Watching the debate, I notice that Gore is kicking the Shrub all over the stage, and the Shrub is pouting and babbling again. The thing I can't figure out is how Bush got to be even with Gore in this race, especially when we have Browne and Nader sitting on the bench. Guess the public automatically assumed he was qualified because his Daddy was prez, then the big money campaign funded by corporations convinced them.

-- (gore@is.kicking.ass), October 17, 2000

Answers

George Walker Bush isn't especially "qualified" by his past experience to be president, but then, come to think of it neither was James Earl Carter - although Carter was a quick study and Bush isn't. Kennedy, like Clinton, had a premium education and plenty of smarts, but not a whole lot of presidential-level experience.

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were probably no brighter than Bush the Younger. In reality, a lot of mediocrities have become President. Think of Bush the Elder, for example. What seems odd to me is that we've already lived through a Bush administration and, given the chance for an extended run, the People ran away shrieking.

We've been there, done that, and nobody seems to remember. Bush II - The Sequel won't be any better than Bush I - The Veep Who Said Golly Too Gosh Darn Much.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 17, 2000.

SORE LOSER!

-- gore is loser (gore@.loser.loser), October 17, 2000.

Why is it that Gore cannot observe the rules of the debate format? He did agree to them and then just blatantly ignored them. He struck me as overbearing and pompous.

Bush was a bit off his game tonite I thought, but he did make it clear that if you like more and more government deciding what is best for you Al's your guy.

And yeah, I sure would have enjoyed seeing Nader and Browne in this one.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 17, 2000.

"Why is it that Gore cannot observe the rules of the debate format? He did agree to them and then just blatantly ignored them. He struck me as overbearing and pompous."

The sign of a true competitor. Reminds me of the Oakland Raiders of the 70's. I think Gore deserves to be president based on sheer determination and aggressiveness alone. He will get things done, unlike the limp and wilting Shrub.

-- (gore.the.man@for.new.millenium), October 17, 2000.

My boy was looking his goober best.

*sigh*

Ya know what's really scary is that people actually make up their minds based on these "debates". In the last one Bush shmoozed while Gore couldn't get off his stilts. Polls went up for Bush. Who are these people? What the hell is so God damned hard to figure out about where you stand?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 17, 2000.

I wonder when this ball-game will be over. I hate to ask SO to watch the game in the bedroom, but I'm hankerin' to toss in the video of tonight's debate, and the VCR doesn't work in the bedroom.

My pinko-commie-left-wing sources have already written that Bush was scratchin' his feet in the dirt like a 4th grader, but I want to see it for myself!

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 17, 2000.

I'm wondering the same thing, Carlos.

"Gore the Man"; Determination is certainly a virtue in a president, but I'm not so sure about agressiveness. I'm trying to picture both Bush and Gore alternately trying to convince the leaders in the current Mideast crisis. Clinton out of the picture, who would be best at schmoozing and calming them down? If Gore's lack of charisma turns voters away, wouldn't he run the risk of the same effect on those leaders? Who's best at bullshitting his way around? I'm thinking probably Bush. With the help of his advisors to tell him what to do and say, he could sell the Palestinians the Brookline bridge.

But when it comes to domestic issues, well that's another ballgame. I don't want bullshitting charisma, I want a president who will fight for issues I stand for.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 17, 2000.

"Gore's lack of charisma"

Guess you didn't see the debate tonight. His presidential charisma was shooting out of his fingertips and his eyes, zapping Bush into a quivering lump of cow dung.

-- (lol@lack.of.charisma), October 17, 2000.

smarty:

"...issues I stand for." Like what?

While Gore was punching "credits" for this and "matching money" for that I wish to hell my Goober had reminded the audience that they were being bribed with their OWN MONEY.

I dunno. Considering the level of consumer debt (up 9% a year!!) maybe we as a people really are too stupid to manage our own affairs.

Wish too that Goob when challenged about the trillion for the 17% privatization of social security had gotten agressive. Like maybe: "Al, you mean the money isn't there? You mean the social security trust fund doesn't exist? You mean those dollars flow out as fast as they come in and there isn't really a bank of bucks for those now paying in? You mean this is really is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever?"

