 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 3
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: John Hardly Date: 19 Oct 00 - 03:20 PM First, As a conservative I do not believe that Bush "won" the debate. A conservative COULD not have "won" that debate either. Bush was very much the "deer caught in the headlights" but even so was able to give some pretty good answers. The simple reason a conservative could not win is that the only question asked was "What will you do for ME?". These are questions one would more expect asked of a monarch--not questions asked by people who understand how constitutional government is done--or the value of it. A scant forty years ago JFK was able to say "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Today that is a heartless quote. An honestly asked question; How do you think Gore would react if, in the third debate, George Will had been the moderator and the questions had all been screened as to allow only questions like; "How do you intend to fund your new programs?" "Can you name a federal program that has outlived its usefulness?" " Do you really think that the number of fed employees is the true indicator of how invasive a government is?" "You want campaign finance reform but you have made a habit of ignoring the regulations already in the books--shouldn't that weaken your position?" "Do you really believe American Corporations are evil, even though they employ most of America, fund most if its retirements, and operate within the law?" "Can you explain to me the difference between "profit" and "earn"?".
Second, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:59 PM Thanks for your remarks, Greg. Ebbie, I salute you, and I respect your opinion! I can't imagine why all your folks are getting your dander up about George Bush anyway. Listen to any pundit on CNN, MSNB, CSpan, whatever, and they will tell you Gore is going to win. So relax! And Whistle Stop, you're right! I have no plans at all to try to rebut anything. Folks are free to believe (and support) anybody or any issue they please. dougr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:34 PM What a surprise- it don't agree with Doug's pre-concieved notions, so its "just an article". 'Course Limbaugh isn't "just a bigot", if I recall a previous discussion... Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say... Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:14 PM I still think they should say noone can be elected unless they can get a majority of those entitled to vote to vote for them.
Just think of all the hoops they'd have to jump through to get a result like that? They'd really have to go out and persduade people that they were worth voting for. And I can't see Bush or Gore doing it.
You might have to rerun the election a few times, and get by without a President for a bit, but that mightn't be such a bad thing. And it'd be very educational.
Maybe they'd have to bring in good music to do it, like in "Oh Brother where art thou"...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:10 PM I'm bothered by the very popularity contest, but then again, I don't know why I should be. Who can do the job has taken a back seat and I think that Bush's statement is simply the proof. I wasn't too choked up over the folks in Dad's administration and Junior is surrounding himself with the same. I wonder if Dad's going to get an official title should Junior be elected (outside of "Former President"). I've already had that "vision of America" ....thanks, I'll pass on a second helping. Leej is correct in that analysis. I'm simply amazed when those post-debate polls show Bush to be more believable. Believe what??? The guy has a helluva' future with the Arthur Murray folks if he isn't elected. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Whistle Stop Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:02 PM Sorry, I didn't finish that last thought. I think it is important to remember that much of what a President focuses his energies on once he is in office is out of his control. He can use the "bully pulpit" to express his preference for particular policy directions or initiatives, and he can try to advance the causes that he spoke about in the campaign. But he will also have to deal with all sorts of issues and crises that he didn't envision when he was campaigning (particularly in foreign affairs, which have received scant attention in this campaign), and he will have to coerce/cajole/impel others to join in support of his causes. To me this means that the "issues" part of the campaign -- while important -- is not the whole picture. We also need to take the measure of the man (or woman, whenever that day finally comes). So as much as I am disappointed in the "show business" aspects of our current political landscape, there is some value in trying to rate the intangibles. Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 19 Oct 00 - 01:54 PM I don't fear Bush's proposed policies as much as I'm starting to fear his lack of a specific plan.When he said (to paraphrase) "there's just too much talk about issues.What the American people need to know is who can lead" I had a realization: I think Bush is a fairly well-intentioned man who has a basic philosophy of government,but he has not evolved a specific and cohesive plan for a presidency,because he thinks he'll figure it out when he gets there,just as he did the Texas Governorship.I'm not comfortable with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Whistle Stop Date: 19 Oct 00 - 01:48 PM Well, I occupy a different place on the political spectrum than Doug R does. But I think he has a point that we can all acknowledge, regardless of our political persuasions. Alterman makes a valid point in arguing that there are real, substantive differences between the candidates. But his reconstruction what would have happened in the last eight years without Clinton IS pretty preposterous, and he overstates his case pretty severely in other respects -- whether he is suggesting that Johnson got us into Vietnam all by himself (implying that the broad Congressional and popular support for the war was just an insignificant detail), or that the EPA is truly an agency that has the power and will to protect the public from "corporate rapacity" when left to its own devices, or that GWB has squandered an opportunity to magically transform Texas into a pollution-free oasis (I suppose an Executive Order from Austin could somehow do away with the tremendous concentration of oil and petrochemical industries in Texas, at the same time that it guarantees economic security to the state's labor force). Doug R shouldn't necessarily feel obligated to rebut this guy point-for-point -- if we step back and look at this honestly, I think we will all recognize that Alterman is a partisan, and has overstated his partisan case for maximum effect. It is important to remember that the campaign is one thing, and the Presidency is another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Ebbie Date: 19 Oct 00 - 12:42 PM DougR, in the six (6) chapters in that article are many elements your take on it doesn't begin to address. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Frankham Date: 19 Oct 00 - 12:37 PM Greg, Thank you for that excellent article. It makes me remember why I used to subscribe to the Nation. If by some unfortunate circumstances the American public elects Bush to the presidency, in about less than a year's time, there will be a massive bout of nostalgia for the prosperous Clinton years. Bush is ill-equipped to do anything constructive about foreign policy and will turn all of his decision making over to Cheney and the rest of the reactionary hawks. (Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness, the man whose solution to world problems is to nuke 'em). Bush has no plan to cover any of the exigencies of international terrorism. HIs ABM system will bankrupt the country. Look what the arms race had done for the former Soviet Union. There is perhaps the interesting idea that under the spectre of a Bush shadow, there may be a re-emergence of the radical folksinger. :) Unforunately the country isn't ready for Nader, as fine a candidate as he is, but I hope all those Nader folks will hold their nose and vote for Gore. Otherwise, we'll all be Bushwhacked! Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 19 Oct 00 - 12:23 PM Ok, Mick, I've read the Eric Alterman article in "The Nation" more closely, and read it one more time to be sure I wasn't missing something you and Greg saw that I didn't. I see nothing in the article that would cause me to change the post I made earlier. It is a well written article in which Alterman is critical of both parties in the first three paragraphs, throws in some good words for Nader, and then prognosticates on what MIGHT have happend had Clinton lost the elections of 1992 and 1996. Unless Alterman is blessed with some of those extradinary gifts that have been discussed in other Mudcat threads, recently, he has no more idea what might have happend duringg the last eight years than I do! He is expressing HIS opinion (which obviously you and many others here at the Mudcat share) of what MIGHT have happend! Some of us here at the Mudcat probably do not believe that many of the things he predicts would have happend, had they happend, would be as tragic as you, Greg and perhaps the majority of others here at the Mudcat might feel. It's just an article in a magazine, Mick. With respect, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 19 Oct 00 - 12:50 AM Yeah, Harpgirl, it is a well known fact that George W. Bush is plagued by hayfever. Mick: I'll take a look at the article again and reply to your challenge. I would think, though, that you are attracted to the article because it favors YOUR side. Es so? Is it so unreasonable that it turned me off because, as I read it, it appeared to be very biased against what I believe? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: harpgirl Date: 18 Oct 00 - 08:34 PM Did anyone else notice that every time Dubbya got flustered he tended to sniff? Any thoughts on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: MarkS Date: 18 Oct 00 - 07:48 PM As with any or our elections the result is preordained. Come the Wednesday after the election: The government wins The people loose. Let me get back on my dead horse and flog away some more and say "Vote for Ralph!" MarkS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) Date: 18 Oct 00 - 07:45 PM By all means Doug, please let us know where the article is in the wrong. As one who is still undecided in this election (but leaning toward Gore), I would like to know.
