The Sequel
October 12, 2000
George Bush and Al Gore squared off Wednesday night in the second presidential debate of Campaign 2000. So who won and why? Voter.com's distinguished team of political commentators weigh in with exclusive post-debate analysis.
Members of Voter.com's Editorial Advisory Board
Victor Navasky
Publisher and Editorial Director of The Nation
Tonight, George Bush and Al Gore were both rushing to the center so fast that they virtually bumped into each other. When they did seem to differ on issues such as gay civil unions, a national anti-racial profiling law and hate crimes, moderator Jim Lehrer failed to force them to define those differences. Gore was intimidated by the press into holding back and since Bush didn’t commit any boo-boos, despite Gore’s superior grasp of history and foreign policy, Bush had the slight edge.
These debates are really just choreographed ballets and ultimately will not decide this election. But tonight was a victory for Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. They are the two candidates who will pick up support as Gore and Bush rush to the center.
Martin F. Nolan
Columnist for The Boston Globe
For those who missed the Boston prequel, tonight George Bush was a bit smarter and Al Gore a touch nicer. “Take, for example, third world debt,” Bush said at one point, not a frequent frat house saying. Both candidates focused on core beliefs. Gore wants a passel of new federal programs; Bush doesn't. Both were more subdued. A sigh is just a sigh, but fundamental things apply on television. How did they look? Gore wore a tie of Marshall McLuhan blue. He looked cool enough to cure global warming, especially when he gazed at his rival the way Clint Eastwood would glare at a perp. Bush, reacting to Gore, looked like Mickey Rooney. Texas is 49th in health care for tots? Bush suggested his opponent was “trying to imply that I'm a hardhearted person.” He misses last week's sighing, overbearing Gore. Few others do.
Voter.com Columnists
Eleanor Clift
Contributing editor at Newsweek and a panelist on The McLaughlin Group.
Al Gore needed to nail George Bush on his “fuzzy specifics” tonight and he failed to do it. The gentlemanly format of the debate blurred the issue differences between the two candidates and wound up helping Bush. If the recent movement in the polls is real, Bush may have won the race tonight. A muzzled Gore is no Gore at all.
Amy Holmes
Contributor to USA Today
I'm a little tipsy, from watching George Bush mop the floor with Al Gore. Bush set the agenda tonight from foreign policy and addressing America's racial problems, to working with local governments to protect the environment.
The bar was set low for Al Gore and he met it. His first debate appearance had generated such disdain that he came on stage tonight cowed and unsure of how to attack. He looked like a hostage to his own ego, slapped silly with a wet cat. He became the "me too" candidate, chiming in, "I believe in the Golden Rule," and reassuring the audience that he believes in smaller government, too. Gore's adviser's couldn't have been happy as they watched Bush's confidence grow and Gore's demeanor shrink.
We may just see Bush win this thing. Gore can only hope swing voters were watching the baseball game.
Tucker Carlson
Voter.com columnist and writer for the Weekly Standard
Here are my two bits of very unsolicited advice for Al Gore:
1) Fire the staffers who made you sit through the Saturday Night Live sketch of yourself acting creepy and overbearing. You can be creepy and overbearing. But there's no reason to be reminded of it hours before a nationally-televised debate. You looked spooked tonight. I'll bet watching the SNL video had something to do with it.
2) Next time, act the way you really are. I realize that many people on your staff suspect that the way you really are is unappealing to voters. You may agree. And all of you may be right. But tonight we saw the alternative. Terrified of appearing unpleasant or contentious, you pulled the few punches you threw. You seemed like you'd been spayed. The affect was disconcerting. Bring back the old Al Gore, the mean one. Even he's more attractive than the one on display in Winston-Salem.
