ballot box: Politics and policy.

Mostly Improved

Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2000, at 1:08 AM ET

This time Gore hardly agreed with Bush on anything. "We have a HUGE difference on this question," he said in response to Bush's explanation of his education plan, just as he did on such topics as the patient's bill of rights, prescription drugs for the elderly, tax cuts, Social Security, and affirmative action.

On several of these topics, Gore etched sharp distinctions, revealing significant differences that Bush tried to blur. On the patient's bill of rights, Gore hammered home his point that Bush supports a Republican bill backed by the insurance industry rather than the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill that would regulate HMOs more stringently. On affirmative action, Gore exposed Bush's dodge about supporting "affirmative access." When Gore pressed Bush further on his position, Bush appealed to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, for a lifeline, pointing out that Gore wasn't supposed to question him directly. When Gore charged Bush with spending $1 trillion of the Social Security surplus twice, Bush again floundered, accusing his opponent of trying to best him with a "high-school debating trick."

On these issues, Gore's gamble paid off. Bush looked worse for not having answers ready than the vice president did for being too aggressive. Gore managed to take these swipes in a tone that was closer to the one he displayed in the first debate than the second. He confronted Bush in a way that seemed pushy and even desperate at a few points, but which stayed just inside the bounds of tolerability just the same. Perhaps most important, it came across as an authentic performance. You might not like Gore, but he didn't seem to be trying to be something he's not--or not be something he is. On his third try, he finally got the debate thing more or less right.

Where Gore crossed the likability line, I thought, was in his smarminess toward the audience. Though barred by the negotiated rules from engaging in dialogue with the undecided voters who asked the questions, Gore oozed all over them nonetheless. "That is a GREAT question," he told a woman who asked whether part of the solution to the cost of prescription drugs might be in discouraging use of them. Of course, Gore never answered her great question or even engaged with the premise, choosing instead to retail all the wonderful bennies in his Medicare prescription drug plan. When a public-school teacher stood up, or a farmer, or a member of minority group, Gore responded with a tongue bath. This is something else that Gore never quite learned from Bill Clinton over the past eight years: You bond with ordinary people by taking them seriously and engaging with their concerns, not by flattering them. What seemed slightly off-key was Gore's attitude that every semi-articulate questioner had to be completely right about everything while his opponent was totally wrong about nearly everything.

If Gore's performance was significantly better, Bush's was shockingly better. The governor's improvement between the first and second debates was notable. But his improvement since the second debate was, if anything, even more striking. I'm not sure how to explain the change, but tonight Bush seemed not only to have some idea what he was talking about much of the time, but even to be at ease with his knowledge. Unlike last time, Bush wasn't desperate to squeeze in minor references to East Timor to show he'd studied. Through most of the debate, he sounded confident and assured. Early on he noted that his trust in the people rather than the federal government "will be one of the themes you hear tonight." And he really did make it into a theme rather than a drumming cliché. Bush also did a deft job working in his other big themes--that he is someone who can work across party lines to get things done and that Gore is for big government. Somehow all that cramming--invisible in the first debate, too visible in the second--finally worked the way it was supposed to.

Unlike Gore, Bush didn't pander to the audience. Toward the end of the debate, a black man asked him a hostile-sounding question about the fact that he seemed almost proud, in the last debate, that Texas leads the nation in executions. Bush disagreed vehemently, and described how hard he finds the decisions he has to make about whether to allow executions to proceed. Before long, Bush had the hostile questioner nodding in seeming agreement with him.

Bush did miss some big opportunities. When a woman who said she was middle class and single with no dependents asked how much of a tax cut she would get under either candidate's plan, Gore went first with a kitchen-sink answer. He told her she would qualify for matching contributions to a personal savings account and a tax credit for taking care of sick parents or help purchasing health insurance. The reason for Gore's reaching was obvious--without children, the woman doesn't qualify for much of a tax break under his plan. She would qualify for a break under Bush's plan. But rather than respond that the woman would pay a lower rate whatever her income, Bush gave an even more meandering response, saying that he would make her neighborhood safer and use the military judiciously to create a more peaceful world. Had she been allowed to respond, she might have said, "I asked about a tax cut." Bush was also at sea in responding to a question about how to help the family farmer, but bluffed his way out reasonably well.

Unlike the first two debates, I think this one lacked a clear winner (sorry!). Both candidates performed better than they have previously. Gore scored a few more substantive points. But Bush was the clear winner on style. In his closing statement, he used a line I've heard a few times before. "For those of you for me, thanks for your help," he said. "For those of you for my opponent, please only vote once." In context, it was a sweet, Reaganesque touch. And it was the only laugh of the night.

Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

Jacob Weisberg is editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:

The overarching theme of this debate was: Gore "I will fight for you" vs. Bush "I will stop the fighting and unite us all".

Most people are sick of the fighting. That doesn't happen to include most of us here in The Fray (who love a good fight). When Al Gore threatens Hollywood that he will come after them in six months, he thinks he's winning over middle America, when in fact he's simply reminding them that he can come after any one of us in the same threatening, bellicose way if the winds change.

Bush will win this election. Gore will now enter a death spiral. This debate was his last chance to turn things around. He didn't do it. Two-thirds of independents are breaking for Bush. The game is over.

--Jeremiah

(To reply, click here.)

Weisberg is ogling the Emperor's new clothes.

Bush was appallingly ill-informed and vague, and reading the transcript will provide blatant numerous instances of outright babbling and total lack of mental cohesion. It's frightening to watch a dry-drunk frat kid chatter about substantive issues that are serious, important matters for the future of our nation when he has absolutely no mental or even rhetorical talents. Bush was unable to spar or merely articulate his ideas effectively.

A sad case, really. And because the rich are so desperate to gain the White House and will do literally anything to gain it, this frightening spectacle of a man could potentially be elected president of the most powerful nation on earth.

--Wentworth

(To reply, click here.)

To Wentworth:

If the rich are such a small percentage of the electorate, and their desires are so inimical to the non-rich, how do the rich see to it that their candidate is elected? Is it your implication that the non-rich are too stupid to know what is best for them? Hmmm--there might be a position for you in a Gore Administration.

--Will Allen

(To reply, click here.)

(10/17)