for
THE DEBATES
...www.bushwatch.com
for
THE DEBATES
...www.bushwatch.com
|
A MORE AGRESSIVE BUSH EARNS 56%
By Bill Brasin Des Moines, Iowa --Attempting to turn the GOP debates into a combination of Rollerball (simultaneous viewer responses from the internet) and a free-for-all (candidates often responded at will), MSNBC's Tom Brokaw and John Bachman created a more fluid setting for the GOP presidential candidates' road show and allowed George W. Bush to show us a more human, more argumentative personality than ever before. However, his scripted responses still haunted him, and he was never able to spring free from his program. As a result of his eleven interchanges, he ended up with a total grade of 56%. (He was given the extra point for showing up.) His previous grades were 55 % (New Hampshire) and 52 % (Arizona). Here are the specifics. *Question #1. Tom Brokaw asked Bush what specific things he would do as President to cut down the violence in our culture and bring us back to the kinder, gentler society that Poppy envisioned. Bush gave Brokaw his standard stump speech answers about the need to help one another and to love thy neighbor, not going as far as saying that government can't change hearts, a theme he has often stated as governor of Texas. Brokaw went on to say he wanted specifics, but the format forced him to ask Keyes, not Bush for the specifics. (3 points) *Question #2. Bachmann previously stated that the Methodists have come out in favor of banishing handguns. He asked Bush how he would respond to the strict gun control movement in the churches. Bush said the churches should follow his policies, and went on to articulate the laws that are already in place. His position was we have no need for new laws, but he failed to address the concern of church groups for more laws. (5 points) *Question #3 Brokaw asked, given the destruction of mom and pop stores by Walmarts, why should family farms be protected. Bush went on to describe his irrelevant position on free trade, which does not distinguish between mom and pop stores and Walmarts. He then went on to support ethenol subsidies for Iowa farmers, which was not relevant to the question. (0 points) *Question #4 Bush was at his most relaxed, human, and argumentative in an exchange with Gary Bauer over China being accepted into the WTO. Bush is for it, Bauer against. Bush said bringing in China would force them to follow the rules. Bauer responded that China does not follow rules. (9 points) *Question #5 Brokaw noted that the Iowa GOP platform wanted to privativze Medicare and Medicade and asked Bush if he agreed. This led to an interesting interchange. Bush did a good job of balancing between backing governmental support with Fed approval of HMO's and the rights of the individual patient. (9 points) *Question #6 Bauer asked Bush how he would protect unborn citizens from being aborted. He asked Bush to denounce Governor Whitman (N.J.) as a Vice-Presidential consideration because she was pro-abortion. Bush responded by giving three criteria for his Vice-Presidential selection, none of which was a litmus test on abortion. (9 points) *Question #7 Bush defined pork as leaving money in Washington, and went on to say that his tax plan removed the pork from Washington because it sent tax money back to the states. He then asked McCain what he would do to remove D. C. pork. McCain indicated that more pork would be eliminated by taking campaign money away from special interests and asked Bush to agree with him on a program to eliminate soft money. Dah. Of course Bush couldn't agree to that and Brokaw stepped in to go on to something else. This was not one of Bush's better moments. (5 points) *Question #8 Brokaw asked Bush what he would do if he were president to halt the nuclear arms race. Bush emphasized the U.S. role as the leader for world peace. His response was strong and concise. (9 points) *Question #9 Brokaw went back to the question that tripped Bush up in Arizona, what would he do if his tax cuts were so great that it prevented him from carrying out his other plans, such as education, welfare, and the military. Again, Bush refused to consider the possibility, claiming that his figures were correct. Most folks on both sides disagree with him, so it's up to Bush to give specifics to prove them wrong, which he refuses to do. (3 points) *Question #10 All of the candidates were asked to name the one philospher they agreed with and explain their position. Bush came third and named Christ. End of answer. When Buchanana asked why, Bush said it was hard to explain, but Christ is in his heart. (3 points) *Question #11 Brokaw was able to slip in one final question for Bush. As Bill Buckley suggests, "do you think that we ought to be far more aggressive in the state of Texas, and across this country, in pursuing those people who possess marijuana?" Bush talked about drugs coming into the country and he talked about jawboning children. After he turned the facts behind the question around (see transcript), Brokaw put him back on track: "I think what [Bill Buckley] does say is put everyone in jail who is merely possessing marijuana." Brokaw was asking Bush if he were willing to go that far. Bush responded by presenting his version of what Texas does with those arrested for drug possession. (0 points) In this last Republican debate of the century, George W. Bush was more human and more agresssive, but hardly more articulate. Although he was less obvious with respect to his cant answers to the questions asked, his grade suggests that he has yet to demonstrate why the Republican money man and the GOP politicos see him as the hope of his party in the 2000 elections.