Tribal knowledge on this forum but would probably have been news to a lot of uninformed-undecideds.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

GORE-LIE-ITH has been slain.

-- me (me@mine.com), October 18, 2000.

In turn, each candidate would walk the stage while answering their questions and then return to their seats while their opponent spoke. However, at one point while Bush was speaking, Gore stood up and walked over to Bush almost as though he was going to take a swing at him. What the hell was THAT all about? I loved watching Bush's reaction though. Anyone else catch that?

This, of course, begs the question: Who wins in a fistfight; Bush or Gore?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.

I have to agree with you Carlos.

To me the choice between the two of them is pretty clear. Much bigger government deciding what is best for you vs only slightly bigger government deciding what is best for you, jump through hoops and hire an accountant to find out which of the new tax laws applies to you in order to get tax relief vs everyone gets tax relief. I would probably vote for Bush if I didn't have such a deep aversion to the Republican religious right. The idea of having a Republican congress and a Republic President scares me more than just a little, a theocracy is not my idea of a free society. Of course, Gore scares me too, I am not so enamored of a bureaucrat's vision of society either. What's a guy to do?

This guy will 'waste' a vote on Harry Browne, and sleep well because of it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

Bush would kill GORE-LIE-ITH in a fist fight too

-- me (me@mine.com), October 18, 2000.

Gore said tonight that all of his gun proposals are concerned soley with gun safety, like this red herring issue of cheap guns. Yet on his on website, he states in his anti-crime proposals that he wants gun manufacturers and dealers to report gun sales to government authorities for the sole purpose of gun tracking.

That is gun registration, clear and simple, and has nothing to do with gun safety. It has all to do with whether government trusts us. And it's clear that Gore would operate a suspicious government. That appplies across the board, from guns to our own tax dollars.

If government can't trust me "right out of the bag" then why should I trust it? This issue will be overlooked in the remaining weeks but it's fundamental in my view and is what secretly drives people to support the concept of a limited federal g

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), October 18, 2000.

Yeah CD, I caught that. A look of "What the hell are you doing?" came over Bush's face, lol.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

Unk,

The religious right is a media straw dog. (apoligies to Desert Dog). The vision of uniformed soldiers for Christ marching to to the polls in lockstep is a myth. Don't trust me. Check around your town. You'll find them but they will be few.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

The Clinton-Gore administration has eliminated 300,000 government jobs, reducing the size of government to the smallest it has been since Kennedy. Why do Shrub and his fans keep lying, saying that he is in favor of bigger government?

-- (get@it.straight), October 18, 2000.

How many of those jobs were military?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

Sure Carlos. And Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and Jerry Falwell were all just a bad dream, right?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

OK, let's be honest. Of the 300,000 federal jobs lost under the Clinton-Gore Administration, about 200,000 were in the military. There have been more bases closed in the last 8 years than the 8 years after WWII. Clinton and Gore have reduced the federal government at the expense of our national security.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

Unk:

I never watched them. Did you? Anybody you know that does?

My point is that they're our version of Hamas. Noisy but not poll pushers such that it would matter. But then, I live in California.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

Bush dissolved, Gore mopped up.

-- Shrubby Is Stupid (awfully@dumb.com), October 18, 2000.

awfully@dumb.com

Could possibly have picked a better addy for you. Congrats!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

"Clinton and Gore have reduced the federal government at the expense of our national security."

Not true. The Gulf War and the Kosovo War were examples of how our more technologically sophisticated weapons can do a far better job with a lot less manpower required. Stealth fighters, laser guided missiles, etc. allow us to win wars with a fraction of the personnel required only 10 years ago. We DON'T NEED more soldiers. Fighting on the ground is primitive, unnecessarily risking lives. Wake up, this is the year 2000.

-- (who@needs.grunts), October 18, 2000.

Stupid, tech worship point of view. The guy on the ground, the lady in the ship will fight (scare ya?) our battles for a long time. Your kids and mine.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

Stupid, prehistoric gung-ho patriot worship point of view.

