Put the debates in an iron-clad lock box
C.D. SIX
Wednesday, October 11, 2000
Al Gore won round one of the war of words last week, managing to inject the words "iron-clad lock box" into the debates eight times -- that's five more mentions than George W. Bush's "fuzzy math," obviously securing a verbal victory for Gore.
That victory wasnÂ’t over Bush, however, it was a victory over the American people.
Ratings showed that more people watched the first televised debate of the campaign season than did its counterpart in 1996, despite the fact that several of the networks offered at least an option to affiliates to carry baseball playoffs or premiers of the latest sit-coms and dramas.
What they were treated to was a waste of time.
Both candidates were either unprepared or over-prepared, delivering their messages with such rehearsed deliveries they would have been eaten as an appetizer on the MacLaughlin Group, lamely delivering their soundbite phrases and rehearsed jokes like a shy guy asking his junior high crush out on a first date.
Gore, who received praise for the details of his argument, managed to talk over his audience repeatedly, going into such detail that even the political junkies (like myself) were bored to tears. Gore went on to prove his presidential mettle by theatrically scoffing, sighing and rolling his eyes during BushÂ’s delivery in a manner which recalled those heated student council debates of years past.
Bush, meanwhile, held his own against the master debater, occasionally stumbling over a word here and there, defending his proposals in a way that led one to question if even he comprehended his plans. To be fair and honest, I believe few candidates have the slightest idea how their plans work, let alone the people. Bush took the high(er) road, however, leaving the childishness to rehearsed jokes that fell on deaf ears, leaving the contender with a sheepish look like the boy who is trying just too darned hard to be cool.
And both candidates managed to remember the little people, like the Smith family from Any-depressed-town USA who have to feed 52 kids on green stamps and canÂ’t work because they have some debilitating disease they canÂ’t have treated because they have no health insurance because they donÂ’t work - and how all their hopes, wishes and dreams would be righted if they would only (get a tax break/get free health insurance) - the answer, of course, depending on your party.
In the end, all complaints aside, general consensus is that Gore won the debate of words, and that Bush was the real "winner" simply because he didnÂ’t crash and burn in the face of such a master of political reasoning.
In truth, Bush was the winner. While his numbers may have been convoluted at times, it was generally the result of arguing a point of view, and lacked the complete lack of restraint of master exaggerator Gore. The Gore campaign spent much of the week qualifying Gore remarks, searching madly for some facts that could support his claims (like the poor little Texas girl who has to stand in class), while the Bush campaign gleefully pointed out each and every slip and patted themselves on the back for not slipping up themselves.
The loser, in the end, is the people. Not that anybody is really watching the debates to make a choice. Those who watch are the committed (or, perhaps, those who should be committed?). When networks chose to air the latest sit-com about three girls living with the homosexual man and spending life in a coffee house because, for some strange reason, they donÂ’t have to work, rather than airing a discussion between the two men vying for the most powerful office in the land, and perhaps the world, it says something about the quality of modern politics.
Yes, there were a few undecided voters who watched, and perhaps a few werenÂ’t corralled by the television news media and wired for tracking. What those folks were treated to, who tuned in to weigh their options, was a travesty.
They were not treated to ideas, but to two men who were simply trying to say what the people want to hear. They were treated to soundbites, jokes, and apish behavior. A political environment full of spit and polish on the outside, and inside, rotten to the core.
They were treated to words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Put that in your iron-clad lockbox.
C.D. Six is The Mercury's Graphics Editor. E-mail him at [email protected]
C.D. SIX
Wednesday, October 11, 2000
Al Gore won round one of the war of words last week, managing to inject the words "iron-clad lock box" into the debates eight times -- that's five more mentions than George W. Bush's "fuzzy math," obviously securing a verbal victory for Gore.
That victory wasnÂ’t over Bush, however, it was a victory over the American people.
Ratings showed that more people watched the first televised debate of the campaign season than did its counterpart in 1996, despite the fact that several of the networks offered at least an option to affiliates to carry baseball playoffs or premiers of the latest sit-coms and dramas.
What they were treated to was a waste of time.
Both candidates were either unprepared or over-prepared, delivering their messages with such rehearsed deliveries they would have been eaten as an appetizer on the MacLaughlin Group, lamely delivering their soundbite phrases and rehearsed jokes like a shy guy asking his junior high crush out on a first date.
Gore, who received praise for the details of his argument, managed to talk over his audience repeatedly, going into such detail that even the political junkies (like myself) were bored to tears. Gore went on to prove his presidential mettle by theatrically scoffing, sighing and rolling his eyes during BushÂ’s delivery in a manner which recalled those heated student council debates of years past.
Bush, meanwhile, held his own against the master debater, occasionally stumbling over a word here and there, defending his proposals in a way that led one to question if even he comprehended his plans. To be fair and honest, I believe few candidates have the slightest idea how their plans work, let alone the people. Bush took the high(er) road, however, leaving the childishness to rehearsed jokes that fell on deaf ears, leaving the contender with a sheepish look like the boy who is trying just too darned hard to be cool.
And both candidates managed to remember the little people, like the Smith family from Any-depressed-town USA who have to feed 52 kids on green stamps and canÂ’t work because they have some debilitating disease they canÂ’t have treated because they have no health insurance because they donÂ’t work - and how all their hopes, wishes and dreams would be righted if they would only (get a tax break/get free health insurance) - the answer, of course, depending on your party.
In the end, all complaints aside, general consensus is that Gore won the debate of words, and that Bush was the real "winner" simply because he didnÂ’t crash and burn in the face of such a master of political reasoning.
In truth, Bush was the winner. While his numbers may have been convoluted at times, it was generally the result of arguing a point of view, and lacked the complete lack of restraint of master exaggerator Gore. The Gore campaign spent much of the week qualifying Gore remarks, searching madly for some facts that could support his claims (like the poor little Texas girl who has to stand in class), while the Bush campaign gleefully pointed out each and every slip and patted themselves on the back for not slipping up themselves.
The loser, in the end, is the people. Not that anybody is really watching the debates to make a choice. Those who watch are the committed (or, perhaps, those who should be committed?). When networks chose to air the latest sit-com about three girls living with the homosexual man and spending life in a coffee house because, for some strange reason, they donÂ’t have to work, rather than airing a discussion between the two men vying for the most powerful office in the land, and perhaps the world, it says something about the quality of modern politics.
Yes, there were a few undecided voters who watched, and perhaps a few werenÂ’t corralled by the television news media and wired for tracking. What those folks were treated to, who tuned in to weigh their options, was a travesty.
They were not treated to ideas, but to two men who were simply trying to say what the people want to hear. They were treated to soundbites, jokes, and apish behavior. A political environment full of spit and polish on the outside, and inside, rotten to the core.
They were treated to words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Put that in your iron-clad lockbox.
C.D. Six is The Mercury's Graphics Editor. E-mail him at [email protected]