Column: Debates reinforce the self-contradictions in Gore

Subjecting myself to a modern version of the ancient Chinese water torture, I watched all three presidential debates between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

While it is generally believed that Gore "won" the debates, Bush is still clinging to a narrow but steady lead in the public opinion polls. What's going on?

Part of Gore's dilemma is what New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called his "erratic and sometimes arrogant debate demeanor," in which he strutted around and violated his own rules. And then there's his continuing identity problem.

Is he the ultimate Washington insider who grew up in a luxurious hotel penthouse or a simple Tennessee farm boy? Is he the idealistic politician who's fighting for the "little guys" against Big Oil and Big Tobacco, or is he the cynic who earned big bucks from Occidental Petroleum stock and his family's tobacco farm?

Is he the campaign finance reformer whom we heard in last Tuesday's debate or is he the sleazy politician who collected money from indigent Buddhist nuns and Communist Chinese officials?

And while he and Joe Lieberman preach about honesty, integrity and family values, does Gore still think the impeached Bill Clinton is one of the greatest presidents in American history? In short, Al Gore has a credibility problem. Although recent polls reveal that likely voters identify the vice president as the candidate they agree with on issues like education, health care and the environment, they prefer Gov. Bush on what has come to be known as the "character issue."

When the Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll asked likely voters which candidate is more honest and straightforward, they chose Bush by a wide margin, 45 to 29 percent. They also preferred Bush in three other intangible areas - leadership, likeability and personal standards.

Gore's credibility problem results from his well-documented tendency to embellish and mangle the truth. As highly respected Washington Post political columnist David Broder wrote, "A president can lead only if other politicians believe that he keeps his word. Bush has a good record in that regard ... but Gore has displayed a Clintonesque tendency to say or do whatever is expedient."

Remember the Elian Gonzalez fiasco? And whatever happened to that oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? If that was such a great Gore idea, why are gas prices still hovering around $2 per gallon?

In a column titled "The BS Factor," Broder's colleague, foreign affairs analyst Jim Hoagland, observed that "Gore has been a major figure in an administration that has made an art of telling some of the people some of the truth some of the time.... Mix-ups or misspeaking allowed to remain on the record can only fan suspicions that Gore might continue that Clintonesque (there's that word again) pattern. That in turn can only damage his candidacy ..."

In fact, the BS problem first emerged when Gore ran for president in 1988 and his press secretary warned him that "your main pitfall is exaggeration. Be careful not to overstate your accomplishments."

Ms. Dowd also addressed the credibility issue when she wrote that "the problem with Al Gore is not only that he's a goody-goody, but that he's a bullying goody-goody - an oxymoron that seems a total turn-off to the male voters that Mr. Gore badly needs. He tattles on his rivals (and) he stretches the truth ... in a self-defeating effort to seem even more perfect."

Well, as one of those male voters that Gore needs so badly - and a registered Democrat to boot -- I'm turned off by alpha-male Debate Al and his bullying, condescending tactics.

Of course, no one ever accused George W. Bush of being Mr. IQ, a Gore-like policy wonk who can rattle off numbers and statistics by the hour. But when it comes to "Dubya," what you see is what you get - a real person. He's a likeable, friendly, self-effacing politician who surrounds himself with capable, experienced people like Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and newcomer Condoleeza Rice.

In Texas, Gov. Bush has earned bipartisan support on critical issues like education and health care. Yes, I know Texas has a relatively high percentage of uninsured children but then, so does California, which has a Democratic governor who isn't running for president. And I remember the governor of another backward southern state who was elected president in 1992.

Following the second debate, columnist Broder said the 2000 election represents a classic choice between a traditional liberal and a moderate conservative. By a large margin, registered voters say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services to a larger, more intrusive federal government. Six out of ten voters surveyed by the Washington Post/ABC News Poll identified Bush as advocating smaller government while seven out of ten thought Gore was for larger government, even though his boss, President Clinton, promised us that "the era of Big Government is over." But not if we elect Al Gore and Joe Lieberman next month.

Broder wrote that Gore may not win in a time of peace and prosperity because voters give the vice president almost no credit for helping to create these conditions.

"And if he allows the debate to be framed as a choice between a big-government liberal and a small-government conservative, he could lose," he concluded.

That's what I heard in the debates with Gore promising everything to everyone and Bush delineating a helpful but limited role for government, which makes sense to me. How about you?

Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.