This plane will deliver a nuke to your neighborhood and fry 20 million of your dumb patriotic kids and ladies. It takes 2 men to fly it. Wake up and smell the napalm.

-- (machines@not.men), October 18, 2000.

get@it.straight,

Why do Shrub and his fans keep lying,(about Gore) saying that he is in favor of bigger government?

You must be listening to a different Gore. The one I heard responded to the questions posed to him with answers about what more the government will do, what more the government will regulate, and what more the government will spend to provide solutions to the question. I did not hear him say "That should be left to the people" once. This hardly strikes me as a guy NOT in favor of bigger government.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

To the military mental midget above,

So, we should fight all wars with nukes huh? Moron.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

Hey dumbass, we should not fight wars at all. That is the whole reason we have the best technology. It is a DETERRENT, genius. Duuuuuuh.

-- (uncle@brain.dead), October 18, 2000.

Bush lacked the wits, the energy, or just the plain common decency to arise from his chair and stand while he made his final appeal to American voters, choosing instead to remain slumped in his chair.

This is presidential material?

-- Dubya's Dumber than Ever (duby@'s.disgusting), October 18, 2000.

I heard an analysis this morning, "Gore was like his father, in the 50's... I'll fight for you. While Bush represents today's thinking." Gore was so overbearing, I couldn't stand it. Bush didn't have any quick comebacks but I go for his style of gov, not Gore's.

Not true. The Gulf War and the Kosovo War were examples of how our more technologically sophisticated weapons can do a far better job with a lot less manpower required. Stealth fighters, laser guided missiles, etc. allow us to win wars with a fraction of the personnel required only 10 years ago. We DON'T NEED more soldiers. Fighting on the ground is primitive, unnecessarily risking lives. Please, Clinton spent more military resources than any other prez. Weapons cost money. And guess what, when you use them abroad (Clinton had more deployments than any other prez), you lose them. You can't use them again. It costs money to have deployments. Further, people have left the military in droves since Clinton took office. Yes we do need soldiers, they are the first arm of defense. You think we should escalate to nukes right away? LOL. Yes we have a good military but not the best "in the history" according to Gore.

I wish Bush jumped on Gore's "are you better off" thing. Gore had zippo to do with it. Balanced budget came after repub took congress. Clinton signed the most agressive welfare reform than any other prez and it looks like Gore will bring it back, big time.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 18, 2000.

DumberThanEver;

you said "Bush lacked the wits, the energy, or just the plain common decency to arise from his chair and stand while he made his final appeal to American voters, choosing instead to remain slumped in his chair. "

I thought he looked quite comfortable sitting there giving his closing speech. He was talking more to the American People watching than the crowd he was in front of.

I thought Bush came off as likeable, funny and down to earth. Gore came off as agressive, pushy and stubborn.

And what was with Algore running up to Lehr saying "It's My Turn"?

I don't know who I'm voting for, but I know it is not Gore.

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), October 18, 2000.

Carlos, no offense taken...

I personally gringe when I hear Gore speaking. I find him physically and mentally offensive. I can't tell you why, and I don't quite understand it myself. He just gets under my skin. He also scares me with his "the federal government will do this for you..." line of stuff. What if I DON'T want the fed to do this and that for me?

I do appreciate GW's line along letting me CHOOSE what I want done, and let me assume some of my own responsibility. I am disappointed he didn't clarify on what he plans to do with the so-called "surplus", if it even exists (it probably doesn't).

It is interesting to note how little algore spoke on gun control though... That man is out to disarm this society, I can just feel it.

Yeah, to me GW is definitely the "lesser evil". But then that is MY opinion...

"Baalzebub/Asmodeus in 2000... why settle for the lesser evil"

growlin' at the TV...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.

Gore looked like a true champion. He was in attack mode, totally in command, and he was relentless. It was like watching a boxing match, and he had Bush reeling back on his heels, and cowering in his corner of the ring.

