Time’s up

Al Gore and George W. Bush each came into Wednesday’s debate with specific and opposite goals. The vice president had to show that his encyclopedia of policy detail is a work of non-fiction. The governor’s task was to demonstrate that his apparent edge in fealty to the truth left room for at least a little flirtation with policy detail.

Both, to a modest degree, succeeded. Mr. Gore’s mea culpa on the exaggeration issue effectively made the point that inaccuracy in points of fact did not negate the underlying larger point. Gov. Bush’s greater confidence in discussing foreign policy showed he’s a quick study; his many compliments to the Clinton administration demonstrated some understanding that foreign affairs are tricky.

But again and again, just as the candidates were approaching substance, the rules got in the way, it was time to move on – time flies when discussion of the most pressing issues is limited to a few sweeps of the second hand. Rule are rules, but there’s no reason moderator/schoolmarm Jim Lehrer could not have asked the two if, by mutual consent, they wanted to go deeper.

For example, the question of when U.S. troops should be deployed overseas is of vital importance. The quick rundown of places where troops have been deployed and the candidates’ yes-or-no answers on whether they supported those involvements was little more than a whirlwind travelogue when statements of guiding principles were needed. It would have been good, for example, to know precisely what Gov. Bush means by the pejorative term “nation building” or the vague “security interests.” It would have been enlightening to hear him expand on where the obligation of the world’s only superpower to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians and to promote democracy and human rights begins and where it ends. But time ran out.

In both debates, Mr. Gore has suggested that much of the turmoil in the Middle East is the result of what he has called the “inconclusive” end to the Gulf War, the cease-fire that left Saddam Hussein in power. But as Sen. Gore a decade ago, he endorsed the decision of President Bush to end the war once Iraqi troops had been pushed out of Kuwait. Short of marching on to Baghdad, what should the coalition or the United States have done – what could still be done – to ensure Saddam’s removal, to spare the good people of Iraq and the surrounding region another 10 years of tyranny and threats? Unasked, unanswered. Time ran out.

A discussion on hate crimes also teased with the promise of depth. Gov. Bush, with disconcerting glee, crowed that the three men who dragged James Bird to death will be executed (actually, only two got the death penalty but, other than the truth police dogging the vice president, who’s counting?), as if Texas is the only state that deals harshly with murderers. Mr. Gore started to prod the governor on his opposition to expanding Texas’ hate-crimes law, but Mr. Lehrer rang the bell. The larger question of whether a low-level crime, such as simple assault or an act of vandalism, becomes a greater crime, such as terrorizing, if racism is added will have to wait for another day.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that if one candidate wanted to suspend the rules for a more protracted discussion of a certain issue the other would have objected. That in itself would have been enlightening.

Still, this second debate, when compared with the first, did prove one point: The two leading contenders for the most powerful office in the world can sit at a table for 90 minutes and talk to each other with civility and respect. It just seems like an awful lot of time to spend on such a small point.