MyDD :: Debate 2000 postscript

Debate 2000 postscript

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 12:37:03 PM EST

3 days until the first scheduled debate between Bush and Kerry, at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. Read over the 2000 debate between Bush and Gore. I said it before, Bush ripped Gore apart, mostly because he could lie about anything, and not have any accountability.

Between Bush and Kerry, I don't doubt that the immediate post-debate spin will have, at best, saying it was even, or more likely, that Bush beat Kerry. The whole idea of Bush being two-faced, and living in a fantasy land, will probably not take hold until the blogosphere yells it loud and clear, over all the debates. For the 2000 debates, the audience grew less as the debates progressed, that might be the opposite this time around.

One of the most interesting things I look for, is how the candidates address each other-- it's one of those guy things. In 2000, Gore simply said, Governor Bush, or the governor mostly. But did Bush refer to Gore as Vice President? Very rarely, and when he did, it was to backhand. Instead, here's what Bush used to refer to Gore:

we do come from different places
my opponent, my worthy opponent
his plan
the man, this is a man, this man
this is an administration
he should have been, he's not very right tonight, he spent, he claims, he just said
he'll put liberal activists justices
you've had your chance, Vice President.
as the vice president said, it's time for the man to go.

Killer instinct. And then, toward the end of the debate, we get this from the Vice President:

GORE: Look, Governor Bush, you have attacked my character and credibility and I am not going to respond in kind. I think we ought to focus on the problems and not attack each other.

Way to top off the retreat Al... and all the guys in the room just went, yea, Bush kicked your ass. That was Gore's 2000 problem.

But reading through that whole transcript, you just gasp at the "say one thing and do another" two-faced way that Bush has resided. It's couldn't be more obvious, like this:

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

I would like to see a list of what Bush said, from those 2000 debates, and what he did; but we all know the media's got his backside there, with the 9/11 changed everything opportunistic gimmick.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment

Sigh (none / 0)

I've spent the last three years yelling to anyone who would hear (mostly myself) that 9/11 didn't "change anything." 9/11 was the fruition of a plot that had been brewing for years. Rather than "change" anything, it confirmed what liberal internationalists had been saying for years: that global interdependence and the rise of transnational movements makes failed states anywhere a threat to US interests. Of course, this was the line Gore and Clinton took vis-a-vis "nation building." So how come the meme was never 9/11 proved Gore right and Bush wrong? Argh.

by dnexon on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 01:01:23 PM EST

BTW (none / 0)

The Daily Show as all over this some time ago in their "Bush vs. Bush" debate.

by dnexon on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 01:02:11 PM EST

Gore Lost The Debate Meme, Not The Debate (none / 0)

Polling showed (can't find it right now, saw on dailykos) that more people who watched the debates thought Gore won. But polling of those who didn't see the debates went for Bush winning. Thus we must control the post-debate spin as well as win the debates.

Rob

by Robwaldeck on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 01:57:09 PM EST

Re: Debate 2000 postscript (none / 0)

I hope I'm wrong, but Bush is likely to win the first debate, because:

As the candidates prepare for the first debate, Bush is undoubtedly being told simply to "be himself," while Kerry is probably being told "not" to be himself, which is to say a boring windbag.

[Harry Shearer is probably not too far off the mark in speculating that during his debate prep Kerry is receiving electric shocks every time he uses a complex sentence. (Click here for Harry Shearer's Le Show archive, but last night's show isn't there as of this posting.)]

It's hard for a candidate to come off as something he's not under the glare of live television. Remember the strange and different versions of Al Gore we saw in 2000's debates?

But let's say Bush doesn't fare so well in the debate itself. Many more voters learn about what happened in a debate from subsequent media coverage.

Unless Bush does something truly bizarre, you can bet that the right-wing media spin machine will be totally "on message" that Bush won the debate. First you have the President's own spinners, who are sure to be more cohesively on message than Kerry's spinners. Second, you have the conservative commentators and pundits who have a knack for closing ranks when it comes to beating up on liberals, who will farm out onto the networks and write their newspaper columns in what seems certain to be a chorus of rave reviews. And finally, you will have the Fox News and conservative radio outlets directly feeding the Bush spin to the masses. The Blue Line

by JFH on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 02:02:40 PM EST

Re: Debate 2000 postscript (none / 0)

I don't know that it's as bad as you think--maybe instead of telling Kerry not to be himself, they're teling him to be the prosecuter that he was. If that's what's happening it's an issue of Kerry gearing himself up differently than he does for a Senate hearing, but still relying on skills and attitudes that are all his own. Swaying a jury with your case and swaying the viewing public may not be that different.

by benchcoat on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 02:32:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My "Gore lost the debate theory" (5.00 / 1)

I think that it's because Gore never got the last word in.

In the three debates out of the combined 45 or so questions, Gore got the last word 6 times. There's ample evidence that when presented with two choices without enough knowledge to decide which is better, people will go with the one they hear second. And especially when Bush's answer sounded resolute and simple, they went with Bush's.

by niq on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 02:21:04 PM EST

A phrase that Bush must have focus-grouped (none / 0)

because he uses it so often is "my opponent and I have a difference of opinion,"

implies that facts, evidence, etc. don't matter. It's all "opinion." That gives listeners licence to simply choose whose opinion you like better. I don't have to look at the evidence, after all, I have a right to my "opinion."

<retch>

by plunkitt on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 02:56:19 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.