I couldn't help but LMAO when Bush went and sat down at his desk and started pouting that Gore wasn't playing by the rules. It was like watching a 5 year old boy in school crying to the teacher.. "but, but, but, he's not playing fair... bwaaaa bwaaa". lol

Gore knew exactly what he was doing. Bush spent most of the evening in shock at how aggressive Gore was. What was Lehrer going to do, disqualify him from the match? The public would have LOVED it! It's a dog-eat-dog world, and fighters always win.

-- (gore.kicked@shrubs.ass), October 18, 2000.

A champion? Young people are turned off because of the failure of campaign finance reform? If that's the case, then Gore's long been part of the problem, not part of the solution

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), October 18, 2000.

Sounds like the lil' Gore lover dude would blow him if allowed...

YIKES!!!

Gore has proven time and time again he is definitely from Tennessee..

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), October 18, 2000.

Careful Deano. capnfun's from Tennessee.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 18, 2000.

No offense intended. It's more of a football related jab. Wife's a Gator (U of F), I'm a Seminole (FSU) and we're both Jaguars. Not a whole lotta love for the state of Tennessee in our home.......

I still wonder how many Uncle Daddies are there though.......:-)

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), October 18, 2000.

"Gore looked like a true champion. He was in attack mode, totally in command, and he was relentless. It was like watching a boxing match, and he had Bush reeling back on his heels, and cowering in his corner of the ring."

I agree. I'd rather elect a fighter than a whiner and a slumper. Bush couldn't even stand up when he asked for our votes.

-- Shrubby's ConfusedSad (bush@sadcase.com), October 18, 2000.

Al Gore Wins the Pennant by Michael Crowley New Republic

Astonishingly, in St. Louis tonight Al Gore found a way to balance on the head of a pin. Confident, comfortable, and articulate, Gore found that ultra-narrow middle ground between his overbearing performance in the first debate and his strangely sedate pose in the second. As the most astute observers had predicted, Gore flourished in the town hall format. He was no gentle empath like Bill Clinton, but he seemed to own the stage completely. The way Gore smoothly and athletically strode back and forth all night reminded me of an especially good motivational speaker (that's a compliment). Gore also struck the right balance when listening to Bush's responses. I caught one egregious sigh. But overall the harrumphs and arched eyebrows were gone. Gore looked as neutral and utterly placid as John Hagelin.

Bush was a strange contrast. He hit false notes all night, laughing too hard at some moments, seeming churlish at others. More importantly, many of his answers were disastrous, time-wasting rambles. His explanations of Medicare reform were brutally muddled. He seemed chastened and embarrassed by a question about whether he was too proud of Texas's rate of executions. Bush did succeed in conveying his core message that he "trusts people, not the government," and perhaps if that's all voters care to hear then there's no hope for Gore. But I don't think so. And on several specific issues, Gore demolished Bush time and again. Perhaps the lowest moment for Bush came after a question on affirmative action, which left him sounding like a student giving a report on a book he hadn't read. Gore responded with an eloquent explanation of the way affirmative action seeks is meant to "acknowledge the history of discrimination and prejudice and injustice" felt by minorities. He seemed sincere, honest, and smart where Bush had been vague and evasive. With Gore grilling him on his foggy answer, a panicky Bush finally had to appeal to moderator Jim Lehrer to bail him out.

I also gave Gore the advantage on health care, education, tax cuts, and Social Security--thanks to the fact that he finally pointed out that Bush has not explained how he'll keep the system afloat under his proposed plan. (Gore's "Show me the money" line may have been corny, but it's sure to figure prominently--and successfully--in news coverage of the debates.) Gore also seems to have at least partly followed my advice to underscore Bush's shaky foreign policy credentials, detailing his expertise in arms control and national security issues and artfully invoking his service in Vietnam along the way. (Too bad there were no close-up of Bush's face when Gore slyly noted, "There were plenty of fancy ways of getting out of that.")