Bush tells us he doesn't have a clue about what he's doing wrong in the debates: "In these debates, I am a straightforward person. I answer the questions. People ask me a question, I answer it. I'm not trying to figure out the `right' answer, but just talking about the answer that I believe is right. Maybe I need to get a little more flowery. I guess I've got to learn to make some segue from foreign policy immediately into baseball or something like that." --Ron Hutchinson, 12/13/99
Because of his front-runner status, "Gov. George W. Bush has a lot of leverage when it comes to how the debates are structured. The format helps determine whether voters will get the information they need to compare candidates....Forbes campaign manager Dal Col claims that Bush agreed to the Phoenix debate because he thought that Forbes and McCain, his two closest competitors, wouldn't be able to make it. When Forbes accepted, Dal Col said, he got a call from a surprised Bush staffer who said he thought Forbes wouldn't be there. McCain, who was campaigning in New Hampshire, participated via satellite. "In terms of format, Dal Col says, the Bush camp has tried to make sure that candidates aren't asked the same questions. 'If everybody had the same question, his answer could be compared to the other candidates, and in that case he'd be in serious trouble,' Dal Col said. 'Unless it's a scripted, prearranged question you know is coming, like education or tax relief, he definitely comes out as less than outstanding.'...Tom Hannon, political director for Phoenix debate sponsor CNN, said... that depending on their standing in the polls, candidates have 'varying degrees of leverage' in hashing out the format. "While the Bush campaign denies it, some of the governor's campaign rivals say he has used his front-runner status to make the last two debates stiff, stilted and virtually useless to the public....'It strikes me that in the debate negotiations they seem to want them to be as structured as possible. It leaves me to wonder what they're trying to protect the governor from,' said Jeff Flint, an aide to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Flint was alluding to the perception that Bush doesn't have a firm grasp of policy specifics....If Bush has been trying to shape the last two debates -- the only two he has attended -- the strategy hasn't helped him much." [Consider how poorly Bush would have come off in the debates if his team did not have the levarage to control the format.] --Scott S. Greenberger
BUSH TAKEN TO SCHOOL BY EXPERIENCED RIVALS, EARNS 52%
By Bill Brasin Phoenix, Arizona-- In the first debate on Thursday, George W. Bush's approach to the journalists' questions was to talk fast, finish early, and focus upon his Texas record, no matter what question was asked. During tonight's forum he was only able to do this in the first three of seven questions. Consequently, his limitations as a GOP presidential candidate were more apparent. Taking on the role of political science professors giving a student an oral exam, Forbes, McCain, and Hatch were able to score telling points at Dubya's expense. In the first debate Bush managed to get in the fact that he was the governor of the second largest state with an economy that would rank 11th in the world if Texas were a state. Three times, in fact. Tonight, that line was mocked by several rivals. Dubya's ploy tonight was to continue to talk about his past experience in Texas, even when he was called upon twice to ask questions of the other candidates. In a strategy that was probaby hatched by Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, Bush would make two or three statements about specifics of his Texas record prior to getting around to asking the question, but it was Orrin Hatch who used Bush's inexperience and limitations to provide the most embarrassing moment of the evening for candidate Bush. Bush began his question to Hatch by speaking in Spanish. Then he talked about his record of "compassionate conservatism in Texas. Then, stumbling, he finally began to mumble and fumble his question to Hatch: "How do you intend to appeal to Hispanics?" After praising Bush's record, Hatch began by reminding Dubya that he chaired a Senate committee on Hispanic problems and he has been active over the years in the GOP on Hispanic issues, which he named. Bush's follow-up was to talk more about his record in Texas and then ask Hatch for comments without asking a specific question. That was a mistake. The open-ended question allowed Hatch to continue to indicate his experience with the issue, congratulate Bush for his interest, and suggest that he would make a good Vice-President under him. That way, Dubya would be able to put his ideas to work and get some good experience under the guidance of an older, more experienced politician, and perhaps, someday, he would possibly be ready to honestly run for president, himself. Bush was a smiling deer in the headlights: stunned. The audience loved it and showed its appreciation. That interchange earned Dubya a grade of 4 points. During the forum there were 7 interchanges in all, each worth 14 points, with 2 points given to Bush for showing up. (Total: 6 points) What follows is an analysis of the remaining six interchanges. *Question #1. Reporter John King noted that, since Bush has an educational program similar to Clinton's because he would demand a great deal of interaction between federal and state authority, how would