After all the finger pointing, power ties, and hemming and hawing, the only thing to emerge from the debate was the extraordinary similarity of these two candidates.
Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS’ Jim Lehrer News Hour started the candidates down the mutual admiration track. Rather than pointing out honest foreign policy differences, both Vice President Al Gore and Governor George Bush were content to trip over each other in a frenzied effort to agree with the other guy.
“I (big pause) agree with the (bigger pause) governor,” said Gore, time and again.
“I think the administration did the right thing,” said Bush, about half as often.
After 42 minutes of the most tedious foreign policy chatter (which the American people neither understand nor appreciate), all the informed viewer learned is that the candidates positions are nearly indistinguishable.
Lehrer’s foreign policy multiple-choice was a real doozie: “Should we have gone into these places? Lebanon?”
“Yes,” the candidate would reply.
“Haiti?”
“No.”
“Bosnia?”
“Yes.”
Because of Lehrer’s appalling lack of curiosity, the candidates felt no need to explain why they thought the foreign troop commitments were justified or not. A simple yea or nay was all that was required of them. Gore and Bush could have faxed their answers in and we would have learned as much.
When the debate finally meandered into the domestic policy arena the results were no more enlightening. When Gore raised the issue of hate crime legislation, a testy Bush shot back that in Texas those convicted suffer “the ultimate penalty.” With a sort of mad glee, smiling from ear-to-ear he crowed, “You can’t enhance the penalty anymore.” Though that kind of hang ‘em high swagger might play well in Texas, one wonders what all those Catholic swing-voting soccer moms in the Northeast were thinking at that moment.
Moral issues have not made much of a splash at any of these presidential debates. When the abortion pill came up during the first meeting, Gore used it as an occasion to swear his fidelity to Rowe vs. Wade. Bush ducked the issue using the well-worn Clinton line: “abortion should be rare.” The governor then said he would review the FDA decision to allow the drug into the US market, but refused to promise to sign a bill outlawing the drug.
So when the issue of gay marriage was broached, the expected response was equivocation. But Bush asserted that he was “against gay marriage” right off the bat. “I agree with that,” breezed the Vice President (as his gay supporters went into fits), but I would support some sort of “civil union.” Now what does that mean? You’re either for or against gay marriage. The Vice President seems to be in favor of civil gay marriage, but not religious gay marriage. Of course all of this depends on what “favor” means. Perhaps someone should ask the President.
In truth, both candidates have engineered their debate performances in such a way that whatever comes out of their mouths no longer has any real meaning. Every position, every turn of phrase has been so poll-tested and finessed by handlers that the only trace of spontaneity lies not in what is said, but in the reaction to what is said. Thus in the first debate when Al Gore was panting like a philly in the home stretch at every other point the Governor made, we could be certain we were seeing the real Al Gore. The problem for Gore this time out was that his handlers told him people don’t like that Al Gore. So, for this debate, he was to play Nice Al Gore. And apparently he tried.
Sporting a baby blue tie and trying to contain his seething anger at having to share a platform with Bush, Gore gamely tried to put on his best face. But the laid back Texas swagger of Mr. Bush had clearly taken its toll on Gore by the end of the debate. His frustration at not being able to attack his Republican rival for fear of offending voters was obviously eating him alive.
He finally went on the attack, taking potshots at Bush’s record in Texas, particularly the number of uninsured children in the state. Gore rattled off figures and statistics that would make a Census official dizzy. Like a chicken that had just swallowed a persimmon, the Texas Governor just sat there, lips pressed together, frantically trying to think of some way to justify his low marks. Every time they went to a wide shot, there was Bush, shell shocked and half-stunned. Unable to muster a factual defense, he took a page out of the Clinton handbook and went emotional, charging Gore with judging his heart. Huh?
Gore had his own embarrassing moment late in the night when the question of his innumerable lies, now more charitably referred to as his “chronic embellishments,” came up. Bush took the high road urging the voters to decide for themselves if truth was an important quality in a president. Gore’s response: “I got some (pause) of the details wrong (double pause) but I’m going to try to do better.” Does that mean he’s a recovering (pause) liar? Only time will tell. Jim Lehrer was clearly not interested in going there.
As we await the final debate we are left with a situation wherein the next president will be chosen not for his policies, convictions, or principals, but rather on the merits of his sighs, niceness, and ability to relax. This is no way to choose a president. At least we didn’t have to hear about “fuzzy numbers” and “lockboxes” this go-around. But there’s always next week.