And while Bush, apparently aiming to sit on his small lead, stuck to familiar themes, Gore struck some important new notes that should blunt Bush's alarming momentum as the race enters its final days. At last he responded to Bush's charge that the Clinton administration's legacy consists of broken promises and squandered opportunities by bragging about balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt. As he raced through a litany of statistics about surpluses, crime rates, job creation and low unemployment, I had a sense of dij` vu. It was the same sensation I had during the Democratic primary debates, when Gore pummeled Bill Bradley with the same irrefutable facts, and it became clear that poor Bradley was a goner. Throw in Gore's deft closing statement with its "keep the faith" refrain, and Bush, though hardly a goner, may find he won't be coasting across the finish line after all.

-- Dubya's Dumb (and@scary.com), October 18, 2000.

For anyone with an open eye and ear, Al Gore revealed himself to be an intelligent, thorough and confident figure who one could imagine -- without much difficulty -- mastering the Oval Office. And George W. Bush revealed himself to be a shambling, evasive babbler. Now it's evident that there are a substantial number of Americans, especially in the contested states, who want their president stupid. If there are enough of those people, then Bush won this debate by losing it, by demonstrating his hapless incompetence and almost daffy incapacity. If the majority of the American public is unstampeded by the argument that this empty-headed jokester is a "uniter and not a divider," then they will see that Al Gore is up to the task of governing, and W. should return to running ball teams, especially with public subsidy.

I'm aghast at the shallowness and sheer incompetence of the man. I was trying to figure out how he could have been so dopey, and I'm wondering if he got some disturbing news or a punch in the head before the debate, because he struck me as surprisingly feeble and diminished. He couldn't budge from his script, and he seemed like a drugged Stepford husband.

That this man could be close to the presidency is appalling beyond words. How any serious person could find him persuasive is beyond me. I think the mindless repetition of Republican pieties is what he has to offer. And if there are enough Republicans out there who think intoning "tax and spend, tax and spend" is the answer to the problems of the modern world, then Bush wins. And God help us all.

-- Todd Gitlin (todgitline@gtlin.com), October 18, 2000.

And if there are enough Republicans out there who think intoning "tax and spend, tax and spend" is the answer to the problems of the modern world, then Bush wins. Huh?

Todd, you emphasize the party dress each candidate wears. Yeah, Gore has a better command of the language and he should. He was a journalist for Pete's sake. But I look a little deeper to the issues. Gore's idea of gov makes my stomach churn. Clinton was tolerable only because he moved to the right. Gore won't do that. I think (given his history), he'll move completely to the left. That would be bad for our country, IMHO. Did you read his book? Reports indicate that he wants to tax gas making it very expensive to use combustible engines. I shudder to think where we'll be in four years with Gore in office.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 18, 2000.

Todd--

Is glibness your most important criterion? Somehow, I suspect that that you would be for Gore even if he articulated like Bush and Bush articulated like Gore. It's not the man so much as the ideology, right?

And guess what? If the "incompetant" Bush does win, the world will not end. Likewise if Gore wins, the world will not end.

BTW, we can use God's help no matter who wins.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 18, 2000.

Thought you might like a little foreign perspective on this Gore-Bush thang.

I watched last night's debate, but did not take in the other 2. From where I sat (in a comfy wing chair in my living room) Gore beat the metaphorical snot outta Dubya. He was so obviously in command of his brief (as opposed to his boss who, famously, has had trouble with his briefs) that he made Bush look like a rookie, which is kinda what he is.

One of the comments made above in this thread was that it is better to have a "fighter" in the top job. That really resonated with me; screw affability, if I were a Sceptic Tank I'd want someone in the job who's got the brains and the aggressiveness to do what needs to be done. So what if Gore is pompous and overbearing - he ain't running for Miss Congenialty. [Warning: foreigner about to make a comment about America] To outsiders, Americans seem to expect their president to be some combination of Mother Theresa and Jimmy Stewart. No wonder many capable people decide not to seek your nation's highest office.

But then again, I'm just a Canuck who's taken one too many pucks to the head........

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.

By the way, the post made by "Todd Gitlin" is really an extract from a Salon.com article.

See http://salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/18/reacts/index.html

Gitlin, incidentally, is a "professor of culture, journalism and sociology at New York University" and, to my mind, one of the better commentators from the liberal side of the spectrum.

