Let me start with this quote, as it accurately sums up my feelings:
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
-- H. L. Mencken
[ My only comment is that we can substitute 'people' for 'men' - as government "service" has now become an equal opportunity scam for both sexes. ]
Click here for the Debate Text. - courtesy of the Washington Post. (At least they're good for something.)
Here's my local copy.
I apologize ... I missed the very beginning - but have it on tape, so I'll check it. I was busy getting my boys ready for bed.
Well, I noticed that GW Bush was dressed like a good conservative. It seems that Al Gore and his people decided that it was a bad idea to try to make him look like Ronald Reagan (like last time). This time, they went a whole lot easier on the make-up, and 'softened' Al Gore's look with a light blue tie. Al Gore also 'lost' the Reagan head motions and physical mannerisms. I guess they caught enough negative reactions to that tactic to make them stop. Let's face it - they weren't fooling anyone. Anyway, they both looked pretty good.
Now, both candidates were very friendly when they spoke. Probably too friendly. It made me a little uneasy. Perhaps it was the cozy 'sit down' format that took some sort of negative edginess away. Perhaps their handlers strongly advised against any negative vibes or 'personal attacks'. At any rate, it was nice to see that they both behaved like gentlemen (no change here for GW Bush) throughout the 'debate', but it seemed somehow odd to me.
Let me first say that a lot of time was spend on this topic - one that has been perceived as a weakness for GW Bush. While speaking, GW Bush seemed a little uneasy -- at first. It was kind of like he wasn't sure what he should say. He was a little slow getting out of the blocks, and it looked like Al Gore picked up on that and was enjoying it. This was evidenced by his "baracuda smile" when GW Bush was speaking hesitatingly. However, GW soon relaxed and did a good job answering the questions.
One word on facial expressions - and I noticed one fairly dominant one for each candidate. Al Gore had some sort of menacing glare when he looked over at GW Bush while Bush was speaking. This softened up about halfway through the debate. GW Bush had a tendency to raise his eyebrows and pucker his lips when Al Gore was speaking. This makes him look a little older and a little confused. I think he should drop that facial expression, as it isn't helping him - in my eyes, at least.
Both candidates were in wide agreement regarding foreign policy, but here's, I guess, the major difference - Al Gore thinks the good 'ol U.S.A. should be involved in the affairs of other countries politically (I call it meddling). It was referred to as "Nation Building". GW Bush maintained that when it is a matter of national security - we go in. Our military's purpose is to fight and win wars. If a country wants help politically, we can give it to them - but THEY MUST WANT IT and be willing to MAKE THE COMMITMENT to make it work. We're NOT the world's police force, we "can't be everything to everybody".
I think GW Bush missed an opportunity to point out, once again that the Clinton/Gore Administration severely WEAKENED our military, making it that much harder to deploy our forces at all - never mind being everywhere at once.
When asked about recent troop deployments, each candidate was asked if they agreed or disagreed with the action. It seemed to me that Al Gore has perfect 20/20 hindsight. Did he agree with every successful campaign and disagree with the ones that went bad? Well, he started to agree with Somalia .... oh ... WAIT !! .... that was a disaster .... BACKPEDDLE ... no, Al Gore did not agree with that one. Nice try, Al. Boy, my dad and I really enjoyed THAT ONE - it was comical. GW Bush gave honest answers, and even injected a little humor to lighten things up. I liked his "conflict of interest" statement when referring to the ones his father executed.
Here's another missed opportunity for GW Bush. Al Gore stated that he "fully supported the Gulf War" . GW Bush could have easily pointed out the letter written by Senator Alan Simpson, where he told about how Senator Al Gore had bargained for prime time television time in exchange for his Gulf War vote.
On the whole, there was a lot of agreement here.
As expected, both candidates said this was wrong, and it must be a horrible feeling to be targeted in this respect. Both pledged to support legislation ending this practice. One good thing GW Bush did was emphasize local law enforcement, though he did mention "federal consequences" if local enforcement didn't do their job.
I just wonder what constitutes racial profiling, and what constitutes just being smart enough to learn from the past and observe some very real trends regarding crime. While I certainly believe that nobody's rights may be sacrificed in the name of law enforcement, there are situations where the police should 'keep an eye' on a suspicious individual or group.
