1st Debate is over - any opinions?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The first of the "official" Presidential debates is over. Albert Gore, Jr. and George W. Bush have sparred in public on the same stage.

My man (Nader) wasn't in this shindig. What I saw didn't change my vote. My impression was similar to my wife's comment: "It's S&S. Slick and Stupid." I thought Gore was superficial and Bush seemed to vacilate between nervous and incoherent.

However, both candidates delivered the kind of messages that speak to the faithful, so I expect neither one alienated his "base". How it all played with the Great Unwashed Undecided is a mystery to me.

Has anyone here changed their mind?

Does anyone here want to state their impressions or opinions?

All comments gratefully accepted.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 03, 2000


Since I know at least 80% of you guys monitor Recent Answers exclusively, I'm not gonna wait for the first reply. I'm shoving my way to the top. So there!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 03, 2000.


Didn't watch, specifically. I find that both parties suggest programs that are intrusive. I just oppose the religous right intrusion. That is why I spend my time getting people to vote for Gore. I have followed the Green parties explanation of what party Nader is part of. Really a mess. My cats oppose the Green Party and I am forced to go with them. They don't want to be offed.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 03, 2000.

Was going to vote Libertarian, however, there's no chance of a libertarian candidate to win. So, it looks like the only two viable choices we have are dog sh*t or cat sh*t. Gore scares the crap out of me especially his "environmental" policies, and he doesn't know what the truth is. So, I will have to vote for Bush. Bush won the debate - Gore sucked.

-- Mrs. Cleaver (Mrs. Cleaver@LITBBB.xcom), October 03, 2000.

>> [My cats] don't want to be offed. <<

I am so sorry. In the interests of purity and sanctity, we must off all the kittys. Puppies, too. It is a sacrifice they must be happy to make. No exceptions. If we let your kittys live, then we'll have to let them all live! Imagine the results!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 03, 2000.

>> Was going to vote Libertarian, however, there's no chance of a libertarian candidate to win. <<

I implore you from the bottom of my heart - if Libertarians represent you, vote for Harry Browne. Write him in if you have to. Don't settle for less...until you are forced to by circumstances beyond your control.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 03, 2000.

I supported Bush going into the debate, and I still support Bush. I believe he did quite well.

Mr. Gore seemed more confident, while Bush came off as a little tepid. Gore in all of his confindence was quite cocky in that he would basically give the same answer regardless of what the question was. I think Bush gave more relevant answers to the questions being asked.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), October 03, 2000.

Opinion? LOL

Al Gore did what anyone *debating* a MORON would do, let them lay their eggs. Like watching the Harlem Globtrotters that "debate". Thing is over. There has to have been worse than Dubya, but I cannot remember any. Even Dan Qualye was at least interesting.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 03, 2000.

"Was going to vote Libertarian, however, there's no chance of a libertarian candidate to win."

argghh!! How can the libertarian party EVER have a chance to win if people just voted for WHO THEY THINK HAS A CHANCE TO WIN?? How many libertarians think twisted like this? Why MUST YOU feel you have to vote for the winning party? How can you be sure of any party to win? Haven't you learned that voting is meant to chose the person who represent YOUR views the closest? That it is not a football game you bet on?? What will YOU win by voting for Bush (or Gore) if they win?

It doesn't matter wether I agree with your preferred choice of party, what matters to me is that you vote for who you really prefer! Geez!

(Unk, I feel your frustration :P)

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

"Gore scares the crap out of me especially his "environmental" policies"

Protecting the environment "scares" you??? Very strange.

Are you saying you would feel better choking to death on toxic gases?

-- (people@are.strange), October 03, 2000.

big money, controls both--it,s just a farce!! MONEY TALKS---BULS..T WALKS!!! N.W.O-----AT THE READY.

-- watching the clock (dogs@zianet.com), October 03, 2000.

