I'd like to start with these quotes, as they are pertinent to the core - the essence - of the difference between the candidates (my emphasis):
"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other."
-- Voltaire
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
-- Alexander Fraser Tytler 1748 - 1813, while writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits."
-- John F. Kennedy
"The taxpayer -- that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
-- Ronald Reagan
"Racial discrimination is now defended by our more advanced thinkers if it's called 'affirmative action'."
-- Paul Greenberg
Click here for the Debate Text. - courtesy of the Washington Post. (At least they're good for something.)
Here's my local copy of the Debate Text.
Well, I noticed that GW Bush was dressed like a good conservative. Al Gore and his people apparently decided that he needed to look and act "somewhere in between" what he did in the first two debates. This time, they did another "re-invention of Al". They did a good job on the make-up and went with the dark suit and red tie. Anyway, they both looked pretty good, with a slight advantage going to Gore.
Governor Bush was very friendly and 'folksy' when he spoke. He handled himself like a gentleman. I thought his mannerisms and speech, while they could have been a little more forceful, were 'about right' for this forum. He started a little slow, but then settled in very well for the last 2/3 of the debate. He did a good job at answering the question posed. Governor Bush abided by the rules - Vice President Gore (again) DID NOT. He spoke out of turn, posed questions of the Governor, made a few 'background sighs', and was generally rude.
Vice President Gore was much more forceful and aggressive. I didn't like that. It was obvious that he was try to find a happy medium between Debates 1 and 2. He was obviously trying to intimidate GW Bush by constantly encroaching on GW Bush's space. This was not the same thing Rick Lazio did to Hillary Clinton. Lazio walked over to Clinton once with an agreement on paper. Al Gore was acting like a petty bully. Al Gore DID NOT answer the questions. He seemed to answer the question HE had wished was asked. His posture, while 'swaggering', was better than GW Bush's, which was a little hunched. Appearance-wise, Gore looked better than Bush. Maybe it is his darker hair, maybe he's a bit taller, maybe it's his posture. I heard one commentator say that Gore approached the people, seemed to want to get more involved or was 'more interested' in their question. I think Bush did the same thing, he just wasn't acting like a predator.
Let me first say that Al Gore's comment about "Tipper and I were good friends with Mel and Randy" were not necessary. Condolences were fine - from both candidates. However, it seemed that Al Gore was trying to 'score some points' by virtue of 'knowing them'. One question - Do Al and Tipper REALLY know them as good friends, or is this another exaggeration? Unfortunately, this question immediately sprang to mind. I wonder if it also is a question in other people's minds? I bet it is. This says a lot about Al Gore's lack of credibility.
One more observation - Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government power in this area? NOWHERE.
Both candidates seemed to agree that we 'need' a Patient's Bill of Rights - in spite of what Gore claimed. Gore zeroed in on a specific bill, while Bush explained features that he thought were important. Gore spoke out of turn, and threw in some emotion and exaggeration with his "... let you go the nearest emergency room without having to call an HMO before you call 911, ...". Gore also pointed out that the drug companies support Bush's plan -- because it doesn't 'hold their feet to the fire' enough for Gore's taste. However, Bush reminded us that without benefits, without incentive, the pharmaceutical companies won't take the risk to produce new and better medications. Bush spoke of 'getting the job done', ending bickering, and bipartisanship. Gore interrupted again. Gore reminds me of a little kid - the way he lacks manners and patience.
I think GW Bush should have made a stronger point about (1) people in Texas who VOLUNTARILY do not have medical insurance, (2) that INSURANCE coverage is one thing, but the fact is that nobody in Texas is TURNED AWAY - everyone who needs treatment GETS IT, (3) NOTHING IS FREE - who pays?, (4) Clinton/Gore had EIGHT years to do something, and have not, and (5) where would you rather the 'control' lie, in YOUR hands at the local and personal level, or in D.C.?
Universal Health Care - well, the Hillary disaster was brought up - that was good. Gore wants a 'hybrid' system (how many times did he say "Dingell-Norwood Bill"?) - so he still wants the government involved. Bush says - heck no, he wants to give the people choices and let them make their own decisions.
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?
As expected, Gore wants heavy FEDERAL GOVERNMENT involvement, while Bush wants to leave it up to families and local government. 94 % of the bill is paid at the local level - so why do we need onerous 'rules' from Washington? Gore talked about $10,000 tax deductions for college students from "every middle class family" (so ... the rest of us get taxed MORE to make up for it, right?), "universal free school" - FREE? - come on ... somebody pays! Gore is talking BIG SPENDING here. Gore talked about 100,000 new teachers. Is this like the 100,000 police Clinton/Gore promised? Where are they? I really shouldn't complain because Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government power in this area? NOWHERE. Gore asked a question - in violation of the rules. Is he trying to tells us that he does NOT believe that the rules apply to him? How does this make him different from Bill Clinton?