Laura Ingraham
Author and political commentator
After the second presidential debate, Bush must be wondering to himself, "Why in the hell did we spend so much time earlier this fall arguing over the damned debates?" Bush pitched almost a perfect game, and this performance could bump him up another five points in the (odious) polls we all salivate over. No, Gore didn't sigh and shake his head, but he still couldn't stop himself from darting a condescending fish-eye stare at Bush every time the Texas governor spoke. Meanwhile, Gore still had trouble talking straight. Classic moments of Gorespeak tonight: he says he is for "universal care" but not a federally-managed health care program; he says he does not favor gay marriages but is for "civil unions," he says he's not for "gun registration" but does favor gun "photo licenses for states." By comparison, Bush spoke with candor, insight, and confidence -- on everything from our ill-fated involvement in Somalia to the complex cultural causes of the Columbine shooting. It was especially heartening to see Bush holding firm on controversial issues such as the death penalty and IMF loans to Russia. And thank goodness that Bush called Gore on his self-serving statement that he favored "gun-free zones" around American schools. (Earth to Al: everyone wants guns out of schools!) Gore scored some points late in the game on health care in Texas, but by that time, the viewers had undoubtedly already given the debate to Bush. Surprising debate factoid: Bush mentioned the environment first (rain forest protection for debt forgiveness).
Margot Magowan
Co-Founder of The Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership
With debate on foreign policy, racial profiling, gay rights, gun control, the death penalty and health care, the issues covered in debate number two were much more relevant to American lives -- and also just more interesting -- than the policy wonking that went on last time. Gore took last debate's criticism too hard. He was careful not to sigh or smirk or shake his head, which was good. But he got way too wary. He could've had Bush a few times, but instead he backed off.
Bush mischaracterized his role as the governor of Texas in the James Byrd case and the hate crime bill he never supported. But Gore didn't push the point, letting Bush go off on a tangent about how the death penalty was a preferable tactic to racial profiling.
Some of Bush's weakest spots are his record in Texas on health care and the environment. Both of these areas were brought up, but Gore just lightly grazed them, never going for the jugular. After saying that Texas is ranked 49th in health care coverage of women and children, that Texas is the most polluted state in the nation, Gore could have forced Bush to address that if his presidency followed his model as governor, poor women and children would forgo coverage for tax cuts, and that multi-national industries would be allowed to regulate their own environmental standards.
Gore still needs to figure out how to be forceful without being arrogant. Bush comes out ahead tonight and ahead in the campaign.
Guest Commentary
Carl Sferrazza Anthony
Historian, author, Voter.com contributing editor
What a difference a desk makes. Are these the same two fellows who grimaced and moaned about each other two weeks ago behind podiums? Pundits and comediennes might resent the fact that Al Gore and George Bush didn't provide enough fodder for their spin and jokes, but--to everyone's benefit--serious issues were gone over in detail. Gore's little lesson on the years between the two world wars was a good one, quite justifying the need for some "nation-building" now and then. But neither candidate addressed the pathetic lack of direction in Somalia of both Presidents Bush and Clinton. Of course, neither gave the full story on issues; whether it was on global warming, hate crimes, or gun laws. But what do people expect? Politicians to admit that most issues are not a matter of absolutes but areas of gray? Unlike Gore who never sat back in his chair, Bush showed a relaxed humor. His quip about a "conflict of interest" (in reference to not criticizing his father's presidential policies) was reminiscent of Jack Kennedy's witticisms about the questionable public decisions of his own father, the former American Ambassador to England who served in the pre-World War II era with an appeasement sensibility.
Al Franken
Comedian, author, Saturday Night Live alumnus
I know that events over the past week dictated that [moderator] Jim Lehrer spend a lot of time on foreign affairs, but I still wish they’d spent more time on domestic policy tonight. I think that’s what people are interested in. When the debate did focus on domestic policy, I think Gore did better. That's because I agree with him.
As for the Saturday Night Live debate parody that Gore’s staff played for him this week, I heard that Gore really liked it. He thought it was hilarious. He clearly saw that there was no way he could mention the term "lockbox" tonight. And he didn’t. But there’s something to be said for not doing those kinds of skits before all the debates are over, so the candidates can’t use them to round off their edges.