The difference between the policies of the two candidates appeared to me to be indistinguishable. The arguements seemed to be over how much of the revenue surplus should be given back to the people who actually paid it in the first place. Or, how to best spend such a windfall. They are in a quandry: what to do with such a high tax revenue in the face of a strong economy. The point they should have addressed could have been why there was such a high surplus to begin with.

I think I will "waste" my vote on Harry Browne.

-- A tax payer (NoClear@Diff.com), October 04, 2000.

Uncle Deeda,

I know it's late in the season, but do you know any Libertarian sources for action in the Orlando area? Better late than never...

-- A tax payer (NoClear@Diff.com), October 04, 2000.

Brian, I found the debate to have a great deal of entertainment value. I can't believe that dubya said "children at risk--that means they can't learn". What a fool.

I think Gore did a fine job at the debate. Made dubya look like a slime and a fool. dubya couldn't weasel out Gore's accusation that 30% of dubya's tax cut would go to folks who make over $1Million per year. All dubya could come up with to gloss it over was that "everyone ought to get a tax cut"

I'd be inclined to vote for Gore, if I thought that the whole thing wasn't preplanned, and that I couldn't believe a word of what he said. Me? Nader all the way. Even if he doesn't win, we need to get the republicrats out at any cost, or all is lost, and soon. I think Nader is going to get a surprisingly high percentage of the vote. Maybe he'll beat Bush. Regardless, next time the two party stranglehold won't be so strong, I hope.

What gets me is all the people standing up for the super rich, like "it's not fair to penalize someone for being rich". Hello, is it a penalty to make a multibillionaire a mere billionaire? I guess they'd really have to tighten their belts. Poor babies :)


-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 04, 2000.

>> big money, controls both <<

Al-d, there are more than two choices. Choose one that is not controlled by big money. That's what I'm doing.

>> Or, how to best spend such a windfall. <<

Surplus, my eye. There's still a mighty big, mighty real national debt that hasn't been paid off, yet. As someone here said not long back -- sure, the big tax surplus 'belongs to the taxpayers', but so does the debt.

We can't walk away from it. We can't ignore it. Why not face reality and pay it off? Then let's reduce taxes, after we are debt free.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 04, 2000.

>> I think Nader is going to get a surprisingly high percentage of the vote. <<

I am sure you are correct about Nader in Oregon. He may go up to 12%-15% here. I am expecting 10% for sure. To get more he'll have to draw in a lot of people who don't usually vote at all.

In the rest of the country I'd be very surprised if Nader averaged more than 5%. But, strange things happen. Maybe the pollsters will have to eat their own sh*t this time. God, wouldn't that be refreshing!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@Ims.com), October 04, 2000.

Right, jumpoffjoe,

It's not like those rich bastards actually earned their money, by risking their capital and investing in new ventures. No, they don't pay salaries and create new businesses, they spend their money on trivial pursuits to please their own egos, satisfy nefarious tastes, and to show off their wealth. The rich should pay dearly for their success. Don't you agree?

-- A tax payer (NoClear@Diff.com)), October 04, 2000.


"Surplus, my eye. There's still a mighty big, mighty real national debt that hasn't been paid off, yet."

That only shows that the tax load was too high for years. Same answer, the polititians are not quite telling the truth (I'm being kind here), and the so-called "surplus" is an election-year ploy. If there is no real surplus, then the whole debate is either wind and smoke, or we need to find even more sources to tax (unacceptable to Libertarians, but fine with Nader's followers). If there is a surplus, what then? More programs to fund, or reduction in tax?

Again, I'll go with the Libertarians, thank you.

-- A tax payer (NoClear@Diff.com), October 04, 2000.

"It's not like those rich bastards actually earned their money, by risking their capital and investing in new ventures. No, they don't pay salaries and create new businesses, they spend their money on trivial pursuits to please their own egos, satisfy nefarious tastes, and to show off their wealth. The rich should pay dearly for their success. Don't you agree?"

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Very well said.

