Debates don’t ease indecision
Limited discussion leads to blurred presidential decision

If you are still an undecided voter, then you are probably the sole beneficiary of the presidential debates.

If, however, you already know who you are going to vote for, then the debates did little to change your mind. Taken collectively, the debates had something for everybody, but not enough for anybody.

On the plus side, Democratic candidate Al Gore came across as someone who acted like a president. Gore gave the appearance of being in control and knowing clearly what he expects and what can be done. On the negative side, Gore seemed rude and crass. At times he sounded too much like a politician in the “say anything to get elected” sense.

For Republican candidate George W. Bush, the plus side is that he seemed more sincere about his views, and he displayed a more folksy charm and used humor quite effectively. Bush tried his best to NOT act like a professional politician. On the negative side, Bush’s folksy manner sometimes came across as bumbling and uncertain. At other times, this manner almost made him look like a hick next to Gore’s polished professionalism.

Overall, there was a general lack of discussion on some hard-hitting issues. This was largely due to the lack of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader in the debates. Gore and Bush undoubtedly wanted to limit what would be discussed in the debates in order to decrease the odds that they would say or do something potentially damaging to their respective campaigns.

However, doing such a thing limits what we can and should know about the candidates that we are being asked to vote for. It’s a bit hard to swallow for politicians to ask us to trust them with what little they give us.
Unfortunately, Gore and Bush are practically the only options available to us, because the other candidates have virtually no chance to win.

Now the question is who to vote for.

When I first was eligible to vote, I voted a straight Democratic ticket (it was the thing to do for a Hispanic Catholic living in Texas). Things changed in 1996 after we had four years of Bill Clinton and after I had gained a deeper appreciation for my Catholic faith. For the first time ever, I voted for the Republican candidate because I was so disappointed in the Democratic Party.

Well, now we come to the year 2000, and the Democratic Party continues to disappoint me. I have not yet decided whom I will vote for, but I do know that it will not be Gore. Gore’s constant “re-inventing” of himself scares me. Also, his rewriting of his personal history (like claiming to have invented the Internet) serves only to emphasize the image of him being one of those “say anything to get elected” politicians.

Finally, Gore is so adamantly pro-choice that I feel that he will set back civilization to the barbaric, knuckle-dragging days of cavemen in which respect for human life was virtually non-existent. I simply can’t support such a narrow-minded pro-choice extremist.

And then there’s ol’ “Dubya.” Despite a somewhat competent term as governor, Bush still does not strike me as presidential timber. And his support of the death penalty disturbs me. In fact, Gore also supports the death penalty — thus you see my quandary.

So what is a pro-life, liberal-leaning moderate to do?

Both Nader and Buchanan are too extreme for me, and the other candidates have an even more remote chance of winning than Nader and Buchanan do.

What? You didn’t know that there were other candidates running? That proves my point!
I suppose I will do as most of the voters will do on Election Day and hold my nose and hope for the best. But vote I will, and so should you.

The United States is still a country “by the people,” and voting is the best way of keeping it that way.

John P. Araujo is a Master of Liberal Arts major from Fort Worth.
He can be reached at (j.araujo@tcu.edu).

Over a third of those voting in this year’s presidential election are expected to cast their ballots between Monday and Nov. 7, according to the Texas secretary of state’s office.

Early voting, an attempt to increase voter participation, allows registered voters to vote in person two weeks before Election Day. Nine locations will be available daily for voters in Tarrant County.

But just because voters can go to the polls early doesn’t mean they should.

Whether it is protests of “scare tactics, distortions and exaggerations,” or accusations of subliminal messages in commercials, the debate between Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore is volatile at best. From week to week, issues are re-examined and more fingers are pointed.

And no one can tell what is going to happen next.

Bush holds a slight lead in some national surveys, but even this margin is starting to shrink. Gore is struggling in traditionally Democratic states. In California, his lead has slipped from double digits to five percentage points.

And now, with 15 days until Election Day, both candidates are sharpening their tongues and their attacks.
With the increased pressure on the candidates, we are sure to see them fumble and struggle in their last-ditch efforts to win the seat in the Oval Office. This is when we will see who they really are and how they will react under pressure.