I must say, there were times when the debate looked a lot like that heavyweight Greco-Roman wrestling match in the Olympics between that American guy and the Russian guy. There were long stretches in both events when I was wondering, What the heck is happening? Is anyone scoring any points here?
Jonah Goldberg
Syndicated Columnist and the editor of National Review Online
The post-debate conventional wisdom is that George Bush was strong on foreign policy. That's bizarre. He clung to Al Gore for most of it. This was smart because Gore couldn't criticize someone who constantly agreed with him. I'm a fairly troglodytic right wing freak, but I thought that Gore was generally better on foreign affairs, except for his silly equation of nation building in post-war Germany and nation building in Somalia. On domestic policy, Bush lit up Gore like a Christmas tree. But in the end, neither candidate did anything to stop the momentum against Gore.
Elizabeth Mitchell
Voter.com contributing editor and author of W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty
Al Gore and George W. Bush seemed to agree on everything but tie color at Wednesday night’s debate. Bush tried to combat his blank-as-Hello-Kitty image by throwing in actual foreign policy details and attempting multiple syllable words-- "abrogation" and even "Chernomyrdin" and nailing them. Gore managed to shut off the sighing valve. Instead, he replaced that urge to condescension with a slow headshake and lizard gaze. But the most obvious shift in style was the new improved Gore yes-ing George W. to death. Even
Bush seemed to be surprised at how many times Professor Gore commended his answers--that we do indeed want to be a humble nation, that a federal law on racial profiling would be a step in the right direction, that cops are good, and--my absolute favorite--the status of George W.’s soul "I believe him," Gore said softly, "when he says that he has a good heart" (these guys have spent too much time with Oprah).
Gore once again came across as a readier hand to take the helm, but his new softness left him agreeing to too much. In those last moments, when the subject turned to Gore’s tendency to exaggerate, he sounded a lot like Clinton on 60 Minutes promising to do better next time. Bush played directly to the traditional Republican house with his declarations that he wanted smaller government. If he hopes to win, it will be with the votes of middle America Democrats disgruntled with Gore, and for that reason, ending the debate in a tangle on the credibility issue is a big point for Bush.
Michael Waldman
Former chief White House speechwriter for Bill Clinton and author of POTUS Speaks: Finding the Words that Defined the Clinton Presidency
Who won the second presidential debate? I’m reminded of what Chou En Lai said when he was asked his view of the French Revolution: "Too soon to tell."
These debates, of course, have two distinct audiences: the immediate viewers, and the broader audience that sees some snippet or memorable moment replayed and rehashed over and over. Who really saw Nixon’s five o’clock shadow? Did viewers really chuckle appreciatively when Reagan said "There you go again," or only after they had been told so often it was a masterstroke? I think viewers who sat through this debate saw a friendly and low-key discussion, with lots of agreement between two candidates who obviously would like to throttle each other. Bush wasn’t shaky, Gore didn’t interrupt, there was much agreement on foreign policy. (Bush slipped the hook by never saying whether he thought the Vietnam War was a good idea, which would have raised the obvious question of why he didn’t go.)
But the last third of the debate -- where Gore passionately stripped the bark off of Bush’s Texas record -- was very powerful, a strong performance by the VP and a stammering embarrassment for the governor. If those moments live on, then this debate may well be regarded as a very strong one for Gore. What will Katie and Matt and Bryant and Charlie and Diane show us in the morning? What will the evening news dissect? That will tell us who "won."
One more thought, wearing my former-presidential-speechwriter glasses: We are seeing whether the rhetorical gamble Gore took at the Los Angeles convention pays. He has argued against Bush’s huge tax cut principally on the grounds that it helps the wealthiest Americans, rather than on the grounds that, say, it would derail prosperity by bringing back deficits. Bush has countered that Democrats don’t really want to give people tax cuts (an intuition shared by most voters). Will Gore’s approach work? As the man said, "Too soon to tell."
voter.com |