-- (taxpayer@for.president), October 04, 2000.

Bush....."We need to transport more *domestic awl* from Mexico!"

Now I know I have been outta town of late, but when did Mexico gain Statehood? Even included Canada as some domestic source. And some here talk about NWO, you bet THAT type of "plain olde boy" talk sure is.

And to the big money deal, what did Al Gore say would be his first order of business when elected? McCainheads are encouraged to participate at this *juncture* if need be.

and who was it who looked the American People in the camera and even bothered to ask for the job? I do not even think Bush knows Gore ain't Clinton frankly he is this asleep.

Bush has the nerve to say Military Moral is bad. Well hell roadie Peace is a bitch now ain't it?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 04, 2000.

That there are so many so politically obtuse as to use their impression of these debates to form their choice scares the hell out of me.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), October 04, 2000.


I say again:

"I'll go with the Libertarians, thank you."

Just in case my sardonic humor was misunderstood, that was a true statement by me.

-- A tax payer (NoClear@Diff.com), October 04, 2000.

Gore won hands down. He was articulate, passionate, informed, competent, commanding, and expert in his mastery of details, facts, and figures. Bush spoke fairly well, considering his famous gaffes, but he hedged on the hard questions (abortion, for example), and could neither refute nor even directly address Gore's hammering on tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent (which he mentioned at least ten times).

I wonder if anti-intellectual voters will punish Gore for being too prepared, too focused, too committed to the details. His presentation was so superior in every respect that he runs the risk of appearing pitiless and arrogant. (I think he's neither, but any true intellectual always runs the risk of provoking envry, resentment, and misunderstanding.)

Gore asks a lot of listeners. Because he speaks in whole, complex sentences with multiple subordinate clauses, and can string those complex senteces into paragraphs that constitute ideas, he demands that the listener be as focused in listening as he is in speaking.

When Bush speaks, it's easier to listen to. Sometimes it doesn't make much sense, but it's the kind of easygoing, vague style that folks are used to hearing in politics. If Gore is the Mahler of political rhetorical style, Bush is its Musak. He demands little of the listener's natural inertia. Voters feel more comfortable listening to Bush simply because he asks less of them. Hence they made decide they can better "trust" him.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Excellent critique Celia. These dimwits that say that Gore "scares" them are the same people who said Clinton was the new Adolph Hitler. LOL, what a laugh! The reality is they are too brainless to understand genius when they see it. Ignorance fosters fear.

-- (dimwits.fear.what@they.don't.understand), October 04, 2000.


Are the Libertarians going to make the rich pay dearly for their success?

If so, I'm with you!!

-- (harry.browne.or@taxpayer.for president), October 04, 2000.

I found this analysis on another board, and it's just too amusing not to share.

Bush gutted like a clueless river bass... Publius 2000 (and am I pissed!) Tue Oct 3 23:23:18

DISCLAIMER: I am a cigar chomping, beluga caviar eating, penthouse living, Wall Street banker-ing capitalist autocrat, and I am *still* voting GOP in November. So please, don't write inane stupidity of the 'you're just a bleeding heart liberal' in reponse to this post, because I will just laugh ironically and have another tumbler of Cap'n Morgan.


1) Bush lost and lost big. Period. End of story. No yammering about slant and bias now, because the man simply hadn't prepared or---more troubling---isn't intelligent enough to do anything having had the time to prepare. If I had no political proclivities before this debate and had to judge who was the best man for the job solely on the debate itself, then Gore would win hands down.

2) Did I mention this whole thing has pissed me off? The GOP had every opportunity to choose a maverick, a proven leader, a distinguished veteran, and certainly someone who could have crushed Gore---John McCain. Instead, they played it safe and went for the Anointed One.

And tonight the Anointed One let down his party, let down his responsibility, and let down his country. I loathe Gore, I hate his politics, I think the man spineless and a cipher---but that said, at least he had prepared to state in clear terms why he was best suited to the job.

