Commentary: Who won, who lost and who cares?
The experts have already expressed their views on last Tuesday's first of three presidential debates. The problem is, most of these "experts" haven't changed their biased political positions much, and the content and theatrics of the debate are n...
The experts have already expressed their views on last Tuesday's first of three presidential debates. The problem is, most of these "experts" haven't changed their biased political positions much, and the content and theatrics of the debate are now being carefully colored and structured to fit individual interpretations.
No matter what was said Tuesday evening, and 75 million people had a chance to hear the candidates weigh in on a number of issues if they listened carefully, the pundits and editorial writers and commentators will have little effect on round one of the debate process.
What wasn't really discussed is the total involvement of a governmental machine that is begging for change. Both Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush are in the spotlight, but the impact of a ruling government surrounds more than the executive branch; it also encompasses the legislative and the judicial branches. No doubt this reality will come out during the next two debates.
What seemed to be lacking the most in the 90-minute debate was a decorum that should have been the centerpiece of the agenda. Al Gore, in our opinion, was the biggest offender, because of his facial expressions and unending attempts to intercede in the time allocated to his opponent Bush. There were times when I wanted to shout out, "Shut up, Al. Let the man speak!"
Al always had the final word outside of the time and procedural allocations set up at the beginning of the debate. Bush, likewise, fidgeted, looked out into the audience as if he wasn't listening, and that, too, was disruptive in my judgment.
Perhaps the second biggest disappointment I experienced was the bantering around of trillion dollar figures that only confused the intent of the issue. Gore is good at that, but his defensive mannerisms didnot come across very well. By the same token Bush, too, needs to be more definitive in his approach to issues affecting Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, prescription drugs and the ever-growing surplus.
What really tugged at me was the "class warfare" approach Gore has been using in his effort to discredit entrepreneurship as a thing of evil. Gore doesn't believe those who pay high taxes are entitled to a tax refund. He has rather attempted to play on the emotions of what he calls the "middle class" as deserving of tax refunds, but not those who have created and moved along a booming American economy because of skill, perseverance and the prospects of making money in this effort.
What's wrong with making money? Herein lies, perhaps, the biggest difference in the two candidates. Gore wants more federal government to rule our lives; Bush wants the economic leadership to stay in the hands of the people. Gore wants more dependency on the federal government; Bush does not, and it is as simple as that.
Gore has a tendency to stretch the truth just a little. What bothers me is most Americans are so used to "white lies" coming out of the White House, it seems to be second nature. Not true. Honesty, integrity, true leadership and compassion are ingredients I am looking for. How about you?