Today I saw the tape of the Vice Presidential debate. Once again it's called a joint appearance and this time it was a question and answer format rather than a debate. Dick Cheney is actually pretty good on screen, better than Bush. Lieberman is also not too bad, perhaps better than Gore. They were both very polite, both to each other and to the moderator; rarely did they keep going over time after being warned, unlike the Presidential Candidates who just kept talking and talking.

I won't rescore the tax issue nor the oil issue. The Vice Presidential Candidates hold the same position as their Presidential bosses. Lieberman did surprise me when he said that he supported releasing the strategic oil reserves a few months ago to help combat the rising oil prices. I don't think saving a few dollars a barrel (about 20%) is worth dipping into the reserves which are for emergencies. True, it's billions of dollars as oil prices ripple through the economy. But I would rather save oil, use less, than keep the cheap oil available.

But that wasn't enough to score a point. What did score a point for Cheney is the military issue. Cheney wants to increase the military budget, saying that our military is not in great shape after a few years of neglect. Lieberman countered by claiming that our military leaders say that they can handle whatever the President needs them to do and that Gore's budget plan has more money allocated to the military than Bush's.

To this I can only say that the Secretary of Defense and the heads of the various branches have always claimed they are ready for any mission. The fact is that there are serious budget problems. We are not preparing our soldiers and giving them the best chance to accomplish their missions safely. It's getting to the point where the UK and Germany and France have forces that are equivalent to ours, at least for some missions and on a smaller scale. That's really not good enough and from some military people I know, there's a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the ranks.

So I'll give the point to Cheney. Lieberman didn't seem serious about the issue: "we're spending more than Bush, but our military doesn't need the money". In general Lieberman seemed to be a bit dodgy at times, Cheney was more direct. Another issue was Milosevic and Hussein. Cheney stated that more and decisive action needs to be done, if those problems persist. Lieberman in essence blamed Clinton for not solving those problems in his term of office. I'm not too sure if I agree with Cheney, but I like his style. Half a point for the Republicans.

None of the other issues really caught my attention. Something about women only being paid 75% what men are paid for the same job. Something else about racial profiling. Maybe in the next debate I'll notice them. But in general a couple of issues are enough for me. So in the end the Bush/Cheney camp won this debate 1.5 to 0. The score is now Gore/Lieberman 2, Bush/Cheney 1.5.

Now there's a certain vocal section of the public that supports third party candidates, like Buchanan or Ralph Nader or some other guy. Make your vote count by voting for one of these guys, reject the old system, yakety yak yak. To this I can only say that the third party platforms are all too narrow and extreme from my viewpoint. When it comes down to it, I want a President who I believe will make the same decisions I would make. Slightly different than what I said last time so let me clarify. I think both candidates will in general make the same decisions I would make, definitely moreso than the three third party candidates I've seen. So once we get to the point where I think that either candidate would make good decisions, now I'm trying to find out who seems to have a good plan and hopefully a plan that appeals to me more than the other plan.