No surprises here from Al Gore. He thinks that extra penalties should be imposed if a crime is deemed a 'hate crime'. I fear that this is just another way for those in the government to impose 'correct' thought. Al Gore tried to show how awful it is in GW Bush's state of Texas by metioning that terrible crime whereby a man (James Byrd) was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by a few barbarians.
I was afraid that GW Bush was dropping the ball on this question - but he ended up getting it right. He pointed out that 'those criminals (who perpetrated the dragging murder) have been convicted, and they will all be punished severely'. They are getting the death penalty - which GW Bush is not afraid of carrying out, thankfully. Well, 2 out of the 3 are - the third is getting life in prison. Yet liberals seem to think harsh punishment is just awful. What do they want? 'Hate crime' legislation with NO penalties?! This was the jury's decision, not Governor Bush's. I also think that the criminal act should be punished - and we already have laws for that (as Governor Bush later pointed out - "we're going to go after all crime, and we're going to make sure people get punished for the crime."). What further benefit would thought crime legislation bring? Answer - NONE. One self-serving thing on GW Bush's part - mentioning Arab-Americans specifically as a minority. Seems he was pandering for votes.
The answers were as expected. Funny thing, though. First Al Gore said he agrees with GW Bush, then says that he disagrees and (Lieberman and Cheyney, too) believes that homosexual marriages are fine - "civic unions" - all in the span of 4 or 5 sentences.
GW Bush believes in the sanctity of marriage, and will not mock it by allowing people with odd sexual preferences to denigrate it. GW Bush did point out and make clear that homosexuals should not be mistreated due to their sexual preferences (like not hired for, or fired from, a job), but he also stated that they should NOT get special treatment, either - "I don't think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights."
I think Al Gore and the Clinton Administration are dead wrong here. What a surprise. Al Gore made sure that he threw a bone to the hunters in the 'swing states' by stating that people should be allowed to have 'guns for hunting and sporting purposes'. He also mentioned (briefly and reluctantly, it seemed) the legitimate self-defense role as well, as he used the phrase 'homeowners' (but does this exclude those who RENT? This is like 'what is the meaning of is?' - or am I just being paranoid?). The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about the individual right to keep and bear arms as a defense from enemies, both foreign and domestic. He tried to tie stalking, domestic abuse, and assault weapons together (?? - that made NO sense). Then a snippet on 'gun show loopholes' (what was that?). He supports the HCI agenda of licensing, waiting periods (even after passing an instant check?), mandatory trigger locks, etc... (none of these measures has been shown to have any merit) that we have been fighting for many years. He said he supports licensing, but not registration. Jim Lehrer was astute enough to ask, "What's that mean?" Vice President Gore indicated that means a photo-ID from the State (how is this different from registration - you're now MARKED - and the federal government would get this information WHENEVER they want it). Al gore went on to say that he 'only wants to license new purchases'. Here we go ... appease people who presently already own guns, and screw those who don't. This is the 'classic divide and conquer' strategy - and I don't appreciate it at all. The more I see this, the more I'm convinced that all people should consider buying a firearm or two now - even if they don't want one - so that they have them for the future.
I don't particularly care for GW Bush's policy here, either - but it is a h*ll of a lot better than Al Gore's ! Let's also remember that he DID support concealed carry in Texas - a big plus for the good people of Texas, and a problem for their criminals (as it should be!). He did mention the right folks have to keep and bear arms, but mentioned 'carrying illegally'. This disturbs me because unless we're in jail, I think adults should be able to carry a firearm without our government's permission. He did go on to mention punishing crimes (thank you), and pointed out that he opposed registration because 'criminals will not line up to get their registration cards' - only the law-abiding will! He mentioned the subject of banning firearms in schools. Well, I think we're turning them into shooting galleries - safe havens for criminals. Don't think the cretins don't know this. Why can't school teachers and administrators who are properly trained to handle firearms (we ALL SHOULD BE, by the way) act as a deterrent to these b*st*rds? Raise the age for carrying a handgun from 18 to 20? Well, are they adults or not? They can vote, even go to war - but they're not allowed to carry a firearm for their defense? This makes no sense.
They both talked about enforcing existing laws - but some of them are bad laws - onerous laws that only affect good people, NOT the criminals. We've (the good people of this country) had restrictions placed on us because of the criminals. What makes them think the criminals actually obey these laws? Well, at least GW Bush realizes that they don't.