Here's an example of Gore's arrogance and distain for following the rules. In direct defiance of the moderator's previous warnings, Gore asked a question, and then repeated the answer ...
QUESTION: What can you tell me and my fellow American teachers today about your plans for our immediate future?
GORE: What grade do you teach?
LEHRER: That's a violation of your rule, Vice President Gore.
QUESTION: High school.
(LAUGHTER)
GORE: High School. (- not shown in the transcript) I mentioned before ...
Gore hit the "evil 1%" of wealthy taxpayers again. Bush effectively exposed this 'class-warefare' argument for what it is by explaining that the top 1% pay 33% of the taxes, and they're getting a 20% benefit. If anything, it isn't fair to these people! Gore seems to think that not only is it 'just' to redistribute wealth - but that the federal government should do it! Bush also nailed Gore on his 'social engineering' attitude of the federal government wanting to decide WHO should get WHAT, rather than EVERYONE benefitting to the degree that they pay. "And I believe the people who pay the bills ought to -- ought to get some money back."
I think Gore is wrong about the income for the top 1%. He says it's $330,000 - I think that number is about $251,000. He may be trying to distance us all from the "rich" so we don't feel so guilty about stealing from them. Another problem (for those who don't mind government-sanctioned theft) is that you don't have to make the tremendous sums of money that you may think to be considered rich by Al Gore. Fairness? Here's who REALLY pays the bills in this country.
Of course, more interruptions from Gore.
Finally, a valid issue.
Bush talked about being a leader, the need for a strong military, the nation speak with "one voice", national interest, loyalty, and credibility.
Gore spoke of 'world peace' (bunnies and flowers sparang into my head - sorry), democracy, human rights, freedom. He claims that we have the strongest military ever - "Right now, our military is the strongest in the entire history of the world." I don't think this is true. We were probably at our peak military strength at around the time of the Gulf War. Well, at least Al Gore came clean about not serving very hazardous duty in Vietnam. Now, did I detect one of those dreaded "personal attacks" when he said that "When I graduated from college, there were plenty of fancy ways to get out of going and being a part of that (Vietnam)."? Fact is, Governor Bush was a pilot in the National Guard. Al Gore was a journalist who didn't know basic firearm safety. More about that later.
Missed opportunity for Bush: The Clinton/Gore Administration reduced the federal government by 300,000 workers. Is this true? Even if true, I understand that the military has been reduced by 300,000+ personnel. This means that the Clinton/Gore Administration could have added some bureaucrats behind desks and still have been factually correct (telling the actual truth - without intent to deceive - is another story)! Where would YOU rather have federal employees?
Here's another missed opportunity for GW Bush. Again, Al Gore stated that he supported the Gulf War - "In the Senate, I was one of only 10 Democrats, along with Senator Joe Lieberman, to support Governor Bush's dad in the Persian Gulf War resolution." Governor 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. Maybe Bush will let the 'attack dogs' do that in the next few weeks.
Governor Bush said, "Here's what I believe, sir. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families." and "But I also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books ..."
Vice President Gore said, "I think that some common-sense gun safety measures are certainly needed ..." and "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles." and "people who really shouldn't have guns don't get them." (are YOU one of them, according to Gore?).
I think Al Gore and the Clinton Administration are still dead wrong here. Again, 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 didn't even mention the legitimate self-defense role of firearms this time. This is also a tactic to "divide and conquer" - and he's used it before. Gun owners - lovers of freedom all - don't fall for this!
Again, 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.
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 he once again 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). 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.
Only Bush talked about enforcing existing laws this time - but remember - 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?
|
| Here's why Al Gore is afraid of firearms - he isn't smart enough to handle them properly. What's the first rule of firearm safety? Right! - NEVER point a firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy. My 10 year old knows this - but then, he's a bright boy. Maybe Al just didn't know any better. |
Governor Bush's reason for wanting to eliminate the death tax is, "Because people shouldn't be taxed twice on their assets. It's either unfair for some or unfair for all." and "I just don't think it's fair to tax people's assets twice, regardless of your status. It's a fairness issue. It's an issue of principle, not politics. "
Vice President Gore's reason for NOT wanting to eliminate the death tax is, "... under the plan that I've proposed, 80 percent of all family farms will be completely exempt from the estate tax, and the vast majority of all family businesses would be completely exempt, and all of the others would have sharply reduced." and "Now, the problem with completely eliminating it goes back to the wealthiest 1 percent." (here we go again!)
So ... it's OK to steal from 20% to benefit 80%? Well, I guess if you're looking to buy votes it is, huh? Whatever happened to "justice for all"?
George Bush thinks 'mild' government control is warranted, like "character education" , and he supports filters and V-Chips and such. A point in his favor - he DID mention parental involvement and reinforcing values. Thank you, Governor Bush.
