By David Drucker
Daily Bruin Reporter
Republican George W. Bush sparred with Democrat Al Gore Tuesday
night in the first presidential debate of the 2000 campaign.
PBS Newshour’s Jim Lehrer moderated the 90-minute event at
the University of Massachusetts’ Boston campus, with both
candidates answering his questions from behind a podium
on-stage.
In one of the more cordial debates in recent memory, Gore
generally appeared more fluid while Bush at times showed signs of
nervousness.
But neither candidate scored what could be termed a decisive
victory.
Gore reiterated his commitment to a “woman’s right
to choose,” and made the most of Bush’s recent
statements criticizing the Food and Drug Administration’s
approval of the controversial abortion pill RU-486.
But Bush firmly rebutted Gore, twice arguing that despite
opposing abortion, his position would not be used as a
“litmus test” when appointing justices to the Supreme
Court.
Political science Professor John Zaller, who follows elections,
said neither candidate appeared to commit a major faux pas, and
that the public’s reaction to their performance is
unpredictable.
“I saw Gore as the aggressor with more facts and figures,
but Bush approached the debate with more philosophical
answers,” he said. “It’ll be interesting to see
which style worked.”
With two presidential and one vice presidential debate scheduled
for the coming weeks, supporters of both Bush and Gore said they
were pleased with their candidates’ debut.
“Bush was articulate, and did extremely well,” said
Bruin Republicans Chair Vartan Djihanian.
“He was able to touch on points important to all
Americans, such as social security, education and health
care,” he said.
Bruin Democrats President Melanie Ho said she felt Gore’s
closing remarks accurately defined the core of his message.
“This country is enjoying unprecedented prosperity thanks
to eight years of Clinton-Gore,” she said. “I’m
happy that he plans to enable all Americans to take part in
it.”
Political science doctoral candidate Christopher Blunt, who
specializes in American politics, said both candidates did an
adequate job focusing on the issues.
“I think what we’re seeing in politics is a reaction
to the public’s distaste for personal attacks,” he
said. “For that reason, I think they made an effort to avoid
swiping at each other unnecessarily.”
Andrea Oxman, a first-year undeclared student, agreed that the
discourse was friendly, but said she would have preferred more
specific explanations of the candidates’ policy
proposals.
“It was a lot of regurgitating the same thing over and
over, very similar to what I heard in their convention nomination
acceptance speeches,” she said.
Long Ngod, a graduate student at The Anderson School at UCLA,
said he supported Gore before the debate, and his position remained
unchanged.
“I agree with Gore’s stance on the issues that
matter to me,” he said. “And Bush didn’t impress
me.”
But Blunt said Bush was able to stay on message, which was
important. “He needed to draw a contrast with his vision of
government’s role versus Gore’s.
“Though Gore framed his issues well, Bush was able to do
that,” he continued.