This was little changed from the last debate. One disservice that is being perpetrated upon GW Bush are the statistics that Al Gore is trying to 'lay on him'. To Bush's credit, he impressed the point that Texas has done a heck of a better job (improved) than the Clinton/Gore Administration (declined) in providing these services to the people. POINT: According to the Constitution, this is clearly a job for the States, not the federal government - and GW Bush has shown that the States can do a better job.
Opportunity missed - GW Bush did not point out that one of the problems faced by all the States that border Mexico is the burden of illegal aliens. This may not be "PC", so perhaps this is why GW Bush said nothing. However, the failure of the Clinton Administration to defend our borders (something the federal government actually should be doing) creates this problem for the States.
Al Gore wants to 'give' a $10,000 per child per year tax deduction for families who have children in college. Surely this can't include all those 'evil rich people', so where's the cut off? Also - who makes up this money, presumably via increased taxes? The 'evil rich'? Al Gore wants to hire "100,000" teachers (sure - has anybody seen any of those 100,000 police officers?). Who pays for THAT? Right. Al Gore also still believes that 'affirmative action' (reverse discrimination, in my book) is a good thing.
They both still seem to think that the federal government has a legitimate claim to healthcare. Where is that in the U.S. Constitution?? Al Gore is clear on this. GW Bush confuses me. On one hand he wants Washington involved, and on the other hand he wants to 'empower the people'. I can't figure him out in this case. Al Gore says he doesn't want a government-run system, wants smaller government, then names some government programs for health care. What's going on?
Al Gore, the champion of the environment, writer of 'Earth in the Balance' (read the Unabomber's Manifesto), stuck to his platform. Global warming, polar ice cap, ... sure. So did GW Bush. When Al Gore attacked GW Bush's plans for pumping oil out of Alaska, GW Bush reminded us that the present administration is doing the same in Prudhoe Bay - and it's a good idea.
A missed opportunity for GW Bush was when Al Gore tried laying blame on him for the pollution in Texas - Houston in particular. GW Bush did explain that Texas is an industrial state, and this is something that you can't avoid - but they have reduced waste. However, he could have mentioned Al Gore wanting to ban the internal combustion engine and the fact that Texas refines the gasoline that goes into our automobiles and the heating oil that keeps us warm in the winter. Maybe that would have been considered "an attack"?
Well, we heard about the evil richest 1% again from Al Gore. Thankfully, GW Bush pointed out that these people pay 33% of the taxes, so why aren't they entitled to some of it back, too? Al Gore's targeted (according to the democrat version of what's fair) tax relief pales in comparison to GW Bush's across the board relief.
Toward the end of the 'debate', I was glad to see that there was some humor and good-natured ribbing taking place. It looked like Al Gore was getting a little anxious (he may have been distressed that GW Bush was doing so well - again), but he did constrain himself. I kept thinking that Al Gore reminded me of the Omega Male. George Bush was no Alpha Male, but he was pretty much a solid "Beta".
GW Bush was more forceful in his convictions, and Al Gore was very conciliatory and passive in his responses. While it was necessary for Al Gore to 'tone it down' a bit, he really went too far. This is a delicate balance that he did not successfully reach. I also thought it self-serving of Al Gore to mention all the 'good things' his wife has done regarding foreign policy - like 'riding in a military plane with a foreign general'. So what? [ I had these visions of 'Tipper' as tail gunner in a flak jacket, then walking forward to the 'first class' section for a sip of champaign - such heroes!] I suppose he wants to keep his good marriage in the forefront - as opposed to the Clinton's 'marriage' - and keep attracting the female vote (a la smooch).
I liked the hearty handshakes at the end, with GW Bush making the first move. I didn't particularly care for the 'big 'ol smooch' that Al and Tipper laid on each other right in front of the camera. I thought Tipper was going to fall down - she ran so fast to get over to her husband. Then, I guess in an effort ot fight fire with fire - say me, too - whatever - George and Laura had a big smooch, too. OK, enough - both of you, huh?
Finally, I thought that GW Bush was the clear winner here - but to his credit Al Gore did not look like the childish buffoon he revealed to us in the first debate. Is that a compliment? Maybe a left-handed one. It was very interesting to see that even the media indicated that GW Bush did surprisingly well on the foreign policy issues and that he did better than Al Gore overall. Heck, even a (?) Gallup/CNN poll put Bush ahead 49%-36% !