|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| POLITICAL WRAP | |
 October 6, 2000  |
|
|
Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot analyze the impact of the vice presidential debate.
|
|
|
MARGARET WARNER: Let's look a little more at last night's vice presidential debate. And we asked each of you to pick out a revealing moment. Mark, you picked one from Bernie Shaw's question about whether America's military had declined under the Clinton-Gore administration. Let's look at some excerpts from that and the exchange that followed. Video clip: Cheney's response to the question of military readiness. MARGARET WARNER: So what did you find so revealing about that?
PAUL GIGOT: This is an issue that Bush and Cheney love to have debated, particularly with a former defense secretary there. It's the one issue of all the issues when you look at who has the most credibility, Gore or Bush, this is one of George Bush's best issues. They also have the facts on their side. I mean, I looked at the budget numbers myself today and, you know, from '93 to '97 they were going down rapidly. And the reason they bumped up in the last couple of years is pressure from the Congress and Bill Clinton and Al Gore made a virtue of necessity. And now they're taking credit for some of the increases. But I don't think... I think if voters are given a choice, who is going to increase defense spending more, I think it's going to be the Republicans are going to win that issue. |
||||||||||
| A non-confrontational debate | |||||||||||
|
Video clip: Cheney's answering question of whether Lieberman's stance on issues has shifted since his nomination. MARGARET WARNER: So, Paul, what did you make of that.?
MARGARET WARNER: Who do you think got the better of that exchange? MARK SHIELDS: I'm not sure. I mean, I thought Lieberman was more vulnerable to the criticism but I thought he handled it very well. I thought there was a believability about him. It's interesting that that format, which the Bush people fought so strongly for, really mitigates against turning to your opponent and saying, let me tell you, you are a moral leper and ethical eunuch. Even Dick Cheney, who was far more fiery and combative today back on the trail in Shreveport where nobody is watching, last night I thought.... MARGARET WARNER: Except the faithful. MARK SHIELDS: …except the faithful and listening. And I just thought in that sense that Joe Lieberman walked away unmarked and unscarred.
PAUL GIGOT: Because... I've asked this question directly of several Bush strategists and their answer is that the swing voters really don't want to you just say that, you no I, that these guys are jerks and that's why we want it. You have got to link it to issues. You have to tell the people what you're going to do. And then maybe you can slip in some criticism, some contrast. But the public mood does not want that kind of politics. They say that again and again. |
|
||||||||||
| Campaigning on exaggerations | |||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Let's turn to the thing that... it's a news topic but related topic that you raised, which is what Cheney said in Shreveport, because he was much more combative today accusing Gore of being essentially dishonest and he went back to the military business and he said either Al Gore doesn't know what is going on or he does and he's decided not to tell you or not to the truth about it. And there have been all these editorials also about Gore's embellishments and exaggerations. One, is the criticism justified, Mark, and, two, is it a problem for him?
MARGARET WARNER: You're talking back in '92. MARK SHIELDS: Sworn commitment to take on big tobacco, which was late blooming after his 1988 campaign where he courted and wooed tobacco farmers. And there is videotape of that. Professor Robert Smuell of Notre Dame in the New York Times today said that he is on the cusp, the danger of stereotype setting in -- that he is an exaggerator. I think it has been very good on the Bush people's part; they want to bring it back. That has been their theme. I mean, it's been Cheney's; it's been the campaign's and everybody you talk to in Austin, that's what they are pushing. What is most intriguing is that overlooked is Governor Bush's exaggeration, I mean, who is guilty as well. I mean, as Paul and I covered him boasting and bragging about the patients' bill of rights legislation in Texas and how Texas was in the forefront; this was legislation that was passed that he opposed and was passed without his signature and then he goes around and makes it - talking about making necessity a virtue -- he made it into a value. And on Tuesday night he said Al Gore has outspent us. Well, the Center for Responsible Politics says it's by a 2-1 margin -- $121 million to $60 million that Bush has outspent Gore this year. So - but there's no question -- the focus is on Gore and it doesn't help. PAUL GIGOT: Gore may have won the debate on points - in debating points; he lost the after debate. And it's hurt him this week. And the reason he's lost it is because of the exaggerations. I mean, I think that there are two stereotypes working in this campaign. One is that Bush has been -- he is not experienced enough for the job and maybe just a little bit too light. I think he outperformed that stereotype, not totally erased it but outperformed it on Tuesday somewhat. Al Gore played into his stereotype, which is that he has a problem telling the truth. MARGARET WARNER: He had two or three just in the debate.
