![]() |
||||||||
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - Oct. 12, 2000 | Wednesday belonged to George W. Bush, Salon's panel of critics mostly agreed. The debate was in the format preferred by his campaign, with Bush, Vice President Al Gore and moderator Jim Lehrer all seated around a table. And like a television family gathered around a dinner table, the candidates seemed compelled to behave themselves. Gore stopped interrupting, and not one sigh could be heard while Bush was talking. The debate reflected the tone of last week's vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney. In a word: civilized. That civility may not be to Gore's benefit. Any corrective action he took to overcome his pit bull image after the last debate or any points he scored during Wednesday night's discussion of Texas healthcare were counterbalanced by Bush's ability to hold his own in a 45-minute discussion on foreign policy. By agreeing with most of the vice president's positions, Bush may have helped put to rest the Gore campaign's sharpest critique -- that Bush simply isn't presidential timber. Even Gore loyalists conceded that Bush's performance was a step up from last week.
Al Franken, author and comedian Well, I wished there hadn't been quite so much foreign policy because basically they agree on that. So it would have been nice to spend a little bit more time on the things that I think the people are going to make their decisions on. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more fleshing out of these fuzzy numbers arguments and specifically about the tax cut and what that means in terms of spending for Medicare and the environment. To some degree they reflect an ideological divide that exists in this country, and I was just sitting there going, "Well, I suppose that if you believe that we should wait longer on global warming, until we have more science saying that it's being caused by carbon monoxide emissions, then you would go for Bush." In the first debate, the story became the vice president's manner and whether he was overbearing or off-putting. But the fact of the matter is, he did show much more command of the issues. I did think that the governor had a weak performance in the first debate. I thought he was better tonight. I think that the "Gore is unlikable" [stereotype] was kind of contradicted. But I like him, so you're asking the wrong guy. And I thought Bush showed enough command of foreign policy to look like he could rely enough on Colin Powell and Cheney and Condoleezza Rice to get through it. As presidential material, [Bush is] not the most intellectually curious person we've had run for the office. The argument is made that Ronald Reagan wasn't all that intellectually curious himself and was a great president. I think he wasn't a great president, but he did believe in two things, I guess. He was anti-communist, and for lowering taxes and creating a huge deficit. I guess that's three things. Lucianne Goldberg, radio talk show host and publisher of Lucianne.com News Forum. Charm beats smarm every time. Dubya is known among his vast acquaintances as a man of great humor and the snappy wisecrack, traits that are hard to showcase in a stultifyingly boring format like a national debate. This was particularly true last night, when his opponent, who last week showed up looking and sounding like Mrs. Doubtfire, had morphed into a condescending celebrity hairdresser who silently reproaches you for what you've done to your hair. Gore tried hard to keep his facts straight and his eyes in one place, but the damage had been done and the memory of lies and too much makeup lingered. To choose a winner or loser in so artificial an event is ludicrous. What most people do is choose the man they want in their living rooms for four years, and in that case it was Dubya hands down. Dubya gets extra points for not mentioning his mother, his wife, his dog, his car or anyone he knows who can't pay for their pills. Andrew Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic If last week's debate was an assisted suicide, then this week's was a burial. I counted around 15 minutes when Gore clearly had the advantage -- the exchange over healthcare in Texas -- but the rest of the time, Bush creamed him. Last week, Bush demolished Gore on style; this week, he largely dismantled him on both style and substance. On foreign policy, Gore seemed vague and confused, interspersed with occasional moments of worrying idealism. Bush seemed focused, knowledgeable -- East Timor? Chernomyrdin? Kyoto? -- and sensible. Condoleezza Rice should get some sort of teaching award. I can't think of a single domestic issue -- apart from healthcare -- where Gore had an edge. Having moved far to the left in August and September, Gore now tried to zig back to the center. It's too late to zig. The resulting incoherence only lends credibility to those who believe Gore will say anything. What I've learned this year about a man I once greatly admired is that, sadly, he doesn't seem to know who he is or what he really believes. He seems to be grasping at straws. Watching him tonight, he seemed tired, depressed, defeated. I think he thinks he's lost. It showed. Bush, on the other hand, exuded confidence. He leaned back and smiled; Gore leaned forward and furrowed his brow. Take the debate over gay marriage, which I understandably listened to closely. I loathed Bush's answer -- don't homosexuals deserve the sacred as well? -- but I found it more coherent than [that of] Gore, who was trying to triangulate on an issue which allows no triangulation. (And can someone please tell Gore it's "civil union," not "civic union"?) On hate crimes, the same diffidence showed. When Bush said he had a hate crimes law in Texas, Gore should have pointed out that it doesn't include gays, and that's what they disagree on. But Gore didn't, because he's too scared to make an issue about gay rights in a neutral setting. So he punted. And Bush won that round by seeming tougher on hate crimes than Gore! Neither side made the coherent point, of course, that such laws are pernicious examples of exactly the kind of special rights Bush allegedly decries. But Bush's chutzpah defeated Gore's defensiveness. Gore has one advantage in debates -- he knows how to go for the jugular. But after last week, he was obviously told to be nice. So he was defanged. But without fangs, what else has he got? On charm, likability, credibility, he loses. On intellect, he wins. But tonight, Bush cleaned up. He seemed -- and, no, I'm not stoned -- more intelligent and eloquent than Gore. So Gore was left flailing. I suspect that last week was the turning point in this campaign and that tonight sealed it. I saw only one man on that stage who seemed to have the self-confidence, self-esteem and focus to be president. And it wasn't Gore. Joe Eszterhas, author of "American Rhapsody" Al Gore will lose this election unless: 1. He forgets everything Naomi Wolf has ever told him; 2. He ignores everything Bill Daley is telling him; 3. He hires James Carville immediately; 4. He goes deep into the woods for a week, finds himself and shows us -- finally -- the real, uncoached and human Al Gore.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| %text> | ||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Business | Comics | Health | Mothers Who Think | News
People | Politics | Sex | Technology and The Free Software Project
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop
Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
Copyright 2005 Salon.com