he deal with that interaction. Breathless, Bush disagreed that his plan was similar to Clinton's, and went on to give three examples of how they differed: vouchers, charter schools, and state testing. He concluded by saying that his plan would give less power to Washington than Clinton's. However, since Bush's plan includes federal administration and oversight of additions to the present federal system, the scope of his program has been questioned by those wanting less government in Washington. (10 points) *Question #2. Reporter Candy Crowley asked a question about Bush's tax plan that has been the focus of attention since the speech was delivered. Since the plan's numbers are based on a 2.7% annual increase projection, which is higher than the government's, what would Dubya cut if it turned out the optimistic projection did not pan out? Bush's said he refused to belive that there will not be a projected increase of 2.7%. He gave no reasons and went on to talke about his tax record in Texas. (0 points) *Question #3. Moderator Judy Woodruff asked Bush a question about the Dean Acheson biography that he told Friday's forum he was reading. What were the lessons of the Acheson-Marshall Plan? This answer was the high point of the debate for Dubya. He was informed and articulate. After talking about a strong military, promoting peace, and the need for free trade, he said that the main lesson was the exportation of the results of freedom to the rest of the world. (14 points) *Question #4. Gary Bauer reminded Bush that Reagan refused to give Russia favored nation trade status because of Russia's poor human rights record; yet, Dubya would give favored nation trade status to China in spite of that country's equally poor human rights record. How does Bush justify his position? Dubya answered that if we sell to China we will help their entreprenurial class to get stronger, and that's in our best interest. In a follow-up Bauer asked, What about the Nazis? Would any level of atrocity put trade on the back burner? Bush didn't answer this question, he repeated his previous answer in new words. (7 points) *Question #5. Steve Forbes reminded Dubya that OPEC is raising its prices in January and wondered what Bush would do to get those prices down if he were president. Bush said more exploration was needed and went on to talk about the natural gas system in Texas, which is not OPEC-controlled. Forbes reminded Bush of the question: what would he do next month, not next year or the year after. Bush repeated his initial, irrelevant response. (0 points) *Question #6. After telling McCain about his faith-based proposals and his faith-based program in Texas, Bush got around to the question, which was another, non-specific one. What are your ideas? McCain gave some of his ideas and then summarized what he would do about OPEC prices next month in a cogent paragraph, indicating that he, unlike Bush, is knowledgeable on the subject. The Bush follow-up had to do with his plan to use taxes to support faith-based programs, but, again, McCain took him to school, indicating that such plans are based on a projected surplus which he, unlike Bush, does not envision. (10 points) Although this second forum presented a George W. Bush with better platform skills, his inexperience and limited knowledge was more apparent because of the greater interplay between the candidates.
"The one thing I saw the other night that was clear was that Bush does not stand out in this field. Compared to the other folks who are out there, he does not have any special quality or ability that makes him an outstanding choice for the Republican Party. Nothing."--Alan Keyes on "Fox News Sunday"
By Bill Brasin Manchester, N.H.--Coming across like a Stepford candidate, George W. Bush was nearly as staccato and nearly as stiff as he was during his debate with Dem. gubernatorial candidate Garry Mauro in El Paso in 1998. He spoke too fast, bobbed his head too much, and finished his responses too soon with a Charlie Brown smile. Both Fox News reporters Brit Hume and Karen Brown took him to task for filling his time with repetitive platitudes and cliches from his stump speech and his position papers rather than answering the questions asked. Tellingly, all of the other candidates, even Forbes, came across as more human and more conversational than George Bush. Dubya came across as though he were delivering the lines that he memorized as quickly as possible, then smirked as though he deserved extra credit for saying everything and finishing ahead of the time limit. Unlike the others, he did not give one the feeling that he was enjoying himself and was willing and able to elaborate upon his answers. His short answers and ending smirks came across as dares. What follows is an analysis of how he earned a grade of 55% on the six specific questions, at 17 possible points per answer. *Question #1. After Forbes accused Bush of betraying the American people by suggesting that he would consider raising the social security age beyond the present and new mandated age of 67, Brit Hume gave W. an opportunity to respond, and he did a credible job of doing so, except that he read a Forbes quote on the subject of the social security age that contradicted what Forbes was saying. The problem was George ended up doing what he was accusing Forbes of doing, distorting his position, since the quote was 20 years old, which Dubya failed to mention. Bush made a mistake by beginning his part of