-- Johnny Cancuk (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.

Johnny:

I hear a lot from family overseas, and they're both scared [and amused] that Bush even made it this far.

I still haven't completely watched last night's debate. I finally got up the nerve to suggest that SO watch the ballgame in another room last night so I could put on the video he'd taped while I was at class, but it was so late that shortly thereafter I was awakened and sent to bed. I'd intended to watch it after class this morning, but repairmen were all over the frontroom fixing the alarm system in the windows. They're gone now, and the suspense is killing me. I'd better go do that now before another class tonight.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.

Geez...I'd only missed the last 15 minutes, but it's REALLY funny to watch the debates on fast-forward.

Um...who won. Of course I think Gore won. I didn't find him pompous at all. [I DID catch the look on W's face when Gore walked up to him, CD. It WAS precious, and NO, I DON'T know what that was all about. Perhaps an intimidation?]

Smarty: I think it's more important to be a politician when dealing with foreign governments than a home-cooked imbecile. IMO, Gore knows when to keep his mouth shut and when to open it. I don't think W. has learned that lesson yet. I also think it's important to be able to address foreign diplomats with a correct pronunciation of their names, and their heritage. I agreed completely with Lieberman that any vulnerabilities of the U.S. military should NOT be discussed on public T.V. in a debate [for all our enemies to hear.] I also think that W. made a major faux pas in mentioning the name of a foreign diplomat in a negative manner in one of the debates. Obviously, the diplomat did also. W. simply has too much to learn about foreign policy before he's ready to be a representative of ME. BTW, Where is Ms. Rice these days? Has anyone seen her? Rumors abound on her whereabouts and the circumstances surrounding same.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.

ore got into Harvard because his daddy was a US Senator. Bush got into Yale because he dad had gone there and was well connected too. But both of them stayed there because they made the grades. Neither one got all As and neither one would have stayed if they got all Ds and Fs. Ted Kennedy was kicked out of Harvard after he got caught cheating on a Spanish test. Being well connected only buys you so much.

Bush couldnt get into Law School in Texas but he did go to Harvard and get an MBA. Gore is considered a wonk, but in Washington DC. Would he really be a wonk at MIT? I dont think so.

DDE wasnt considered to be to bright by the press and occasionally garbled his syntax but somehow before he became President he managed to get Churchill, DeGaule, Patton, and Montgomery all to work together. He wasnt ever as dumb as the press made him out to be. You cant be and do what he did.

Bush isnt as dumb as he has been made out to be and Gore isnt as smart as he is made out to be.

The thing that troubles me about Gore is Im not sure he knows the difference between knowing ABOUT something and knowing something. People who think they know all the answers dont realize they dont know all the questions.

Bush knows the difference (as did RR) even if its probably instinctive and not thought out.

The thing that troubles me about him is does he know enough ABOUT something to make an informed and intelligent choice and not just totally rely on instinct. You cant always rely on your gut instinct or how you feel about something.

Whatever the choice I think the next four years will be more interesting then you want.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), October 18, 2000.

"Lol@lack.charisma": You're right I didn't watch the debate, I was neck deep in techie stuff trying to get my new DSL line to work properly until 3 AM. I personaly don't think Bush has the charisma, I'm just repeating what the pundits on tv say people in general think of him. I much prefer a nerd to an idiot as president. Although I don't think Bush is idiot, but not as smart as Gore. Both are lacking a lot for my ideal president, but then I didn't like Clinton either. I got used to him and now I don't want to see him leave. It's a tough job and nobody's perfect.

Dog; I feel the same way about Bush as you do Gore. I can't explain it good either. I understand your feelings on this matter at least ;) Even though I can't stand Gore's lisp and some manerism, he doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. (Bush gives me the willies like a fast dealing used car salesman with a pervert bent would make me feel, that's the best I can describe it.)

Carlos; the top domestic issues for me are the budget/economy, education, pro-choice and death penalty (I'm against it). Bush's record does not convince me he would represent me better than Gore. On the contrary.