MARGARET WARNER: He said I've never questioned his experience. PAUL GIGOT: That's right. And he did it two or three times, and that fits into what I think is becoming, and this is dangerous for Gore, a stereotype that defines him. MARGARET WARNER: I find that when you talk to the Gore folks, they say it's no problem; it's just the press. Do you think they're right about that? MARK SHIELDS: No, I don't think they're right about it. The thing that's most distressing about it -- usually when a candidate exaggerates, prevaricates, lies, however you want to put it - it's something that's very self-serving; you know, that I was tops in my class and I was an all American half back. Then you find out he sat on the bench and barely got out of school. And what turns out here is he is telling lies he doesn't have to or exaggerating where he doesn't have to. I mean, he made 19 trips with James Lee Witt. I don't think there's a lot swing voters - MARGARET WARNER: The head of FEMA -
MARGARET WARNER: It's in my control to end this and I have to. Thank you both. |
 |
||||||||||
 |
   
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
MARK
SHIELDS: I found revealing if a 22nd century graduate student in anthropology
was trying to reconstruct American politics in the early 21st century,
he would say weren't the Democrats the party that were sort of isolationists
and soft on defense historically traditionally and the transformation.
Joe Lieberman went on to boast that the Gore-Lieberman expenditures
on defense would be twice as large an increase over those proposed by
Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney. And Dick Cheney was in the position
of sort of running down the U.S. military, which Democrats had in the
past, and the rebuttal was don't bring that up. You know, stops at water's
edge which of course had been the historical Republican response any
time there was a suggestion that the American military was doing something
it shouldn't do or foreign policy was not right, especially during Vietnam.
And I just found the total role reversal rather remarkable.
PAUL
GIGOT: Well, I thought it was fascinating that he chose... Cheney invited
to talk about any of the contradictions chose that one and I think in
part he did because the Republicans understand that the Gore-Lieberman
assault, if you will, the attack on Hollywood, was pretty smart politics,
diminishes some of their deficit on the moral values questions. And
they were trying to expose hypocrisy of this and also to compound that,
get to the credibility issue, which is one of their... the issues they
really want to drive, particularly after Tuesday's debate against Al
Gore. And this was a way... he didn't do it against Al Gore. It would
have been more effective if he had brought up Al Gore, but he did at
least get it by indirection with Joe Lieberman. 
MARGARET
WARNER: But it clearly was a deliberate strategy on both their parts
not to be confrontational. Why. 
MARK
SHIELDS: I'm not sure it's a problem for him, but certainly there's
enough opportunities to name him and identify him as an exaggerator.
I mean, he did it at the convention when he talked about his sister's
death from lung cancer and his sworn commitment. 
PAUL
GIGOT: Starting with the open question - the first question - did you
ever question Governor Bush's experience? Well, the networks quickly
got the tapes and said "I'm questioning his experience". It
was right there -- 
MARK
SHIELDS: The head of FEMA-did he really make those trips with James
Lee Witt - and if he's that close to James Lee Witt, I'm going to vote
for him; James Lee Witt is a wonderful public servant - don't get me
wrong - but, I mean, you know, why -- so then he sat looking for exaggerations
- okay -- and maybe that was just a slip. It wasn't a major... it wasn't
something big, but I would say this: Paul's formulation is right, that
the Gore people, the Gore voters believe George Bush is the tool of
the rich and a 40 watt bulb. The Bush voters believe Al Gore is a weasel
who will say anything and do anything to become President. It's within
his control to stop the exaggeration. The question is it was in Governor
Bush's control to be smarter and to be smart and informed as Bill Clinton.