Thanks, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,Big Mick Date: 18 Oct 00 - 07:35 PM Of course you would, Doug. But once again, that is just because it is not flattering to your side, or more correctly, it is much more beneficial to the Democratic side. But seeing as how you have taken upon yourself to act like Dubya, I believe I will pin you down. Or will you be like Dubya and just not answer? The question is simple. What part of the the facts quoted in the article do you find to be of a specious, fallacious or opinionated nature? Do you deny the effect of the legislation vetoed? Did the author misquote or untruthfully tell any of the facts? I would love to hear your response. We might as well debate it for the good citizens of the Village of Mudcat. Mick
duplicate posting deleted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 18 Oct 00 - 06:34 PM I read it Greg. I'd refer to it as something other than "presenting a historical perspective, though." I'd describe it as one more man's opinion. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Date: 18 Oct 00 - 06:19 PM Lets add a little historical perspective, for those who seem to think there's no difference between the candidates. Give this a read: CLICK HERE Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM Was I the only one that was shocked that not one question related to the abortion issue? I fully expected that at least one question on the right to choose would be asked. If one was, and I missed it, someone can set me right. DougR
duplicate posting deleted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Susan from California Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:19 PM Mrzzy, I definately would have mentioned Supreme Court nominations, because they will be around for a looooong time. I might have been quick enough to mention that things are really pretty good for most of the country right now, so it is somewhat natural for young people to be complacent. But that *should* things go bad, that I would do everything in my power to help those who need it. When I first heard Gore's answer I was disapointed, but when I heard a replay, I thought his answer was decent. Not great, but decent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:29 PM I can't remember whom I am quoting but I fear, I fear... And just out of curiosity, what SHOULD they have said for the one question for which they obviously, neither of them, had a prepared answer? I refer to What issues would you use to get the YOUNG PEOPLE interested in politics again? I was talking with my politico friend (whose pulse is on the finger of the nation, or something) and he counldn't think of a thing. I thought of 2: for young women (and men too), abortion. For young men (and women too), the military. What Would You Have Said? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:28 PM Mick said "The investment option is bogus. If those same people were invested in stocks this last week, they would get their asses kicked. Further, we are due for a severe downturn anytime according to most responsible analysts, and it will last 7 to 12 years." I have to agree entirely. The reason that Social Security funds earn such low return is that they are ultra-safe low-risk investment.You can't earn the kind of returns that Bush is suggesting,and not encounter risk...the risk of losing all interest income on your funds,or even ALL of the funds. I people are allowed,at age 27, to invest a substantial amount of their Social Security funds in high-risk investments,and they should lose those funds,what does the government do when it comes time for them to retire?Say "sorry,you gambled and lost.Now starve." I don't think so.I think the government will be called upon to contribute funds for these individual regardless of their poor judgement or bad luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Frankham Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:11 PM I think we are as musicians a lot better off then we were under Bush or Reagan. Clinton, as ugly as people have tried to paint him, will probably go down as one of the best presidents we have ever had because of his role in the Middle East, balancing the budget, and under his watch, stimulating the economy. He also had the temerity to take on tobacco and the gun lobby where the previous administrations caved in. National health insurance was a noble idea that was torpedoed by the insurance companies who tried to scare people. It's tragic that he made such a stupid blunder on a personal level. It goes to show you that very intelligent people on one level can be quite stupid on another. Gore may not be quite the president that Clinton was but his mastery of the facts and his experience in public offic in Washington in world affairs as well as domestic issues make him more qualified for the job. Unfortunately, electing a president has become a personality popularity contest rather than evalating the skills of each participant and their ability to get the job done. The idea of a president of anything being a "nice guy" is peculiar. The best pres's have never been nice guys and often quite ruthless. As to the question of rudeness, good manners is not often a criteria for those who would govern and lead. The most important qualification for a president is (and here I agree with Machiavelli and Neustadt) power and humanitarian idealism. The first without