 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Sign up for BellerBytes, the official (and private) Bryan Beller e-newsletter. Just click here to sign up. Do it, OK? | |||||||||
|
So, who won the first Presidential debate? When evaluating an especially important football game—say, the Super Bowl—the concept of “expert analysis” in print often means breaking down the game into sections, comparing strengths and weaknesses in those sections, declaring one side to be superior to the other in those sections, and adding up the tally for a final pick. Perfectly logical, right? Well, sometimes the tally is right and sometimes it’s wrong. That’s why they (cliché alert!) play the game. Economy/The
Surplus. Al Gore went on the attack early and effectively, as
expected. Armed with myriad statistics about George W. Bush’s
$1.7 trillion tax cut, he argued—over and over again—that
nearly 50% of the Bush tax cut went to the richest 1% of all Americans,
and that this tax cut cost more than Bush’s allotted spending
on defense, health care, education and about 86 other things combined.
Bush’s response was to take a snapshot of the bigger picture
(he seemed to shy away from the hard numbers), saying that Gore’s
supposed tax cut for the middle class was so overly “targeted”
that you’d need a new federal building just to house the IRS
agents necessary to implement it. “Bigger government!” Bush
railed. Gore stubbornly stuck to his guns, repeating the “richest
1%” line about twenty times, until Bush walked into the trap
of saying that those rich Americans’ total tax dollars paid would
still increase under his plan. Of course it would—they’d
keep more money and their money would make more money if invested
correctly, thereby increasing their tax dollars contributed, but that
doesn’t change the fact that in the overall surplus pie, they’d
get a disproportionate slice. Gore also got to play the unusual Democratic
role of Conservative Budget Man by emphasizing debt reduction, a card
Bush was incapable of playing by virtue of his own plan. The
environment. This basically came down to a clear and honest disagreement
on oil exploration drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
in Alaska, currently a federally protected land. Both Gore and Bush
agreed on the need to cut foreign dependence on crude oil, but their
methodology differed. Gore had the easier position to argue—he
got to play environmental saint by saying no to drilling in Alaska,
he proclaimed long-standing positions on funding for research on alternative
fuel sources, and he put Bush in the position of having to defend
an unpopular industry—the dread Big Oil. Gore knew that Bush,
a former oilman like his father, would be in a fix the second the
issue came up. But W showed remarkable dexterity on the issue, smartly
tied our reluctance to drill domestically to our continued purchase
of oil from Saddam Hussein, and made no apologies for the average
American consumer’s preference for cheap and plentiful oil at
some environmental cost. Basically he told Gore that the market demanded
cheap oil, and that if drilling in Alaska would help keep the price
low in the short and medium term, he’d bet that Americans would
approve it. If only Bush was that insightful when he owned his own
oil company, Arbusto, back in the 80’s. (Some not-so-well-wishers
called Bush’s firm “Ar-bust-o.”) Health
Care. Gore lived up to his name, picking Bush’s plan to pieces
while effectively championing his own. Gore would expand Medicare
to include this year’s Uber-topic, a prescription drug benefit
for seniors (Medicare would pay 50% of most drugs, and nearly all
of the frightfully expensive ones). Gore’s attack on the Bush
plan centered on his statement that most seniors would have to wait
2-5 years for their drug benefit to kick in, and then it wouldn’t
come from Medicare—it would come from Dread Industry #2, the
HMO’s. Moderator Jim Lehrer kept waiting—and even inviting—Bush
to disprove Gore on a factual basis, but all he offered in return
was disdain for Gore’s “Medi-scare” tactics. Then he
said his plan did cover prescription drugs for seniors and offered
scant details. Gore retorted that seniors with incomes of over $25,000.
a year would have to wait five years for any coverage at all. Bush
never rebutted the charge, and it hung out there like stinky cheese
for at least ten minutes. Education.
As compared to other topics, Bush’s performance on the issue
of education was jaw-droppingly thorough and lucid. He detailed how
he dealt with reform schools in Texas and brought bipartisan change
to the state. He tied federal funding for education (a paltry 6% of
a state’s overall education budget, Lehrer nimbly pointed out)
to achievement in mandatory testing all throughout K-12. He made a
strong case for a tough position, diverting federal funds away from
public schools that fail to comply to new national standards. Gore
responded by telling a story about a classroom in Florida that didn’t
have a desk for its 36th student and implying that more money was
necessary for public schools, not less in the form of diversion, and
it resonated until he let loose a line about “voluntary”
testing for students at higher grade levels. Bush shredded it—what
test do you know of from high school that was voluntary? If it was
voluntary and you didn’t know the answers, would you take it?
Suddenly Gore seemed like a pawn of the teacher’s unions. One
can only wonder how formidable a candidate Bush could be if he commanded
knowledge in other areas as well as he did in this one. Foreign
Policy. And here’s a case in point—Bush was just painful
to watch when Lehrer asked him when he thought the use of American
force might be justified. W stuttered through a stock reading of the
Powell Doctrine (when our interests are threatened, when we have a
clear exit strategy, etc.) as if he was reciting prose in a foreign
language he was still learning. Gore, on the other hand, offered a
clear and thoughtful dissertation on the situation in Serbia/Yugoslavia
and what leverage America could use and not use to force Milosevic
to accept the results of his recent defeat at the polls. Bush followed
up with a rationale for Russia’s involvement—“they
have some sway in that part of the world, the Balkans”—and
Gore pointed out that the Russians held a different position than
the U.S. on the proper course of action for a possible Yugoslavian
runoff election. W’s response: “I wouldn’t ask the
Russians to help if they didn’t agree with us.” Gore: “Well,
they don’t.” Ouch. Abortion.
