fuzzy, his knowledge too shallow, and his slips of the tongue too
frequent. If he's elected, I feel sorry for his translator. In spite of
your feelings about big gov't vs. small gov't, etc., don't you feel that
this is important.
Also bear in mind that, given how much both candidates agree, it looks more
like a choice between 'big government' and 'slightly less big government.'
|