>Not much talk about last night's "debate." I didn't watch - was it a
snooze?
I found it depressing, not boring. The thing that saddened me the most was the grade school level of the questioning and what amounted to acceptable answers on important issues.
A case in point:
Asked about foreign policy, Bush said that he didn't support "nation building," that the citizens of other nations had the right to determine the course of their own development. Virtually in the next breath, he said "of course we should encourage markets and democracy abroad."
He also used Columbia as an example of a case where he agreed with Gore and the Clinton administration, since Columbia was in our hemishpere and therefore our natioinal "interests" were at stake.
What struck me, aside from the rather blatant aggressiveness and assumption of superiority which others have already mentioned, was the fact that Bush contradicted himself. How can he believe in leaving other nations alone, while at the same time support our intervention in Columbia, or even square that view with the idea that we should "promote markets and democracy" abroad. Doesn't that mean sticking our noses into the affairs of others? No follow up questions were asked.
And what does Bush mean when he says our "interests" are at stake in Columbia - exactly what is he talking about? Without some clarification, the answer is completely devoid of meaning.
Jim Lehrer actually saved the last question of the debate to ask the candidates about their accusations of each other's character. He asked Gore if he really thought Bush was a "bumbler," and he asked Bush if he really thought Gore was a "serial exaggerator." The point of such questioning is lost on me.
Brett