the second makes dictators. The second without the first makes for a weak pres. I wouldn't want that job. I see nothing holy in it. Kennedy, Lincoln, Washinton, FDR etc. were all sonsabitches when they had to be. I love what Nader says but I think he works best as a conscience and a gadfly. I don't know if he could govern. Can he really get his mind around foreign policy? Frank Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Rick Fielding Date: 18 Oct 00 - 11:47 AM Did anyone else notice just how amazingly uncomfortable both these guys were when they started "wandering"? Neither seems to have any physical grace whatsoever. A couple of times Dubya seemed to be in a panic as to where to put his feet...after shuffling a bit he sort of settled into a "bow-legged riding pose"...but without the horse! Al seems totally preoccupied with the "stiff" label, and kept trying to be "loose". Believe me, from someone who still can't dance...it DOESN'T WORK! Sadly, for me the content remains virtually non-existent, as everything that each man says has been so carefully "filtered". Not their fault of course, but I get the feeling that both of them would love the opportunity to be bluntly honest about their beliefs for even one minute. Oh what I'd give to hear Al Gore say: "Ya know folks, the guy that REALLY represents what's in my heart is Ralph Nader"! Dubya could respond with "I'm sick of being dumped on 'cause I can't pronounce the names of these third world dorks...I'd trade this in a second to own a Super Bowl Champeen"! Got our own (Canajun) election coming soon, and it ain't gonna be much better! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:59 AM Ah, Spaw, but he "Doesn't trust the federal government!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:53 AM As you should Mick, you speak it well. Watching Bush refuse to answer the direct question on Affirmative Action should have been telling. And I'm tired of the Bush position that he brings something fresh. Already, a high percentage of the people around him are Daddy's boys and if he gets to DC, I imagine there will be many more from the administration that was voted out of office 8 years ago. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Jim the Bart Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:40 AM I think Big Mick captured it quite well. The next three weeks will be quite interesting. My prediction (if anyone cares) is that the Bush camp will spend a lot of time circling the wagons, trying to hold on to the perception that they are ahead. I'm already hearing more defensive statements and less substantive ones from Bush supporters. Gore will keep doing what he's done for umpteen years - pushed a long-held, finely-crafted, liberal, democratic agenda. The people who vote will look around and figure out that they're doing pretty well right now and decide that it ain't broke, so why fix it. Gore in a squeaker. Oh yes - all bets are off if the stock market finally goes into the dumper. When people's 401k accounts vanish they will get all panicky and could do almost anything. They may buy Bush's "If you vote for me I'll give you money!" routine, or they may realize that there are some serious holes in GWB's economics. Either way, the next three weeks will be interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Big Mick Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:34 AM Let me begin by saying that I mean no disrespect to Canoer, but I must respond to him because what he said is precisely one of the things I see as wrong with the electorate. He said, "When we are placed in the position of having to make a decision based on nothing but tiny differences in behavior in front of a debate camera -- it means there are no significant differences in what they both plan to keep doing to us." Canoer, if you will review the tape you will see that one candidate sought to demonstrate clearly what the differences were between each others positions. I have not problem with folks listening and making a different choice than mine. That is the essence of politics. But if one sat and watched/listened to that debate and arrived at the conclusion that they were being asked to make a decision based on nothing more than tiny differences in behaviour, then that person was operating from a preconceived notion and hence heard nothing. The facts are that this election is not two sides of the same coin. You have the choice of two people who attack the problems from a very different place. There are huge differences in their respective approaches. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: LR Mole Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:30 AM Personally, I'm so heartsick about this White House nonsense I guess I'll just straighten up my house. Or Just tune the guitar. Tellwidallovm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: rabbitrunning Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:13 AM What I noticed, in all three debates actually, is that Gore tended to look at the person who asked the question while Bush tended to look at the camera. I'll take someone who can make real contact with people over someone who settles for the illusion of it, if it's just a matter of personality. Fortunately, for me, it's issues, and I'm still closer to Gore than Bush on that criteria too, so I'm not going to get distracted by pr training. