My Take on the Debate

I posted this elsewhere but it fits better here. If anyone could have been a lot harsher on the other and wasn't it was Gore. Bush open the door wide and Gore was pretty soft...see below.

"
......
I thought Gore was a little soft on Bush. Just how exactly is someone who attacks the other side's credibility and character, and then laughs at him for being phony, fuzzy, and inventive (i.e., internet, calculator reference) going to encourage bi-partisanship? Is this the "changing the tone in Washington" Bush has been referring to? I thought Gore should have blasted him on this (could have brought up the Bush comments about McCain too) rather than tossing the soft balls he did (he didn't let it slide entirely, but was fairly gentle in calling Bush on it).

Further, if I were Gore I might have pointed out to GW that neither Clinton and his daddy nor Clinton versus Dole nor Gore versus Qualye or Kemp threw out the personal attacks and mocking statement the way GWB has gone after McCain and now himself during supposedly civil debates. (Let's see how Bush reacts when he looks disfavorable related to both his father and the guy he hates most of all, BC). Then Gore could have added, you should be ashamed of yourself, and I will not attack your personally that way. (though I recognize the last part could be to sanctimonious, it would drive the point)

And, if he want's to further get under GW's skin on top of the ill GB senior/BC comparison, he could add, "I will not attack your character George W.... I will instead be like John McCain and take the high horse on the low road".

Overall, in my mind Gore won by a little, when he could have one by a few touchdowns. Maybe Gore figures this is all he needs to do (small wins) and doesn't want to risk it getting too bloody because it could rub off on both of them. Still, if it were me I would have pricked GWB just a little bit more than Gore did.

....."

As you can tell, I favor Gore, though I don't believe the election will impact me personally much at all. It might if I were gay or if I potentially could be falsely accused (possible but I don't see myself getting into such a situation, besides, I could afford to hire a lawyer any way). It might also impact me if I had a teenage daughter and I wanted government to control her body and/or destiny if she screwed up or even was raped, but I don't have a daughter. If anyone DOES think whether Bush/Gore wins will make a big difference in the taxes you pay or the overall size of government you are fooling yourself. Our political system is not designed to move rapidly on these fronts, notice there hasn't been much difference between size of government or taxes since Bush Sr. or BC has been in office. Nothing that major happened EVEN when the Demo's had the White house along with majorities in both legislatures. Even then a large minority could scuttle anything (Dole in the senate) too earth shaking. Hopefully the Republ. will not win the presidency and both leg. bodies (you can say htis for the Demo's too if you support Republ.), but what I am saying is even if this happens widespread change isn't going to happen. You can count on that.

Finally, Bush might even lighten my tax load a little, but it not worth the potential damage he could do to civil liberties. I do give GWB some credit, when you compare him with such despicable fellows as Armey, and Delay, with Hutchison and Gramm not far behind, this guy (Bush) shows a lot of heart and is a positive influence on his party and maybe even nation.



[This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited October 05, 2000).]

 

Economically speaking, I really dont see how Clinton/Gore directly led to all of these positive benefits. In fact, werent people not too satisfied with CLinton through 1994, adn it wasnt till afterwards that things started going well (when did Republicans gain the Sentate,etc??). Also, you must admit that it is the Federal Chair Greenspan who controls the economy. A simple modern econ course will also show you that historically, we had recessions at the beginning of the last few decades--1970,80,and 90, only to be followed by a long period of expansion (of course OPEC and the oil price hikes during the mid 70's were nto very good). This one during the 90's has been even greater because as the Fed has gained more and more experience, learning from past action by those such as Voelcker, on what to do and what not to do, especially with relation to interest rates and futre EXPECTED interest and inflation rates and their effects.

Anyway, you cant deny the fact that the 90's have generally been prosperous and that it has been during the Clinton/Gore administration. THe correlation between those facts is very disputable though and has no affect on who I am going ot vote for (dont know yet, probably third party)

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

 

Can you name some legislation that originated with Clinton that has led to our current prosperity? Can you name anything that Clinton himself did that has positively affected the country before 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress?