Anita; you made good points about Bush and his international competence. Viewed in this light I'd agree with you.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 18, 2000.

A lot of people analyze Gore's changing performances in each of the debates, but I haven't seen as much discussion about Bush. Many said he was the same in all three debates, but I can't see how anyone could say that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but I had to admit that he held his own in the second debate. He was clear, straight to the point, and sounded like he knew his stuff. Most of his foreign policy seemed to simply compliment most of the decisions made in the previous administration, but it seemed to me that he at least knew what they were and could talk about them. I still prefer Gore, but after the second debate, I had decided that a Bush presidency wouldn't really be all that bad. Besides, if he actually got that tax cut through, which I highly doubt, I'd get some money back to boot.

Last night's debate featured a very different Bush. He seemed catatonic, almost depressed. He had his moments, like when he got fired up over targeted tax cuts and accountability in education. Most of the time, though, he just seemed like he didn't even want to be in the room. What happened? What the heck did his strategists tell him? All they had to say was "Do what you did last time." Why didn't they do that? Supposedly, the strategy was to play it safe, so why not use the strategy that most people said won him the second debate? Instead of coming out with determination and confidence as he did in Debate 2, he sounded more like a wounded dog.

Due to the second debate, I know that there exists a confident, self-assured Bush. I just hope that if Bush gets elected, we don't end up with sleepy Prozac Bush.

And why doesn't he just answer the questions Gore put to him in the debate? Yes, Gore broke the rules and he's a bad boy and should be punished, but why won't Bush just answer them? The trillion dollar discrepancy in his Social Security reform is disconcerting, to say the least. But even more alarming is his refusal to simply answer questions about his support for bills in Congress or laws on the books. Does he support affirmative action or not? Does he know what it is? Does he support Dingell-Norwood or not? Does he support McCain-Feingold or not?

The latter two aren't even hard questions, or even questions that would cost him any votes. He doesn't have to support either bill. But why won't he just come out and say so and say why he doesn't like them? Why doesn't he say, "No, I don't support Dingell-Norwood because there are problems with it. And here they are. . ." Perhaps he doesn't know about that bill, but if so, then he's unprepared.

There's no excuse regarding McCain-Feingold, however. Gore has harped on that bill for ages in his campaign. Bush doesn't seem to support it. Why? Does it go too far? Not far enough? Is it too difficult or expensive to enforce or what?

All Bush says is that he supports reform in a more generic sense but says nothing pro or con about these bills in Congress which are directly related to his reforms. I don't know who the idiot strategist is who is suggesting that he continue to ignore these questions but I think the strategist should be fired.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 18, 2000.

It's over.

Gallup has Bush up by 10 points, 49-39. USAToday of course says this measure does not reflect results from the last deabte, but it's been two days. If this poll incorporates results from October 18 polling, as it does, then there's no doubt the last debate is starting to be taken into account. The numbers are moving towards Bush in spite of Gore's perceived win.

What does this mean? It means the race was over many many months ago when Gore stood next to Clinton and said history will record Billy as one of the country's greatest presidents.

Clinton was looking for a legacy and now he's got it. Confirmation comes Nov. 7 when an ordinary candidate from Texas takes over because he's everything Clinton is not.

The future never looked s

-- Buster Collins (Hiway441@aol.com), October 19, 2000.

It all depends on which poll you look at.

Gore, Bush Again Deadlocked

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 20, 2000.

Gore moves one point in one poll after his "win" Tuesday night. If that was a decided victory for Gore, the polls are pointing the other way. Granted, the USAToday-Gallup-Poll is almost as volitale as Newsweek's, but the numbers are going away from Gore, not toward him. Even today, with two days of post-deabte polling, USAToday-Gallup has Bush up by this, but at this point with 50% of the vote.

Read what you want, but the underlying fundamentals have favored Gore's Republican opponent for some time.

-- Buster (Hiway441@aol.com), October 20, 2000.

Bush wins by 99 electoral votes. That is my prediction.

-- Buster Collins (Hiway441@aol.com), October 24, 2000.