"My turn." - childish. Once again, Al Gore wants federal control. He also made no mention of parental controls. (Yes, Al - we know you're a grandfather. That is very nice.) He also voiced a problem with filters - "You know, some parents are worried about those filters, that you'll have to ask your kids how to put them on there."
I think Al Gore would have to ask a child how to install one. Al Gore is actually pretty computer-illiterate. In fact, regarding PCs, he has stated that he has 'trouble turning the darn things on' - oh, yeah ... maybe that was a "joke". Pretty surprising for the man who 'created the internet' and was appalled that the previous administration hadn't flooded the White House with PCs. I guess he and Bill may have been wondering how the heck their staffers could surf for porn (on the taxpayers time) without PCs and internet connections.
The CBS evening news, August 3, 1996, showed President Clinton and Vice President Gore looking over the shoulders of schoolkids who appeared to be surfing the Web.
Clinton asked Gore: "What's our e-mail address, Al? Do you know that?" Gore: "Uh, yeah. W, w, w, dot whitehouse -- " [pause] Off-camera voice: "Dot gov." Gore: "Dot gov, dot."
Good thing the Off-camera voice didn't say "Dot com." If you don't believe me, try it - just make sure there are no children around. By the way, that's NOT an e-mail address, it's a URL or WEB SITE address.
| Al Gore touted campaign finance reform. I think he muddied it all quite a bit. I was surprised that he would even bring this subject up - considering his shady past. George Bush spoke of working together, bringing dignity back into the political arena, and ending the bitterness and finger-pointing in Washington, D.C. |
George Bush rejects quotas, but believes in equal opportunity and "affirmative access". He rejects Affirmative Action, because it is based on quotas. I don't think he needed to coin this new term, maybe he used it so he wouldn't have to reject the notion Affirmative Action and its quota system.
Al Gore also still believes that Affirmative Action (reverse discrimination, in my book) is a good thing. He EMBRACES IT. Then he played the race card by mentioning James Byrd, the sympathy/emotion card by mentioning that recently deceased (the previous day) Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan "had the finest record on diversity of any governor in the entire history of the state of Missouri, and I want to honor that, among his other achievements here." This was disgustingly self-serving.
Again, he badgered George Bush on the 'quota' issue - in direct violation of the debate rules. George Bush didn't fall for this, and didn't answer. GW Bush appealed to the moderator, then responded to Gore's -
"GORE: I think that speaks for itself."
"BUSH: No. Doesn't speak for itself, Mr. Vice President. It speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agreed to, but evidently rules don't mean anything."
Both candidates are in favor of the death penalty -- and NO, Governor Bush does not derive any sort of pleasure in administering it. They agree that it is a deterrent.
I felt this question was designed to trip up Governor Bush. It didn't work. In fact, he seemed to win over the person who asked the question, who seemed to be initially hostile (at least the question was). This also seemed to be a feeble attempt at race-baiting, as the person asking the question was black.
Al Gore claimed he is a man of integrity. Then he made a bunch of promises - which we have in print and on video tape - and then he attacked Governor Bush. Then he broke the debate rules again by asking Governor Bush a question. Enough said.
George Bush reminded us of the promises of trhe past administration that were not kept. He then told us of the promises he KEPT in Texas, of his record of success and working together across party lines.
Al Gore proceeded to duck the next question and again attack George Bush. George Bush then brilliantly pointed this out to EVERYONE, and then refuted Al Gore's charge.
Al Gore told us what an honest guy he is and that he served in Vietnam(?). He leaned on his marriage for some points, claimed that "Nine times I have raised my hand to take an oath to the Constitution, and I have never violated that oath." - aside from voting to pass unconstitutional laws, I suppose. He claims to have "spent the last quarter century fighting for middle-class, working men and women in the United States of America" - so .. screw the poor and the rich, huh? - why not fight for what's right?! He finished by referring to the "progress during the last eight years. We have seen the strongest economy in the history of the United States, lower crime rates for eight years in a row, highest private home ownership ever."
George Bush thanked everyone - including the Vice President - for "the chance to have a good, honest dialogue about our differences of opinion." He stressed trusting the people and reducing big government. He briefly rehashed the major issues, and concluded with -
"But for those who have not made up their mind, I'd like to conclude by this promise. Should I be fortunate enough to become your president, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but I will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."
Well, I trust Governor Bush a whole lot more than Al Gore.
I thought that, once again, GW Bush was the clear winner here. Al Gore reverted to some of his childish behavior from Debate # 1. He also acted like a bully at times with a swaggering posture, and constantly broke the AGREED-UPON RULES of the Debate. From a purely physical appearance, Gore had an edge. From a civil behavior , integrity, and content standpoint - George Bush all the way.
Here's Rush Limbaugh's Analysis of Debate #3.
Johny Chung's take on Debate #3 and 'rule-less' Al Gore.
Here's a Slate Analysis