Tonights Bush vs. Gore Debate

[Rockets R' Us]

Well, this was the first of the debates I actually watched. I never watched it fully because I was switching to the Rocks game.Eventhough I'm only 14 and not old enough to vote, I still like to watch to see who I will vote for in 4 years. When I did watch, I noticed that Bush had his topics covered and was quick at comebacks he was loose and was just rolling through the debate like it was nothing. But, sometimes Bush was slowa t responding to questions, collecting his thoughts I guess. And on the other hand, Gore, was tight and really took his time to answer the questions, many times going off topic. But, he was straight to the point sometimes and didn't have pauses or breaks like Bush did. Overall, I think Bush got the better of him in this round. Any thoughts?

------------------
Francis out top, 9 seconds on the clock, he gives a no look pass to Cuttino Mobley, 4 seconds left, Mobley passes to an open Langhi in the corner with 1 second left! Langhi at the buzzer.......YES!!! How Sweet It Is!!

General consensus among the media is that Gore came out on top this time. He seemed in command of his facts and clearly more comfortable in the town hall format than Bush.

Bush, on the other hand, seemed less aggressive and more prone to stammering and dodging. I think the death penalty question near the end really caught him off guard.

As always, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[4chuckie]

Bush did get alot more laughs from the crowd with some of his comments, mainly slamming Gore.
But Bush seemed to hide behing the moderator whenever Gore asked him a couple of questions.
But the moderator did a nice job of cutting Gore off. I swear Gore always wants the last word on everything.
"Can I respond to that?" must have been heard 100 times by Gore.

------------------

[PhiSlammaJamma]

Gore may want the last word, but that's because he is prepared and always has something of value to add. I'd rather vote for somebody who has lots to say and think about an issue, as opposed to somebody who has one prepared statement and is afraid to go any deeper. Bush know there are certain issues he'd better not touch. Gore knows it to, and pushes his buttons. I don't have a problem with that. I want Bush to defend himself. He's a wimp. Afraid to say what he believes. Gore has his problems to, but Bush is petrified to get into anything with Gore. Show me some courage and I'd vote for you. Instead he backs away and hides behind rules. Sad if you ask me.



------------------
humble, but hungry.

[JayZ750]

I also find it sad that he backs away so much. To play the devil's avocate though, I also find it encouraging at times. Gore is aggressive, but when his staff tells him to be slightly more aggressive, he seems to just pour it on. I mean, its like the man doesnt know how to debate, or even more importantly, negotiate. He's either too harsh or too soft. Last night for example, Gore disgarded the rules and was constantly having to be the last person to talk--maybe thats why Bush doesnt stand up for himself, you and I both know if he did it would only turn into Gore saying..."Well wait a minute now its my turn" and Jim Lehrer saying "we must go on to the next question but it is directed to you Mr. Vice President" and Gore saying ok, going on to the next question and then having gore spend another minute and a half finishing up his last point, which no one cares about anymore.
Bush wont stand up for himself enough and Gore does it way too much.

------------------
Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.

[dc sports]

Like you said, Gore was breaking the rules. As Bush said, he was using an old debaters trick, attacking the other side at the end of a response, and asking a different question (against the rules).

Bush did appear to be backing down, but unfortunately it was because Gore was breaking the rules "big time" by directing questions at Bush. The reason they have the rule is to allow the candidates to answer the moderator's questions.

Gore was trying to get Bush to commit to answering his questions, which were usually traps. Answering whether he supports a specific piece of legislation, for example, would require an explanation of his reasoning for his position. There just isn't time to do that in a debate, and answer the moderator's question.

Responding yes or no just won't work -- Bush may not support this act or that one because he feels specific provisions in it are inappropriate. If he gives yes or no, Gore's slogan tomorrow will be "Bush opposes legislation to keep guns out of school," or something similar.

I don't think their stance on specific legislation is important at this point anyway. Congress isn't going to act on anything they don't absoloutely have to before the fall recess. The next Congress would rework any pending legislation anyway.

------------------
Stay Cool...

[Dr of Dunk]

Originally posted by PhiSlammaJamma: I'd rather vote for somebody who has lots to say and think about an issue, as opposed to somebody who has one prepared statement and is afraid to go any deeper.

I'd rather vote for somebody that can run the country.

But then I can't vote, so...

------------------
I got nothin'.

[Surfguy]

DoD...are you an ex-convict or something? Why can't you vote?

Surf

------------------

[Rocketman95]

Bush would only say something about Gore breaking the rules whenever it suited him. If he had a good answer for one of Gore's illegal questions (Geez, he shouldn't be elected just for that reason alone), he'd answer it. If he didn't have a good answer, he'd turn to Lehrer and act like a pissed off little schoolgirl.

Gore asked about affirmative action, he said not if it involes quotas. When Gore pointed out correctly that affirmative action doesn't include quotas (that's one fact most conservatives I know can't get through their head), and does he support affirmative action as the Supreme Court decides it, he got scared and asked Lehrer to stop the big, bad bully.

Kinda like his handling of the cocaine issue. "I won't answer any personal questions, but I can tell you I have it done it since 1974, I stopped drinking cold turkey in the late 80s and I've never cheated on my wife."

------------------
Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone retarded.

visit www.swirve.com

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited October 18, 2000).]

[Achebe]

true rm95.