Bush looked---well, quite frankly, he looked scary, embittered, stupid, and pathetic. Did I mention I'm pissed?

3) What was he doing in the last few weeks, playing fucking Foos-ball?

4) Alright---big deep breath. When you vote for a president, you vote for policies, for a (god help us) brain trust, for the understanding that this man will, in turn, bring other men to Washington who promote initiative, capital incentives for business, integrity, and a decent shot at prosperity for everyone---not to mention bolster the military in such a way that America can defend herself and her interests abroad.

The American presidency is not a debating club, and the glibbest man does not necessarily deserve to win. And in truth, Al Gore didn't win because of brilliance or depth---indeed, my cat could have torn him apart with a little coaching. Hell, on a cocaine, caviar and rum binge, *I* could have torn him apart. So---the man, his lack of depth, his spinelessness, and his political mutability are still there, and just as dangerous as always.

5) So, that said, I'm going to the polls in November and I'm voting for...well, I'm voting against Gore. And I'm not voting for the guy who likes jackboots and book burnings. But I'm sure as hell disappointed that the man whose *polices* are better, whose *intentions* are better---that man is as dumb as a urinal cake. Hell, a urinal cake could have done a better job...

Did I mention I'm pissed?

6)When it boils right down to it, the American people deserve better-- -they deserve a real leader with the intellectual discipline and the integrity to truly lead, to truly represent, to embody McCain's fine idea of 'straight talk.' I, for one, am disgusted with this travesty we call 'republican democracy' tonight, and perhaps only a Montecristo, some rum, and a good night's sleep will dispel the horror of the Debates.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

LOL Celia, that's a good one alright! That's gotta be what Rush Limbaugh is saying to himself right now. Of course he'll never admit it, and come on tomorrow blowing lies out his ass as usual.

Definitely got it right about McCain. McCain makes Bush look like the town idiot, and would have been a real tough competitor for Gore.

-- (lol@hee.hee), October 04, 2000.

Gore a genius? I'm sure he has said this about himself, but don't tell me you actually believe it.

-- Dimwits in the Third Dimension (fake@handles.rule), October 04, 2000.

Mr. Gore, to me, came out as if he has lost all touch with reality. If he thinks that our troops have high moral, then he must think that our troops are from another country. Moral is at a all time low. There are some units that cannot train or perform their missions due to the lack of parts to get their equipment running.

While I agree, that at the moment we are the best military in the world, we will be behind the ball sooner or later if we do not continue to recruit, train, and develop new technologies for our forces. If Mr. Gore wins, I would hate to think of the number of our men and women that would look for the nearest exit door from the service (when their time was up.)

Mr. Bush could not deny the charges of the math. I myself would be interested in looking at the figures to do my own math from both parties. His comment about at-risk children also got a chuckle from me.

All in all, I thought it to be an interesting debate. I, for one, will watch the next two. But we all must remember, that no matter what either of them says they will do, unless they have a congress that agrees with them, nothing will get done.

As a side, maybe it was just me, but I noticed that Mr. Bush was looking alot like former Pres. Regan. Maybe it was something about all the makeup, but to me at least, it looked as if he were trying to present that visual image, while Mr. Bush looked like his father.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), October 04, 2000.

I'm a Libertarian, so I had no interest in watching the debate, as I view Republicans (or the Right) and Democrats (or the Left) as two sides of the same coin -- the coin being anti-individual freedoms and rights. They're just "anti" in different ways.

With all due respect to y'all, the basic alternative I see is that we'll either be controlled in our personal lives (Republicans, with their focus on religion-inspired regulation -- e.g., prayer in the schools, outlawing abortion, control over sexual issues), or being controlled in our economic lives (Democrats -- heavy controls over business, high taxes). You know, though, both sides share the same basic premise, which is that the INDIVIDUAL has to be controlled. Both the Republicans and Democrats view the needs of this mysterious collective society (there's no such entity) as overriding the rights of the individual. They just disagree on whether the public interest (again, no such entity) is served by sacrificing the individuals material values (Democrats) or by sacrificing the individuals intellectual and moral values (Republicans).

