October 3, 2000 Presidential Debate - MY take ...

Here's my local copy of the debate transcript.

I sent these out as 2 e-mails to friends and family, cut and pasted here:

PART 1

Did you all watch it? I did - I even taped it for a friend. He's my take ...

I thought they both presented themselves pretty well overall. However, Al Gore was rude and childish with his moaning, guffaws, etc ... whatever you want to call them ... when he thought he was 'off camera' (SURPRISE !!!! - He wasn't !! ). I did not think this was very 'Presidential' or mature of him. I thought it made him look like a spoiled child and a JERK. I also thought his interruptions and ALWAYS wanting the "last word" and constant OVERRUNING on time were just plain WRONG.
George Bush DID NOT "attack" Al Gore at the end. He was asked a SPECIFIC QUESTION about character and campaign finance, so he answered it. Al Gore did not 'lower himself to personal attacks' BECAUSE HE CAN'T MAKE ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS on George Bush that will stick. Plain and simple. Mr. Bush has integrity, and DOES NOT have a track record of being involved in SCANDALOUS BEHAVIOR. Simple.
I trust George Bush's knowledge over Al Gore's. For those of you who didn't know -- Al Gore has a 'Degree' (what KIND is unclear because it is UNSTATED - is he trying to hide something) from Harvard. He flunked out of both Divinity School and Law School. He has an "Honorary Law Degree" from Harvard (1994). This may be his "degree with honors" - who knows? The man lies like a rug. George Bush has a 4-year Bachelor's Degree (in ??) from Yale and and MBA from Harvard. Now, we all know that college degrees don't MAKE us intelligent. However, they DO SHOW dedication and perseverence - and dropping out (TWICE !) sure says something to me, too.
I prefer George Bush's "trusting the people" over Al Gore's "nanny state" regarding controlling our own destiny and taking responsibility for ourselves.
I thought Bush did an "OK" job refuting Al Gore's prevarications and exaggerations -- but KNOW he could have and should have done MORE. He should have brought up the fact that the Wall Street Journal reported that the BUSH financial plans make MORE SENSE than the Gore plans. There you have it -- don't take Bush's OR Gore's word on it - the WSJ says 'experts' favor Bush's Plan. Period.
How many of you know that the top 1% of income earners ($251 K / year) pay 33% of the TAXES (while earning 17% of the income)? How many know that the top 5% ($108 K / year) pay 52% of the TAXES (while earning 32% of the income)? How many know that the top 50% pay 96% of the TAXES? -- So WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG with the people actually PAYING the TAXES getting the benefit of a TAX BREAK? Geeezzzzz!!! George Bush should have stated that Al Gore simply wants to re-distribute the taxpayer's money according to his Social(ist) Engineering Visions. Well, Bush sort of did - but it wasn't as strong as it could have been. It was good that he stated that EVERYONE benefits under the Bush Plan, while SOME benefit under the Gore Plan. I thought that George Bush should have also wondered out loud, ' Why does Al Gore only want to "help" the middle class financially? - My plan helps everyone ... " . Now, it WAS very crafty of Gore to HAMMER on that evil top 1% getting money back, though ... very effective, I thought - however slimy.
I thought Al Gore's demeanor (? swagger ?) probably helped him. George Bush was pretty good - but maybe could have improved his posture? - I don't know. Maybe it's just that Al Gore is physically taller?? My wife and I DID notice that Al Gore was dressed like a conservative - in fact, almost identical to George Bush. My wife also noticed that Al Gore seemed to be doing a 'Ronald Reagan' imitation with his head motion.

PART 2

Here are some more observations ... what do you all think? ....

I don't know if this is just bias on my part, or this is actually the case, but it seemed to me that Al Gore was quite visibly agitated at times -- maybe he was upset that George Bush was doing so well? Al Gore also seemed to exaggerate his facial expressions at times - what was THAT all about?
Bush needs to work on his foreign policy. He seemed a little weak in answering those questions. I didn't think Gore was particularly stong here, either. Bush should have been more ADAMANT about not being the world's police force and that we only send our troops when our national security is threatened and only under US Command. Talk about our soldiers on FOOD STAMPS, for goodness sakes, bring up Somalia, "wag the dog" and other Clinton disasters.
I thought it was TOTALLY UNFAIR that the Green Party, Independent Party, and Libertarian Party were all excluded from the debate. I think the American people deserve to hear what they have to say as well. Now, I suppose they should not get as much time as the two clear leading candidates get, but perhaps that should have each gotten 5 minutes to simply state their platforms. I heard (don't know it to be true) that Ralph Nader had a TICKET to attend (in the audience!), and was TURNED AWAY at the door? What the HELL was that??! Is this true?
Bush took a hit on the abortion pill and Supreme Court Justice appointment question. He shouldn't have. He should have stuck to the NO LITMUS TEST response - and then made light of Gore for obviously not understanding (or wanting to deliberately cloud the issue on) what a litmus test actually is.
Bush needs to work on his speech pattern. He seemed a little hesistant at times. This may be interpreted as that's just the way he speaks, the way Texans speak, or may be because he searches too much for words, or because he's unsure of his answer, or because he carefuly thinks through his answer. Anyway, it doesn't come across as smooth as it could. While Bush spoke in a much more natural manner than Gore (not hard to do) - more down-to-earth, he wasn't as fluid in his speech as Gore. I've also heard from others that Gore was STILL condescending. I didn't pick up on that so much - maybe because he seemed much improved to me in this respect.
If the economy (and the Stock Market is really the same thing - it is ownership of the economy) is so strong, why is it now a "risky scheme" (notice Gore refrained from the use of that phrase - good work on the Republican's part from the convention) to actually TAKE STOCK IN AMERICA ? Historically, the stock market returns 10% ! That is NOTHING to sneeze at -- and provides a whole lot better 'return' than the present system.
That "poor lady" who collects cans DRIVES HER WINNEBAGO (do you have ANY IDEA how much those things COST?) - or (somebody said) her son's WINNEBAGO from Chicago to Boston and BACK? If she can afford a Winnebago, she's NOT poor, if her son has one, WHY DOESN'T HE HELP HIS OWN MOTHER (??!!) , and HOW MUCH was the GASOLINE BILL for that trip?! I wonder what other luxuries this poor woman considers necessities?!
Bush should have STUFFED Gore's statement about the Constitution "changing with the times" according to the whims of those in office DOWN GORE'S THROAT. He should have stated that the Constitution is absolute, and if we want it changed, WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW. The whims of those in office cannot violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it PROTECTS US ALL.
Didn't Gore talk and talk about a LOCK BOX for Social Security --- and then later talk about "using some of that" to pay down the debt? Seemed very contradictory to me.
Bush should have STRESSED MORE the fact that part of the SURPLUS (due to the Republican Congress, technology taking off, cheap oil - up until NOW) would be used to offset a little less TAX money going into the Social Security system - but that money would pay off for us all BIG TIME in the future. Here would be a good place to mention HIS (Bush's) own education. This may raise questions regarding Mr. Gore's educational background ...