For those who have already made their choice for the next president, go to the polls now and get out of they way of others who choose to wait. For those who are still undecided, we urge you to wait and see what happens in the next two weeks before voting.

The pressure is on and someone is sure to crack.

In the wake of the presidential debates between Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, the Green Party has surfaced and presented their candidate, Ralph Nader, as America’s only hope to restore the democratic process. Throughout this election, the Greens have fought to allow all candidates to participate in the debates, regardless of voting percentages or quotas.

I’m with the Greens on that one. I realize that Nader has been kept out of the political process. I realize that the media is biased and not doing its job when they ignore third party candidates. Nevertheless, I also think that in their efforts to put the Green Party on the ballot, the Greens have lied to and hidden things from the American public.

First let me say that I respect anybody who is going to vote for Nader out of personal conviction. If you are familiar with the Green Party’s platform, you should be allowed to cast your vote and have it count.

What makes me furious is the horde of people who are going to flock to the voting booth in November and cast a vote for Nader as a sign of protest, to be trendy or because it seems like the cool and youthful thing to do. If you are one of these people, then you should take five minutes to find out what the Green Party really stands for, because being eco-friendly and social equality are not the only things that lurk in their platform.
The Greens have used Nader’s image as their forefront, but the reforms they propose are more socially and economically irresponsible than they would have the American people think. Not to mention the “Republocrat” rhetoric they have shoved down everybody’s throat is nothing short of “B.S.”

They have tried to convince the American public that there is no difference between Bush and Gore when, in reality, the records of both candidates are radically different on most of the crucial issues hanging in the balance in this election, like abortion, taxation, affirmative action and the environment.

Most of Green Party’s initiatives will be impossible to implement without big federal government.

For example, according to the Green Party’s official Web site (www.greenparty.org), the party wants “mandatory conversion of the 200 largest banks ... into democratic publicly-owned community banks.” They want “mandatory break up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer and/or public ownership ... of the largest 500 U.S. industrial and commercial corporations.” This idea is so close to the nationalization practiced under communist regimes it is scary, not to mention unconstitutional and a violation of the right to private property.

The Green Party also wants “a 100% tax on all income that is over 10 times the minimum wage, and a tax on all federal stock, bond and all securities transactions.” Most of the Green’s proposed reforms are economic suicide, and anybody with introductory macroeconomics or two inches of forehead can see that. The instability and volatility these initiatives would cause on the market are enough to cripple America’s economy beyond repair.

The Greens also want to regulate public airwaves in the public interest (does this ring like censorship, or is it only me?). They want the United States to finance universal access to primary education, adequate food and preventive health care for all human beings on Earth! The fact is, the United States is not the world’s baby-sitter, and good or bad, interventionism is interventionism.

All these ideas and more are what the Greens hide behind Nader’s political record. Don’t take my word for it, find out for yourself at the many Green Party Web sites.

They advocate reforms that would create the biggest federal government the United States has ever seen. A federal government that would tax you to death to finance their perfect view of the world. A federal government that would tell you what you can own, what kind of media you can watch, what kind of education you can receive, what kind of employees you can hire and how much money you can make. Among the Green Party’s good ideas, such as universal health care and aid to minorities, also lies these economic monsters waiting to be unleashed by your uninformed and irresponsible vote.

So go ahead, vote for Nader if you believe in all the ideas that the Green Party stands for.

Vote for Nader if you believe that any of these things are either socially feasible or economically sound.
But if you are going to vote for Nader because you think all he is bringing to the ballot is egalitarianism and ecologically friendly policies, you still have two weeks to get informed and cast a vote for what you truly believe in.

The fact is, if you have a preference, however slight, among the two candidates that have a chance sit in the Oval Office, you should think twice before using your vote to make a statement. Because even with the righteous Nader and the Greens, what you see is not always what you get.

Raquel Torres is a junior business major from Cali, Colombia.
She can be reached at (rtorres2@student.tcu.edu).