Wow, you really left yourself wide open on this one. I spot a big fat hanging curve ball that I just HAVE to knock into the cheap seats -- ARE YOU SAYING YOU WOULD HAVE RATHER HAD BOB DOLE THAN BILL CLINTON? How much experience did Dole have? And what state was Clinton the governor of?

Your last statement is pretty damn ignorant if you ask me. Asking the rich to pay a little higher taxes to help out those who can't afford housing, medication, clothes, or food is really not asking the rich to buy some poor person a mansion and a nice SUV.

You're assuming that additional tax money collected by the federal government will be put to good use. Do you really believe that?


------------------
Winnifred Skinner is a slut.

 

Your signature is hilarious theFreak.

 

oeil: Um, I guess you haven't read my other posts. If I started anything, it would be "Save Our Bleeding Heart Liberal Causes."

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

why in the world would you think that clinton had more experience in 1992 than Bush does right now???? I'm really curious as to why you think that.

Bush has been a very strong governor. Keep in mind, this is the same Republican governor who received an endorsement from the state's most powerful Democrat, Bob Bullock, when he ran for his second term. He received an endorsement from Pete Laney, speaker of the house at the time, if my memory serves me correctly too. National studies suggest that Texas education is improving faster than any other state and that Texas minorities do better in national testing than others around the country. He proposed and obtained the largest teacher pay raise in recent memory. He campaigned on cutting taxes which leads to economic growth, and that came to pass.

In Arkansas, Clinton's education system was the worstin the country. He passed tons of taxes and the area has failed to match the nation's growing economy. This is a state that every year taxes your income, your real property, your purchases and your PERSONAL property!!! If you own a car, boat, etc the state assesses a tax against you for the ownership of that property every year. It's not enough that you pay a sales tax on it. And what does he have to show for it in Arkansas?? My wife hails from Arkansas..her parents still live there. Very nice people, but that state is a wreck, due in large part to the heavy taxation that discourages business from starting or relocating there.

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

 

You know, I've heard that Texas has a weak governor system, but considering that the state congress meets every other year for a few months, and often acts on proposals made by the governor and his staff, I think he has quite a bit of responsibility.

Not to mention Texas has a larger population and economy than Arkansas -- much larger, and the governor does have to maintain good relations with a foreign power (Mexico). Bush also ran a large company prior to running for public office. (I know, family business, but he still ran it.)

I really liked what Chaney had to say about the advantages of having recently worked in the private sector, and spending time as an average person, as opposed to having spent half his life in Washington.


RocketMan95 -- On your debate suggestion -- Absolutely. The candidates are spending WAY too much time talking about these plans -- particularly when there is no way they could have enough power over congress to pass either plan. They need to spend time on other issues. I'm sick of "lock boxes" and "fuzzy math."
------------------
Stay Cool...

[This message has been edited by dc sports (edited October 06, 2000).]

 

so modest salaries make you a better candidate??? Huh??

Seems to me that the ability to make it in the results-oriented private sector is far more impressive than 26 years in Washington. Guess that's just my opinion though.

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. If Bush and Cheney had been unsuccessful, you guys would be pointing that out. But since they are, you quickly resort to the idea that somehow they're in no way responsible for their own success. That's absolutely ridiculous.

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

 

I thought the governorship was weak b/c the lieutenant governor did everything in Texas.

 

If the public is so confident in the administration, why isn't Gore ahead by 30 points, like he should be? And what is their "role"...other than voting on bills they had no role in creating?

You just basically admitted that the president has little to do with prosperity, and that the public doesn't realize it.

Why don't you just come out and say that you don't like Bush because he's not a Democrat? It would just be so much easier. You said you value experience, yet you would never have voted for Dole over Clinton. You said the governor of Texas has little power, yet you also admitted the president has nothing to do with economic prosperity other than the public's "perception", which means no role. What it comes down to is you'll find some way to discount someone who isn't liberal no matter what. Just admit it and get this over with.


------------------
Winnifred Skinner is a slut.

[This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited October 06, 2000).]