I personally thought the rules were ridiculous. Why should you not be able to ask someone a follow up question? What's the big deal if one candidate asks the other candidate a question? Some of you may remember that Bush attempted to answer one of the questions, when it suited him, and when he had the typical bs bumper sticker response down. Even when I think that conservatives may have a good point on a particular argument, Bush always does the argument injustice by breaking into a 'ba-ba-bee-bee-bee that's all folks'. When he does the same thing in situations in which I disagree with him, I merely see him as out of his league.


------------------
"Everyone I know has a big but...

come on Simone, let's talk about your but."

[JayZ750]

It seemed more to me that Bush answered questions that could be answered right then and there. DC explained it pretty well really. The reason candidates cant ask each other questions is because then you get into attacking the other person and requiring them to give answers that have much deeper roots. Maybe 5% of the population knows what the Supreme Court or the "Washington" version of affirmative action is. Gore wasnt asking Bush if he "philosophically" beleived in affirmative action, he was basically asking, would you support Version 2.4 of Act 7 of Ruling 3 in the restatement of blah blah blah of affirmative action.

It is the same thing with campaign financing reform. GOre keeps saying he supports (and once said he somehow even cosponsred) the Mcain finance reform bill. DOes Bush beleive in campaign finance reform? I dont know. But if he doesnt beleive in the McCain bill that DOESNT mean he doesnt believe in reform.

The reason it is called high-school debate trickery is because it involves some sort of sneaky way to get around the rules (except Gore isnt sneaky about it at all).

Maybe they should hold a debate where the candidates freely ask each other questions. But that wasnt the form last night. And it seriously worries me that a man who may very well be our future president cant even conform to some simple rules and guidlines, especially in a debate/negotiation type situation (imagine if this was Gore dealing with the Middle East crisis--of course, Bush wouldnt be much better, but he did at least follow the rules).



------------------
Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.

[DEANBCURTIS]

Until Ralph Nader is let into the debates or at least the building I refuse to watch these corporate puppets debating each other. votenader.com

------------------
please venture to atheistalliance and rocketsonline
I AM SPARTACUS

[Rocketman95]

He shouldn't have answered any of them. He looked like a brat answering the conveinent ones and then running to Lehrer when the answer would have been a little tougher on that already taxed brain of his.

If you're not going to vote for Gore because he didn't follow the rules of the debate precisely, then there's really nothing anyone can say.

I know that's not the only reason, but come on. I hope undecided voters don't vote for somebody because of a reason like that. Just like I hope someone doesn't not vote for Bush just because he bumbles a simple sentence when talking about higher education.

I want to know why people aren't calling out Bush for lying last night. When the gentleman asked him if he was really as proud as he looked during the second debate when he said that the three men who killed James Byrd were going to die (when only two of them are), and Bush told the man that he misread him, he wasn't proud of that. I saw a clip of that again tonight, and when Bush clearly stated that the three men (only two) were going to die, he had a smile on his face. I'm not saying he shouldn't have had the smile, just don't lie about it. If you are proud, and we know he is, admit it.

------------------
When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption.

visit www.swirve.com

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited October 19, 2000).]

[mrpaige]

Actually, I am pretty sure that all three of the Byrd defendants will die. Everybody dies eventually. Only two will get help from the State.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
DFW Sports Board

[JayZ750]

Im not voting for either Bush or Gore anyway. In fact, Ive already voted through absentee ballot so dont worry about me not voting for Gore because he cant follow the rules. But IF I was forced to choose between the two, something like that by Gore would definitely affect my opinion anyway. I mean, really, demeanor plays a large part of the character of hte person youre going to vote for. Of course Bush only answered the "convenient" questions posed by Gore to him. Bush is going to defend himself when he gets the chance if it is convenient to the situation, any sane person would. SOme of the questions, as previoulsy argued were definitely not "convenient" and as such Bush didnt respond to them. There is no point in anyone arguing about details for hours when it isnt "convenient" to the situation.

Bush lies and Gores lies. They both have major issues to overcome but while neither are getting my vote, I DO recognize that one of them will be our future president. That is the reason I look at these type of things, as it pertains to the type of job they will do in the future.

------------------
Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.

[TheFreak]

I love how when Bush won't answer something Gore says, it makes him a wimp, but when Hillary Clinton refuses to answer Rick Lazio, he's a big bully picking on a defenseless woman. You gotta love that consistency. Anyway, Bush shouldn't be answering anything Gore asks him directly.

Would somebody like to explain to me how this 'affirmative action' without quotas works, and how it is enforced?

[dc sports]

Originally posted by TheFreak: Would somebody like to explain to me how this 'affirmative action' without quotas works, and how it is enforced?

It's a nebulous concept discussed, but not understood, by politicians in order to gain favor with minorities. During the debate, they probably talked about it for ten minutes, discussing only what it wasn't. I don't think either of them intend to actually do anything with affirmative action.



------------------
Stay Cool...

[Rocketman95]

Freak, that's the point. Everyone bitches and moans about affirmative action, when all it really says is that no one (even though I think business under 100 employees can do whatever they want, I may be wrong) can be denied access to a job or school based on race considerations. If they are, they may sue.

JayZ, I see what you are saying, but one could also point to Bush's arrogant smirk as a definciency in his deamenor as well. I can't stand it, but that's not why I'm not voting for him.

------------------
When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption.

visit www.swirve.com

[TheFreak]

R95 -- what you described is not affirmative action. Simply not discrimminating is not taking any affirmative action.

[Rocketman95]

Sure it is Freak. Now a minority or woman doesn't have to fear not getting a job because of who they are and not having any legal discourse if they are denied the job for that reason.

Sounds affirmative to me.

------------------
When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption.

visit www.swirve.com