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Oct 00 - 10:12 AM This was a great debate, I thought. I also thought Gore kicked Dubya's butt right across the stage. But to the comment about voters being dumb - anyone reminded of the great exchange in Men In Black between Will Smith (People are smart, they can handle it) and Tommy Lee Jones (A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Ebbie Date: 18 Oct 00 - 03:48 AM Sandy, I think the address is www.cnn/COM/2000/ALLPOLITICS. The other address didn't go through. They're evidently finished with the polling. CNN said that the final count was 46% Gore, 44% Bush. HOWEVER, they said that of the 522 people who voted, 52% identified themselves as being Bush supporters while only 43% claimed allegiance to Gore, implying, CNN said, that more Bush fans watched the debate than Gore's. I'm continually amazed at how differently we all see things. Most of the respondents rated Bush as 'more likable' than Gore. What? He snickers and sneers and sputters. Sigh. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: canoer Date: 18 Oct 00 - 02:46 AM When the next president takes office, we won't be any further ahead, no matter which one it is. When we are placed in the position of having to make a decision based on nothing but tiny differences in behavior in front of a debate camera -- it means there are no significant differences in what they both plan to keep doing to us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: JamesJim Date: 18 Oct 00 - 02:35 AM Gore....What a jerk! If you want to see how Washington can taint someone, he is the best model you'll ever see. He would step on his mother to become President. It's obvious that Clinton's shadow still darkens his door. If he is so comfortable with the "Clinton/Gore" record, wouldn't it make sense to lay back and let Bush be the attacker? He looks like a desperate man and desperate men will say and do anything. He also looks like a loser (I hope). Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 18 Oct 00 - 02:04 AM Yep, kat. I'm sure the whole thing is rigged to favor Bush. Right? Probably a giant rightwing republican conservative plot. No way could it be a true reflection of what people think ...because it doesn't agree with the liberal point of view. :>) Still love ya' though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:43 AM Thanks, Sandy, I did, however I noticed that on one of them when I clicked on vote, it erased my little clicked on dot next to Gore's name, twice; interesting, no? I heard opinions all over the board on all of networks, including CSPAN. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of voters are dumb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Sandy Paton Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:25 AM The people "scoring" the debate, issue by issue, on CNN.COM/ALL POLITICS (viewers click to vote) certainly saw a different debate than the one I watched.They're giving Bush a huge win on ALL of the issues that came up tonight -- scores like 70/30, 71/29. If there are any Gore supporters out there that want to even up the game, you'd better join the scoring party right now. Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,Dulcineanot Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:24 AM They both stink because they are sellouts to the Constitution of the United States, but Gore stinks the most because he's a continuation of Clinton, who has done his best to destroy the Constitution with so many executive orders you would think he was a fascist dictator. I'm voting my conscience this time around, even though I know he won't win: Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party). He's on the ballot in most states. And most definitely NOT a sellout. Take care. http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Susan from California Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:18 AM Gore may be wooden, but why have a Bush when you can have a tree? One of the things I wonder about is why anyone would think Gore was more rude than Bush, when Gore snickered more than five times when Gore was talking. A snicker is almost always condescending. Bush dodged quite a few questions, and even had the nerve to say that it's not the standpoint on issues that matter, it's who will get the job done. I have to say, few people are doubting that Gore is capable. I guess I'm old fashioned, I still vote the issues. I also deeply resent the implication of Gov. Bush when talking about his tax cut to the top 1%, saying that those who work the hardest deserve the biggest cut. So, because I'm not in that group I don't work hard? The food servers of this country don't work hard? People who pick strawberries or dig ditches don't work hard? That was insulting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Big Mick Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:15 AM Doug, I find you to be a good spokesman for your positions. But get off the bullshit about respecting the rules. Bush broke them as well, and then made a big deal when the VP did the same. The reason he seems off balance has nothing to do with the rules. He got pinned. He hates it when he is asked to be specific. Such as how he promises two groups to be the benefactor of the same trillion dollar raid of the SS trust fund. That won't affect you, probably, but it certainly will affect many of the same people he seeks to attract. The investment