Another tough issue for Bush, one he’s been carefully tightwalking
all year. Bush is in the unenviable position of being pro-life in
theory (to mollify the religious right), but proclaiming to be benign
in that belief (to keep the small percentage of women he has from
bolting to Gore). On the approval of RU-486, he lamented its passing
FDA muster but said he wouldn’t review it if elected, meekly
stating that “I don’t think the president can do that.”
Bush spoke of a culture that should “respect life,” but
then he followed with claiming not to have a litmus test for appointing
Supreme Court justices, FDA officials, or any federally assigned post.
Gore came down squarely on the pro-choice side, saying that he strongly
believed in Roe vs. Wade and would appoint justices that agreed with
him. Gore sealed the deal with a bit of jujitsu, stealing Bush’s
economic line by saying that while he trusted women to do what they
believed was right with their own bodies, Bush “trusted the government”
to do the same. Bush looked like he was running away from his own
position several times, but his dilemma on this is so multi-faceted
and potentially poll-threatening that perhaps not even Bill Clinton
could have talked his way out of it. Campaign
Finance Reform. The specter of John McCain hung heavily over the
hall as Jim Lehrer spoke of the Arizona Senator’s desire to spill
“blood on the floor” of Congress until the McCain-Feingold
reform bill was passed. Gore got to play Mr. Bipartisan by endorsing
the Republican McCain’s position and saying it would be the first
bill he’d sign as President, but was predictably embarrassed
when Bush ever-so-slightly brought up Gore’s own shortcomings
as a messenger on the topic (Buddhist Temples, fundraising scandals,
Attorney General Reno, etc.). Gore poorly feigned indignation at Bush’s
attack on his character and proclaimed that he wouldn’t do the
same to Bush, but that rang hollow in light of the numerous attacks
Gore made on Bush’s positions throughout the night. Then Gore
pulled a Gore—he mentioned that he supported “full government
funding of political campaigns” back in 1974. Bush was already
backed into a corner by refusing to sign his fellow GOP’er McCain’s
bill, so why did Gore have to go over the top? Bush may get points
on the campaign trail out of that hoary, bureaucratic proposal. Truthfully,
neither of them looked good on this. Made you wonder what ol’
John Wayne McCain was thinking. Intangibles.
To try and define the undefinable, ask yourself this question—after
watching that debate, who would you rather have dinner with? Bush
continually stressed his desire for consensus, spoke in a plain, natural
voice (if stuttering at times), and avoided smirking altogether. Gore
sighed and huffed while Bush spoke, reverted to Gore the Grand Lecturer
mode, and interrupted Jim Lehrer so often that he looked like that
kid in class who’d lean over his desk with his hand raised going
“Oh! Oh! OH!! PICK ME!!” Also, Gore’s most annoying
trait—the “I did that before you did” thing—was
in full force and wasn’t pretty. Jim Lehrer asked a question
about how they’d both deal with the unexpected catastrophe while
in office. Bush talked about surveying sites of natural disasters
in Texas, about consoling families who’d lost everything in wildfires,
and praised Gore’s administration for FEMA’s quick emergency
response. Gore’s answer? He said he’d been to Texas with
FEMA’s Director at the time of the fires and knew just how good
his administration’s record was because FEMA’s reform was
part of his “Reinventing Government” initiative. Yuck.
So Gore won, right? Not exactly. Like in football, Gore was heavily favored and had to cover the spread, which in this case was sizable. I’d equate it to a ten-point spread going in. Remember, W is the guy who said that Greeks were “Grecians,” that “subliminal” was pronounced “subliminable,” that he knew how difficult it was to “put food on your family.” Gore, meanwhile, had left both Ross Perot and Jack Kemp in pieces after previous debates. Sure, Gore was Gore—tough, knowledgeable, effective, stubborn, a forceful advocate for his views. But Bush hung in there with him most of the time, and with the exception of foreign policy (a minor issue this year), he made his case in the face of withering attacks from a man considered to be the best political debater in the country. After weighing in the expectations factor, I would have to consider the ultimate result to be a push—or, in other words, a draw. Tie goes to the runner, right? And Bush is the “runner”—the challenger, right? Conventional wisdom would say so, but I disagree. Fundamentally, this is a very tough election for Bush to win. He’s run a very good (if not perfect) campaign, he’s holding his base firm while getting considerable moderate support, he’s got a great name, he’s a likable guy (a nice antidote to Gore), he’s mounted a comeback in the polls over recent weeks and the GOP is 120% behind him both politically and financially. But two major factors are working against Bush. One, the key issues in this election are Democratic issues—health care, social security, education (Bush’s strong showing in this category notwithstanding). Two, the economy is through the roof and the country is at peace. It’s really that simple. America hasn’t voted down an incumbent party during good economic times since Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 by an average of one vote per precinct. The race has always been Gore’s to lose, and unless the stock market crashes or he commits some kind of major gaffe between now and November, his razor-thin margin should hold. Given that Gore committed no such gaffe in the first debate, we have an exception to the rule: Tie goes to the fielder. |
|
TIE
GOES TO THE RUNNER?