 

Chaney's private sector life is a lot like Bush's private sector life (e.g., Rangers), which he also secured solely with political influence and had nothing to do to any personal ingenuity or business accumen (in contrast to say Ross Perot). If you think their lives with the private sector put them any more in touch with everyday citizens concerns than their public lives, than I have a bridge in the desert to sell you. At least in their government lives their are some constraints and relatively modest salaries relative to their efforts and contributions.

 

Democrat.

Republican.


Who cares. Vote for the person who will best do the job. I never ever could understand the "stick by your party, regardless of what crappy nominee they have up there" bull.


The way I see it.

Since Clinton became president.

-The economy is booming (or has been for the majority of his office)
-Can anyone believe that there is actually a surplus!!!!
-unemployment is down. (lower than its been in like 25 years. I believe)
-crime is down.
-retail is soaring again
-people are living well (generally speaking)
-foreign policy is going really well

For all the naysayers as to Clintons/Gores role to any of this. It wasnt this way for 12 years during Regan and Bush. Except for the economy during the Regan era. And that was at the price of a 365 gagollion trade deficit.

Now Im not the brightest political person out there. But Clintons/Gores role can not be denied. Heck Id say Clintons terms can be labeled as great from a political standpoint. One of the best. Forget the Monica issues.

Im not a democrat. Im not a Republican. But I lean towards the democrats for what Clinton has accomplished in his 8 years. To me Bush seems almost lost. Id question his toughness, and his ability to keep things going well as they are.

Too many allegences when it comes to voting. Forget the party, and vote for the persons ability to get the job done.




------------------
"I have amazing, powers of observation"...Pink

 

i know who won the debate!!!

its simple you see.
i have competed in debate for many years, inface i am in the middle of a 2 day competition at harvard Univ. right now. my GF is also a debater, and she is a republican.

we both agree that the loser of a debate is always the side that points out trivial flaws in logic, or minor distractions from the issues.

the winner is AL GORE. all of your comments about sighes, and lies, and miss quotes is a sign of weakness, and if i left the debate hearing the kind of comments in this thread i KNOW i whould have won the round.

now my GF and i both do some judging in the APDA(the leading debate association) my gf admits to being highly biased, but concidered bush only a slight winner, and complimented gores speaking skills.

i picked gore as the dominant winner, and agree on his speaking ability.

dont get me wrong, neither of these guys are clinton calibur speakers, and both are pretty much as far as policy makers, but i always vote for the better speaker.

so i say GORE 2000.
but ther should be another debate so who knows.
*PEACE

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

 

Its scary to think that some people would actually vote for bush,the man says we will leave no child behind, then why are we the 47th state in child welfare? Why is his running mate against head start programs? He talks about character and morals, What about his embezzlement and getting pardoned by his daddy? He doesnt want abortions, he doesnt think we should play god, Then why does he execute people like there is no tommorow down here? Isnt that playing god? He talks about the armys low payments and morale ? What about the people that work for the state of texas , like prison guards who havent received raises since he has been in office? This man has no idea what so ever about running a country, he was completely blank on the issue of foreign politics .

Seriously people! if he is elected he might declare war on idaho. just cause it sounds kinda foreign.

------------------
johnny "red" kerr:i'm glad the bulls did'nt draft steve francis.

dan roan: why!!!!!

johnny red kerr:because he would forever be compared to michael jordan.

 

brahma rocket -- you have chosen to personally attack me, as well as my character. I will not respond in kind.

------------------
Winnifred Skinner is a slut.

 

MM, you misread my point. I said Bush's and Chaney's private sector experience in my mind don't connect them to everyday life any more than 20+ years in Washington. In fact at least politicians have to get elected and live under some additional restrictions. Still, I am not “penalizing” them for this experience, but nor can I "credit" Bush/Chaney for their “business” accomplishments like I could for even say Ross Perot. The former guys were merely figureheads who benefited from their political ties, not entrepreneurs, innovators or even persons with acute business acumen. I give GWB some credit for making a huge windfall after he sold his share of a baseball team after the public financed a stadium to go along with it (a team whose original share he got I might add was basically a “favor” that no-one else not named “Bush” would have been able to do in his situation). Because of the latter experience, Bush should have quite an understanding of the way some government sponsored programs can be of direct personal benefits.