option is bogus. If those same people were invested in stocks this last week, they would get their asses kicked. Further, we are due for a severe downturn anytime according to most responsible analysts, and it will last 7 to 12 years. What do those retiring during one of those do?? Dubya also tried to have it both ways on defense. One one hand he wants to have the best equipment, housing, and pay for the military. But analysis of his proposals by bipartisan groups indicates his budget won't allow for it. When queried by the single woman on benefits, the VP gave specific answers. Bush wandered down the most convoluted path of the night. When the VP indicated that responsible studies of the $50,000,000 were done by independent journalists, they found his claim to be incorrect. His response? "Never mind the journalists". When confronted by the fact that an officer of the NRA indicated that if Bush is elected, "we will be working out of his office". His response? "That wasn't one of my ads". That is as weak as when, during the primary season, over $2,000,000 of attack ads were run on his behalf against McCain and his response was "I didn't run them". The Vice President did just as I hoped he would do. He spoke about the issues and made the differences between he and Dubya clear. Bush was clearly not ready for this. Having said all that, this now comes down to the last three weeks. My guess is that the polls will show that Gore's performance will through it back into a dead heat and the next three weeks are going to be very interesting to watch. I just checked in for a moment to see how you folks felt about it. I need to get to bed. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: thosp Date: 18 Oct 00 - 01:06 AM on the other hand -- i don't think he'll have any problem reselling it for a profit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: thosp Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:59 AM Hey Doug --- from the looks of it - i don't think you'll have any problem selling that beachfront property to Bush |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:56 AM You know what REALLY pisses me off? Both candidates are so programmed they come across as robots. I want all parties to RECOGNIZE that I said ... both candidates! I don't think it would make any difference who the candidates are, they would come across the same. I don't understand why the differences between the two parties cannot simply be stated, and the people vote the way they believe is best for the country. Oops! I Want to emphasize that I said, "for the country," not what is best for ME! Unfortunately, I fear that we expect too much from our government. We want government to solve ALL our problems. It can't. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:50 AM This was definitely Gore's best performance.He actually looked energized,and seemed much more prepared for the questions than did Bush.The format reminded me of two attorneys addressing the courtroom and the jury, and I certainly felt that Gore was more comfortable in the format than Bush. Bush actually seemed disoriented at times,and his answer to the Farmer's question seemed like he was trying to fill his two minutes with the Death Tax and feeding the world.I am getting the feeling,as well, that Bush has no concrete budget plan in place,or at least not one he understands well enough to defend with specifics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:47 AM I think Jim Lehrer did a lousy job compared to Bernard Shaw. Gore did a good job, IMO. Bush just looked and sounded dumb and dumber. If he doesn't trust the federal government why does he want to become a major part of it. If he doesn't want the government telling people what they can and cannot do for healthcare, why does he then want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Also, I got pissed at the commentators who talked about Gore being aggressive and commanding as though those were bad things. Don't we want a leader who can be both of those? I think the really pathetic thing about this whole election is that they are both trying to please everyone; they don't want to ruffle anyone's sensibilities so they pander to all, thus giving us a bland diet with no passion to entice voters to get interested and involved. It is a sorry state of affairs, that Lowered Expectations I spoke about before; I think we should ALL register as Independents. Make them squirm and really wonder what is going on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Date: 18 Oct 00 - 12:46 AM Why set rules anyway? Gore doesn't respect them. Makes it a bit one-sided when one debater does adhere to the rules and the other, who will do anything, or say anything to win the election, pays no attention to the rules. It doesn't help when the moderator will not enforce the rules. Anyone who believes Al Gore, and all the promises he made, should call me because I have some prime beachfront property I'd like to sell them in Yuma, Arizona. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Oct 00 - 10:05 PM At the moment, I kinda' wish Jim Lehrer would take a hike and let the thing get a bit out of control. I know they agred on rules, but I'd love to see one TO one. Spaw |
|
Subject: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 17 Oct 00 - 09:44 PM Theater in the Round this time.I think Gore needs a very strong performance in this debate. |