To me, this is not a meaningful choice.

Harry Browne for President.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.


The chair of the Florida Libertarian Party lives in Orlando, and I know that she would love to have some help. Visit the Website of the Florida LP for more info. It warms my shallow empty heart to see so many voices for Harry Browne. I know Harry will not win, but a few million votes for him will raise the party to a new level for the 2004 race.

Now, as far as the debate went. It seemed to me that for a guy who is supposedly sooooooooo stupid Bush more than held his own against Gore, who was supposed to wipe up the floor with W. I might have given the edge to Gore for sounding like he cared more about the little people if I didnt know that he is a liar who will say anything to get elected. Overall, it was an interesting contest between bigger government and slightly bigger government proposals. If you like having Washington DC deciding more of what is best for you Gore is your man, if you want a bit less of your life decided in DC Bush is your guy.

Last thing, I guess that JOJ and company have given up hope of ever being wealthy. Thats too bad. I guess the Marxism classes took a bit too well, lol!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Sorry, try again.

Link to Florida LP

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Gore is a slime just like the prez he supports today. The last 30 seconds of his 2 minute closing he spent dicussing some 77 year old woman. A reporter told the real story of this woman. She collects can for fun not for food. She has a 55 year old retired business man who could certainly support her and would but she doesn't want it. She has enough money to pay for food and drugs. Gore's a slime.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 04, 2000.

I watched a little bit of the nonsense AFTER I got home from the movie theatre....

NOW, are you ALL ready for this, I SWEAR it IS a TRUE story...

Upon arriving at a General Cinema Theatre, I went to purchase a soda and some popcorn. The clerk asked if I wanted a Rep or Demo straw to drink the soda with. At first I thought she was kidding. I informed her I WANTED a THIRD PARTY straw. She then told me that they have done this each election and they have always been correct using this polling method.

I got the REGULAR straw but I did notice almost all of the Gore straws were gone.

I cant believe no 3rd party straw.

Back to the subject, I thought Shrub came off as a complete idiot. He didnt seem to be 'with' any of it. IF I had to choose between either of them, I would NOT vote. Thank goodness for 3rd party.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 04, 2000.

Oh and BTW, Each time I looked at Bush I remember his lil goof calling that reporter an asshole. HIPOCRIT that he IS.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 04, 2000.

And of course we all know that you have never called anyone a name, hee hee! Plus Bush was right, Adam Clymer IS an asshole.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

I listened to the debate on the radio. Bush babbled to himself noticeably on a couple of occasions while Gore was answering questions. Gore sighed deeply while Bush was answering questions. It was a very strange listen, I must say.

Short of it is Gore came off as extremely arrogant. The idea, I presume, was to present himself as a confident, capable leader. Overdone, IMO. He was well prepared with numbers, as usual. He has no shame in that he routinely twisted numbers to better reflect his platform. Ok Ill say it  Gore is an unabashed manipulator and liar, IMO.

Bush road a roller coaster. At times he had me ROTFL he sounded so incompetent. From about 9:15pm-9:30pm he had me laughing AT him so hard I nearly had to pull over to the side of the road. He completely blew the issue of tax reductions. The man had no clue on how to present his proposal to the American people. Gore made him look VERY bad. Repeatedly. Bush could not even pull numbers to refute Gores claims about the top 1% receiving the bulk of the cuts. This is a presidential candidate? The best the republicans had to offer? Sad state of affairs in that political party.

Bush came off rather well speaking about his ideas on education (except for the obvious children at risk gaff  ROTFL again). Also presented strong on energy policy. And I liked the fact that he did not harp on the character issue. Gore is obviously a bad seed and is quite vulnerable to a SKILLED politicians verbal scalpel. That aint G.W. and he knew not to push it.