the forum by resorting to a sleazy political tactic which is often used by sleazy politicians of all political persuasions.It was beneath him. (15 points) *Question #2. Hume asked Dubya if he would be able to carry out foreign policy with the expertise of his father. After all, he can only depend upon his advisers for background, not decision making. Bush talked about the need for a candidate to have "vision, judgement, and leadership." Hume said Bush didn't answer the question. Dubya went on to talk about his foreign policy experience with Mexico. He ended with a smirk. (9 points.) *Question #3 Karen Brown called Dubya's attention to Houston as being the most polluted city in the U.S. She asked him if he would support the EPA's program of treating gasoline to reduce pollution. Dubya said he had set high standards in Texas and he's skilled at bringing people together. Brown said he didn't answer the question. Bush didn't seem familiar with the gasoline pollution reduction plan Brown was asking about. He said he'd look at it. (9 points.) *Question #4. Brit Hume asked Bush what he read on a daily basis. He answered DMN, WSJ, NYT, and the AAS, but indicated he didn't get all that much out of them. He went on to mention he's still reading a biography of Dean Acheson and "mysteries." Then he stopped. This took no more than 15 seconds. He didn't mention the Bible, which he claims to read every day. He didn't talk about the content of anything he says he's reading. He seemed ill at ease with the question. He spent the rest of the alloted time talking about how his reading is not a test of his leadership, but how his record in Texas is. After a pause, Hume saw fit not to ask a follow-up question, which was unusual. (4 points.) *Question #5. Given that Bush gave a major speech on his proposed tax policy yesterday, Karen Brown tossed him a softball by asking him to review what he had read to the good people of Iowa. Her follow-up question asked him what he would do if his anticipated surplus did not come about. He answered that he had reasonable expectations that would not happen, then filled up his remaining time by giving his opinion about the job he did in Texas on taxation policy. In short, he didn't answer the question. (9 points.) *Question #6. Since there was still time, the reporters elected to have another round of questions without follow-ups. (Keep in mind that Hume decided it was pointless to try to give Bush a follow-up on Question #4.) Dubya was asked what he would do about Saddam that would be different than what Clinton was doing. Bush talked for a few minutes about what he would do, which was a rehash of what Clinton is doing. Since this round didn't have a follow-up, the reporter was saved from telling Bush he didn't really answer the question. (9 points.) Each candidate was given an additional two minutes to conclude. Bush gave a two minute version of his stump speech in a supposedly sincere , somewhat argumentative fashion. He has been practicing this speech 3-5 times a week since June. The other four candidates, even Forbes, came across as more human. Keyes was even up to date, talking about the WTO conference in Seattle. Hatch proposed they stop this forum nonsense, get on a bus, and meet the people each evening at town meetings. Bush didn't make any major mistakes. Bush didn't make any major mistakes. Bush didn't make any major mistakes. Bush didn't make any...The emperor has no clothes. The emperor has no clothes. The emperor has no clothes. The emperor...(For verification of this opinion, see the stories below and then see the NYT transcript of the event. What were the reporters watching? An AP story not listed below described the spinners as well as the candidates pulling on the reporters in the filing room after the event.)
George W. Bush's payback of his campaign contributors has begun. Part of the Bush tax cut plan created by Reagan/Poppy economists is to elminate estate taxes. Last July Bush called the House-passed tax bill which included elimination of estate taxes "in the right direction," wrote Matthew Miller in an LA Times syndicated column, "thereby tacitly endorsing a sop to wealthy heirs--including himself and his kids." What Miller was talking about was the Republican plan to eliminate estate taxes, a plan he thought was filled with "deceit, injustice, and hypocrisy." To listen to Bush today, "you'd think an estate tax phase-out was mainly about saving 'family farms,' said to face onerous burdens once Dad and Mom pass on and the taxman cometh....That's a nice sound bite, but it's also a fraud. The first $650,000 of an estate is exempt from taxes." This covers 98% of the estates in the country, leaving the elimination of the estate tax only benefiting the richest two percent in the country. "The depth of [Bush's] duplicity here is thus stunning. Under the guise of a populist reform, [he] would allow the wealthiest handful in our society to avoid an estimated $330 billion in taxes over the next decade--a gap that would likely end up being plugged by new levies on the middle class," opines Miller. An estate tax loophole that's already in place costs taxpayers $25 billion per year. Say, your Dad bought 100 shares of Microsoft at $30 a share years ago and the price is now $200. If Dad dies and leaves you the stock, you pay estate taxes on $30 a share, not the capitol gains run-up in value. This has led conservative economist Irwin Stalzer of the Hudson Institute to conclude