<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Two debates done and I haven't heard Gore use any of the magic words. Did
I miss something or has "brother" Gore used the words, union, labor union,
no scabs, etc. etc. etc.in any of his debate points or speeches.
<p><b>Moderator: “Is there any difference?”</b>
<br><b>Gore: “I haven’t heard a big difference right in the last few</b>
<br><b>exchanges…”</b>
<br><b>Bush: “Well, I think it’s hard to tell.” *</b>
<p>WASHINGTON, DC. Oct. 12 – The code phrase for the second Presidential
<br>debate was “I agree.”
<p>Twelve times during the debate George W. Bush and Albert Gore used a
<br>variant of the phrase “I agree with you”, and 28 more times they used
<br>other words to let the national television audience know they were
in
<br>agreement on everything from foreign policy to trigger locks to the
need
<br>for gas drilling in pristine areas of Alaska.
<p>With that many “agreements,” was it a debate? Bush obviously worried
<br>about that, mentioning during their agreement on a hands-off approach
to
<br>the genocide in Rwanda that “it seems like we’re having a great love
<br>fest right now.”
<p>Do we need three national debates to learn the obvious –that there are
<br>few differences and numerous areas of agreement between Gore and Bush?
<p>To save valuable air-time in the third debate in St. Louis, Gore and
<br>Bush could simply stipulate their agreements in advance and use ten
<br>minutes to outline the minutia on which they actually disagree.
Then
<br>they could let the other candidates have their say.
<p>Of tonight’s debate, Green party candidate Ralph Nader opined, “This
<br>misnamed debate was an interminable tedium of platitudinous dittos,
<br>garnished by relentless evasions and marinated in cowardly escapes
from
<br>challenging the entrenched corporate interests.”
<p>###
<p>--
<p>Tom Adkins
<p>Carl Remick wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>>True enough. There was one subtle difference which
might amount to
<br>>>nothing.
<br>>>Bush aruged that foreign affairs should be about "us" in every
<br>>>circumstance.
<br>>>Gore, at least, mentioned humanitarian reasons. If we stick to the
<br>>>rhetoric,
<br>>>and by all means, let's stick to the rhetoric, Bush is obligated
to
<br>>>intervene
<br>>>*only* when it is profitable while Gore's position opens up a space
for
<br>>>intervention in the name of 'humanity' (hence, his comments about
values)
<br>>>[yeah, i'm struggling for a needle here]. For instance, Gore mentioned
<br>>>that
<br>>>genocide needs to be stopped, for humanitarian reasons - he then
asked
<br>>>Bush
<br>>>about this - and Bush basically said no, that the "US" shouldn't
be
<br>>>involved.
<br>>>Although this might not amount to anything, there is a substantial
<br>>>difference
<br>>>here.
<br>>>
<br>>>& the political,
<br>>>ken
<br>>
<br>>Vote for Bush, then.
<br>>
<br>>Yoshie
<p>I'm afraid that I am going to wind up voting for Gore as the lesser
of two
<br>evils domestically; the race is too close to risk a protest vote for
Nader.
<br>But I will do this with great reluctance. I think Gore presents
the greater
<br>risk in terms of cruise-missile adverturism. Gore's "humanitarianism"
is
<br>liberalism at its red-in-tooth-and-claw worst.
<p>Carl
<br>_________________________________________________________________________
<br>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</a>.
<p>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
<br><a href="http://profiles.msn.com">http://profiles.msn.com</a>.</blockquote>
</html>