Bottom line: I will not vote for either of these two candidates. Of the two, Gore is at least a competent politician and probably would not do serious harm to this country over four years. I could see Bush running my local recreation center, but the United States?

I look forward to hearing the 3rd-party candidates go head-to-head.


-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 04, 2000.

A tax payer:

You failed to say what you would do about the national debt. It is still there, waiting. Interest on that debt is one of the biggest items in the federal budget. And just paying interest doesn't reduce the debt by a penny. Presumably you believe in paying your debts.

You may not approve of how this one was saddled onto you. I know I don't. But at least I acknowledge it's existance and accept that it can't be dodged or dismissed.

>> [The existance of the debt] only shows that the tax load was too high for years. <<

I don't follow you. How?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 04, 2000.

"Gore a genius? I'm sure he has said this about himself, but don't tell me you actually believe it.

-- Dimwits in the Third Dimension (fake@handles.rule), October 04, 2000."

Gore's IQ is something like 144. Technically, according to our ranking system that does put him on the lower genius levels.

-- (dimwit@are.you), October 04, 2000.

Gore sighed deeply while Bush was answering questions. -Bingo

I was wondering if anyone else caught that. Too bad ya missed the eye rolls that accompanied his sighs, Bingo. Reminded me of a spoiled little boy who was pouting cuz he couldn't get his way. And he did it over and over and over again.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 04, 2000.

I can't comment on this so-called debate because I did not watch. Intentionally. Anyhow, I have already sent in my absentee ballot.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 04, 2000.

I'd already posted my thoughts on the debate to Stephen's forum, so I'll just copy and paste them here:

I must first confess that I expected more excitement. I was actually glad when the 90 minutes were over.

Since I'm a person that has followed the politics of these parties like a mother follows a small child, I was bored. Al was repeating his issues platform OVER and OVER. Bush was saying the same stuff he's said previously, only this time he didn't fumble over any words of more than two syllables.

While Bush kept sniffing and wiping his nose [maybe he has a cold], Gore kept sighing into the microphone when Bush said something of which he disagreed. Personally, I would have sighed AWAY from the microphone. A sigh can really sound like a bull snort when it's done into a mic.

Although some pundits state that Gore repeatedly mentioning how the tax cut that Bush proposed would benefit only the top 1% of the population was in response to Bush's constant remarks about fuzzy math, fuzzy Washington math,etc., both of us watching here at home thought we'd hurl if he mentioned it one more time.

SO was as excited as I've seen him watching a sports game. He was really into it. He was coaching Gore from the backseat. "NO...don't do that! You should have stopped after listing your accomplishments in office. Now, you're straying off to your high-school days and Bush can use that." The next round of that question Gore mentioned foreign policy and stuck to what he'd done. "That's better!" SO was the only one that kept me awake. [grin]

Overall, I think they both did a fair job. I expected more from Gore [He tended to rant frequently, IMO], and well, nobody expected anything from Bush, so he actually did better than expected.

While pundits state that Bush could offer no feedback on the spending plans outside of "fuzzy math", I felt that the American people in general think all the math's pretty fuzzy, too. While pundits state that Bush didn't even try to discuss the Kosovo situation because he knew he couldn't pronounce the names of the players, I doubt that the American people in general even recognized the names of the players that Gore pronounced so well.

The polls indicate that the people think that Gore did a slightly better job than Bush, but the polls also indicate that this debate changed no one's mind. The undecided are still undecided.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 04, 2000.

Notice how gun control was so studiously avoided. That was supposedly the strongest issue of the Dems.


(FYI, don't piss off the 80 million gun owners in America 30 days before the election)

-- no one ehre (-@-.-), October 04, 2000.

"Notice how gun control was so studiously avoided. That was supposedly the strongest issue of the Dems."

It WAS? I've been following both parties from the beginning, and I've seen no emphasis on this...EVER. Abortion has been a strong issue of the Dems. Notice how that one was studiously avoided by the Repubs?

