Wednesday, October 11, 2000

By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

Are we all breathless with anticipation of the second presidential debate tonight?

Well, the last one was about as exciting as watching two mules fight over a turnip. But I will be watching, if only to see what adjustments the two candidates have made after measuring public reaction to the first one.

People ask me my opinion of who "won" the first debate, and that always puzzles me. What possible relevance could that have?

I'm no expert on debating, though I did a little of it in high school, but I'm guessing a formal scoring of the debate would give the victory to Gore.

He presented his arguments more forcefully, in a more organized manner, and made several assertions that Bush did not challenge or counter, at least not effectively.

But who won is not the question. The $64,000 question is: What did we learn about the candidates, and which one gained the most in the eyes of the voters.

Most political pundits think Bush gained the most. Merely by standing in the batter's box and taking his swings, he proved that he can play in the big leagues. Before the debate, there was some question about that.

Yes, there were times when it looked like he wasn't going to be able to remember what he was about to say. That deer-in-the-headlights look lasted for an agonizing half second or so three or four times. And there were a couple of times when his responses were vague and he failed to make his points.

But in other instances he zeroed in on his points quite eloquently, and on all points he demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter and showed that he had given some thought to his position. Basically, he erased in many voters' minds the notion that he might not be able to mentally and emotionally handle the demands of the presidency, which has been his biggest negative from day one.

My biggest complaint with Bush is that he missed several golden opportunities to yell out, "That's a lie!" Most of the times when that would have been the proper response, he instead mumbled about "fuzzy math."

But what did we learn about the candidates?

About Gore, we learned that he believes all of the money you earn belongs to the government, and it is only through the government's largesse that you are allowed to keep some of it. We learned that he hates high achievers, and that he plans to spend every last dime of the budget surplus and then some.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan (though conservative) watchdog group, calculated the bill for all of Gore's promises at $2.2 trillion over the next five years. That's all new spending, folks, on top of the current budget.

Of that $2.2 trillion, $800 billion of it would be in excess of the taxes projected to be collected. In other words, he would have a deficit. We're going back into the red. Forget you ever heard the word "surplus," because there's not going to be one.

On the other hand, CAGW put a price tag for Bush's proposals at a modest $712 billion, less in total new spending than the deficits in Gore's goody bag.

There's nothing fuzzy about that math.

When Gore was in the vice presidential debates two previous elections, the most repeated phrase was "risky tax scheme." This time, it was "the wealthiest 1 percent."

One phrase uses fear, the other envy to generate votes.

I'm just asking... is that what we want from our president? Fear and envy?

Of course, he's right. In any across-the-board tax cut, the people who are paying the most taxes are going to get the biggest cuts.

If that bothers you, maybe a little self analysis is in order. Why do you covet the fruit of the other person's achievement rather than working to gather your own?

What Al Gore is saying is that we should use the power of the government to punish achievement. The more you make, the more we take.

That philosophy is especially tragic when applied to lower income levels, because every time you scratch and claw your way to a higher rung on the economic ladder, the government comes along and yanks you back down.

"Fine," you may say. "We'll eliminate graduated income taxes for all but the wealthiest." Why don't you just apply yourself and become one of the wealthiest, and we will all gladly accept your voluntary contributions to our well-being.

Watch tonight. Gore may change his style a little, may attack more or less, may try to put a little more passion in his voice, or whatever.

But mark my words... the substance of what he says will continue to be an appeal to fear and envy.

Watch and see if I'm wrong.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page