|
|
The third and final presidential debate was more like a repeat of debates one and two than a continuation of the dialogue between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, according to a panel of experts assembled by the Intelligencer Journal.
"No new ground was broken," said G. Terry Madonna, professor of political science and director of the Center for Politics and Public Policy at Millersville University. "It was the same pat answers to questions."
Madonna called the debate "well-scripted" and credited both candidates with staying on message, but said "it was nothing they hadn't talked about before."
Gore took the debate on points, but Bush solidified a growing consensus that he is more likable and, ultimately, more trustworthy, Madonna said.
"No matter how he (Gore) tried," Madonna said, "he just does not come across as someone sympathetic."
Bush, on the other hand, exerted a quiet strength that appeals to voters, he said. Some of his answers were incomplete, lacking in specifics, but he came across as more genuine and made viewers feel more comfortable, Madonna said.
While Gore was bouncing around the stage trying to score points and catch Bush off guard, Bush stayed put and made it seem like he was "above the fray," according to Madonna.
Madonna said he was disappointed with the town hall format of the third debate.
"I think the format made it less possible to explore answers in detail," Madonna said. He also thought he'd see the candidates really speak to the audience members, but that never really happened.
"It seemed like their game plan was just to answer the questions and get out of Dodge, and not to kind of relate to the people," Madonna said.
W. Wesley McDonald, associate professor of political science at Elizabethtown College, called the town hall meeting a veritable "snore."
"This ain't the Lincoln-Douglas debate," he said.
Like Madonna, he didn't see anything new.
"Most of what we heard were canned comments from their campaign speeches," McDonald said, "Gore less so because he had to get out and be aggressive."
Both of the candidates did what they had to do, McDonald said: Gore had to "prove he wasn't comatose like last week" and Bush had to look confident and competent, "like someone people could look at in the White House."
But neither was particularly effective, he said.
"It's obvious that these guys were over-prepared, so both of them were being extremely cautious," McDonald said.
McDonald, a registered Republican, said Gore appeared more polished, moving across the floor with style. But he faulted him for being overly aggressive at times, breaking the rules, interrupting Bush and going so far as to stand right in front of him.
"It struck me that what he was trying to do was gain control over the floor by physically intimidating Bush," McDonald said, "like he was almost attacking him in the beginning."
Overall, McDonald said, Gore won the debate on points and style, but Bush held his own and didn't embarrass himself.
"There were no gaffes here, but on the other hand there were no zingers," McDonald said.
Rebecca Deibler, a Democratic district leader in Manheim, felt both men appeared to hit their stride in the third debate, showing a more accurate shade of their personal color.
"It was definitely different than the other two. I think you saw a bit more true personality in both," she said.
The passive and aggressive roles assumed by the men was also something she noted.
"I think Bush seemed nervous at the beginning but he got over that toward the middle and a couple of times he did not truly answer the question," Deibler said, especially the questions about affirmative action and campaign finance reform.
"Gore said I agree or I don't agree. I liked that," she said.
As to a winner, Deibler preferred the aggressor.
"In my opinion, Gore won, based on the fact that he had far more specifics and he was willing to aggressively defend his positions," she said. "I like the aggression; it shows you have knowledge of the issues."
Something, Deibler said, Bush seemed to be lacking.
"Several times Bush started to repeat his campaign slogans. Either you have the specifics or you revert to your stump speech or you're just plain tired," she said. "And I could see that in both of them."
Robert J. Bresler, a professor of public policy at Penn State Harrisburg, said the pair played the roles that have become familiar in the debates.
"I think there's a sort of pattern in these debates," he said. "Bush's manner is easier to take. Gore is a little hard to listen to, but he's stronger on the details."
Almost assuming the front-runner role, Bush appeared to lay back and not take advantage of any gaffes in Gore's presentation, Bresler said.
"Bush missed a couple of opportunities. I don't think he has a sense to find a weakness in the other guy's argument and to pounce on them," he said.
Bresler believes Gore saw himself as behind in the campaign and came out swinging but Bush never really did engage in battle.
"Gore was in a more aggressive attack mode, but Bush never rose to the bait," he said. "Gore was more interested in scoring points."
But Bresler stopped short of declaring a clear winner in the face-off.
"If the voters that are undecided decide on the small details, then maybe Gore has an advantage," he said. "And because the election is so close, if they improve their position one point, it's going to matter."
Both candidates knew exactly what was needed in this last public debate, said E. Fletcher McClellan, professor of political science at Elizabethtown College.
"I think they each came in with a strategy in mind," he said. "Bush came in thinking he was in the lead and sort of held his own and rode the momentum so he didn't take any chances."
"Gore came in thinking he had to return to the aggressiveness of the first debate. I think Gore challenged Bush on several issues. He walked right up to the line a couple of times, but he didn't cross it," McClellan, a registered Democrat, said.
But despite thinly veiled jabs at Bush's stand on military service and the death penalty, Gore did not provoke any colorful responses.
"The governor is trying to use the debate as a metaphor," McClellan said. Bush is presenting himself as mannerly and likeable, and Gore switching between aggressive and scholarly, he said.
"Bush is saying, "I'm the same through all three debates, I have a consistent philosophy. The other guy doesn't know who he is,'" McClellan said.
U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, a Kennett Square Republican whose district includes the eastern two-thirds of Lancaster County, thought Bush outperformed Gore hands down.
"I think this was Al Gore's last chance to win over the American people and I think he blew it," Pitts said.
Pitts found Gore overly aggressive and partisan and said he violated his own rules, at times trying to take over from the moderator.
"I thought he was a little overbearing," Pitts said.
Bush, he said, demonstrated qualities voters are seeking: maturity and leadership.
Bush's biggest problem, Pitts said, was that he wasn't aggressive enough. When Gore challenged Bush on campaign finance reform, Bush should have raised questions about Gore's involvement in fund-raising scandals, he said.
"I felt like Bush could have whacked him a couple of times and he didn't do it," said Pitts.
Gore, he said, looked liked he did in the first debate, but he avoided the sighing, Pitts said.
Bush, on the other hand, looked presidential, Pitts thought.
Most importantly, Pitts thought Gore failed to do the one thing he needed to do.
"Gore's job was to try to put a stop to his slide in the polls," Pitts said Tuesday. "I don't think he was able to do that tonight."