I'd appreciate any information you can bring to light, however, to support your claim on the gun control thing.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 04, 2000.

I wish I could say it was a triumph of style over substance... but there wasn't any style.

Gore is no more a "populist" than Mao. Like many liberals, Gore wants the approval of the common man. He just doesn't want "Joe Six-Pack" making any serious decisions.

On the other hand, the republicans have made a high art out of nominating weak candidates. John McCain could be 20 points ahead of Gore right now. Instead, Bush is playing the same the old tired tune of tax cuts, even though most Americans seem quite ambivalent.

Personally, I think getting the third parties into the debates would help. I don't agree with the environmental socialism of Nader, but he would force the debate into more substantive areas. If the hapless libertarians ever decide they want to elect candidates rather than quibble over dogma, they might prove an interesting addition.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 04, 2000.

And of course we all know that you have never called anyone a name, hee hee! Plus Bush was right, Adam Clymer IS an asshole.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Ok Unc:

FWIW, I've never called anyone anything!!! Hmmmph!!

Rushes over to pickup halo :-(

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 04, 2000.

"Notice how gun control was so studiously avoided. That was supposedly the strongest issue of the Dems."

That's why Bush didn't dare bring it up. He is way outnumbered, and so are gun owners.

-- (guns.are@for.morons), October 04, 2000.

After reading a lot of debate reviews, it's obvious to me that the candidate every observer favored going into the debate is the one he thinks won the debate. And those who disliked them both found nothing good about either of them. I miss the pointed observations and questions Alan Keyes brought to the early debates.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 2000.

>> I miss the pointed observations and questions Alan Keyes brought to the early debates. <<

I have not heard the man speak, but I've heard nothing but good from people I respect about Alan Keyes's speaking ability and intelligence. In contrasdistinction to Mr. George W. Bush, who is evidently a likeable person, but thin gruel as a public speaker or as a thinker. Mr. Gore may have an IQ of 144, but he has a long way to go to reach human perfection.

I don't share Mr. Keyes's views on policy, so I would never vote for him under any circumstances I can imagine. But I would welcome anyone who was able to bring more substance to the campaign and the general political discourse. As along as he doesn't win, more power to him!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 04, 2000.

YIKES!! I haven't been on here in ages. What's this about kitty-cats being offed?? Was this in the debate? I only listened to the first two or three questions and got bored and switched to something else interesting--like the weather channel. Cats? Tell me, Please!

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), October 05, 2000.


Thursday October 5 7:05 AM ET Gore Holds Post-Debate Lead, Nader 'Surges'

By Carol Giacomo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) continued to hold a slight lead over Republican George W. Bush (news - web sites) in the Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll released on Thursday, the first to reflect some impact of Tuesday's presidential debate.

The survey also showed what pollster John Zogby called a ''surge'' of support for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites), which could affect the neck-and-neck presidential race in battleground states.

The poll, conducted by Zogby, surveyed 1,209 likely voters between Monday and Wednesday. It found the vice president leading the Texas governor 46 percent to 40 percent, five weeks ahead of the Nov. 7 election. Bush dropped a point from Wednesday's poll while Gore remained steady.

``Again this race is very close -- close among voters over 50, close among voters earning more than $50,000, close among suburban voters and those who have had some college or a college degree,'' he said.

Nader, the third party candidate who was excluded from the presidential debate in Boston, rose two points to 7 percent in the new survey.

``Gore holds on to his lead, but Nader has picked up significant support, especially after the debate,'' Zogby said.

Nader was up to 17 percent among independents and 18 percent among progressives.

``If he continues the same trend, he will have an impact on several of the battleground states,'' Zogby said.

The Reform Party's Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) had 1 percent of the likely voters polled, while Libertarian candidate Harry Browne (news - web sites) and Natural Law's John Hagelin (news - web sites) had less than 1 percent.

Another 7 percent were undecided.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), October 05, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