that it's a contradiction for economic conservatives like Bush to be against both affirmative action and estate taxes because if "you're against giving certain groups unfair advantages in life because of an arbitrary trait like race, how can you be in favor of preserving unfair advantages for certain other groups because of an arbitrary asset like rich parents?" If Bush really wanted to support the entrepreneural spirit he claims he's for, one would think he would want to do so by "raising taxes on big estates and using the revenue to cut marginal tax rates for everyone," concludes Miller. Of course, that will never happen, for two reasons. First, Bush has fallen in lock step behind the House and Senate GOP in his campaign for the White House. (He's even speaking in GOP tongues: "I support getting rid of the death penalty" means he's against estate taxes. See Slate 7/22/99 .) "Secondly, the 300 (mostly unnamed) "pioneers" who have contributed to and organized his campaign money machine are the ones with the big estates that want such taxes eliminated. 12/2/99 Notes:"If you're in the top earning bracket ($837,000 average) your Bush additional tax cut comes out to .051% ($50,000). If you're earning $30,000 your Bush additional tax cut percentage is less, .016% ($50l). If you're earning poverty wages you get no relief at all. You still don't pay taxes and you still pay the same payroll taxes. The money for the Bush plan would come from a projected annual surplus of 2.7%, higher than government estimates, and it assumes no new spending and no paydown of the national debt. Just as in Texas under Bush and based on the the percentage of the reduction, the major beneficiaries are the wealthiest, the middle class gets considerably less, and the poorest get nothing. Further, like Texas, the surplus is based on questionable projections and the government's back bills are not paid. In Texas additional local taxes that came about as a result of the State's reduction of services because of the Bush tax cuts left the average wage-earner breaking even or being taxed more than before. Under Bush's plan this would likely happen at the national-state level, leaving Texas either to increase its taxes or, more likely, further decrease its social services. The result is to continue the growing trend in this country of putting greater percentages of wealth into the hands of fewer people. ("By 1997, the top 10 percent of the population owned 73.2 percent of the nation's net worth, up from 68 percent in 1983."--Ivins) These people use that wealth to benefit candidates who support their methods of gaining wealth, including funding those candidates who will serve them or who are one of the wealthiest, themselves. For example, less than 1% of the voting population has been responsible for all presidential campaign contributions. 76% of Bush's campaign contributors have given the maximum of $1,000 to his campaign. Around 300 of his wealthier backers have provided the lion's share of these $1,000 contributions by collecting 100 plus maximum contributions to gain greater considerations if Bush were to be elected president. "Rudy Penner, who headed the Congressional Budget Office under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, said he is hesitant about supporting the governor's plan because "we face this very huge burden of Baby Boomers, and we would be well-advised to pay down as much of the debt as we can." The national debt is now at $3.6 trillion, in a $9 trillion economy. Penner said that if the numbers are off or the economy doesn't perform up to snuff, "the debt could explode" as more Baby Boomers retire in the 21st Century. This could drive up interest rates, he said, and lead to an economic calamity. The former CBO director also said Congress has used gimmicks in the current budget to hide big increases in discretionary spending--or spending other than for entitlement programs such as Social Security. From defense to education, from highways to the environment, he said, Congress is quietly yielding to spending pressures, and then trying to mask it."
Texas Monthly's Evan Smith on Bush's Unwillingness to Meet With a Group of Gay Republicans. "I thought Anthony Lewis had him dead to rights in today's Times. Why shouldn't he meet with them? What's the harm? Maybe, as Steve Forbes says, he'd do it if they called it a fund-raiser....A longtime confrere of his from Dallas, a gay man, called me yesterday in despair, dumbstruck by the decision. If Bush's good friend Bob Bullock--who as state comptroller and lieutenant governor brought blacks and browns and women and gays into the white-male Texas government--were alive, he'd give him hell. The rest of us should too." 11/29/99
Texas Ranks Under Bush: 1st in Children without Health Insurance (%)...1st in Toxic Air Releases...1st in Smog Days (Houston)...1st,2nd,3rd in poorest counties...3rd in Hunger (%)...5th in Highest Teen Birth Rate...45th in Mothers Receiving Pre-Natal Care...46th in Public Libraries and Branches...46th in High School Completion Rate...46th in Water Resources Protection...47th in Delivery of Social Services...48th in Literacy...48th in Per Capita Funding for Public Health...48 in Best Place to Raise Children...48th in Spending for Parks and Recreation...48th in Spending for the Arts...49th in Spending for the Environment...50th in Teachers' Salaries plus Benefits...Documentation.
Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex.  links
|
