Bush, Gore cautious about too much election rhetoric

Using the phrase "he's all talk" has an entirely different meaning in this presidential campaign.\nCampaign rhetoric is the method of persuading people to vote for a candidate, using personal style and flair, along with "sound bites" and wording to present ideas and ultimately draw people into voting for a candidate.\nSome experts believe Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush aren't taking advantage of the potential to draw voters in with select phrases.\n"Part of the problem is that very often the messages are reduced to very tiny segments or slogans," said James Andrews, professor of communication and culture. "There's an awful lot of bumper sticker arguments. Both sides are using little catch phrases that really don't explain the issues in that regard."\nHe said with issues being so complex and detailed, often times, it is difficult to get points across in just a few minutes.\n"Some of these economic issues are exceedingly complicated, so what we get are these little tiny summaries of there position," Andrews said.\nBut without the use of rhetoric, campaigns would not exist, he said. To get past the catch phrases, people have to learn to recognize if candidates are twisting the facts in their favor.\n"They can't do without rhetoric. They can't do without talking about issues. We operate on talk. We can only operate through persuasion," he said. "To do without that is to be totally silent."\nRhetoric causes candidates to rely on image and style over substance, instead of focusing on details of proposed ideas and policy decisions, said John Orman, professor of political science at Fairfield University in Connecticut.\n"If we had the same type of conditions, Abraham Lincoln would have never been elected," he said. "We're looking at the way people say things rather than what they say."\nWith Gore and Bush campaigning heavily in the last 13 days before the election, they are promoting trademark phrases such as Gore's claim that Bush gives "a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent" and Bush's argument that the United States is in an "education recession."\nSuch presidential rhetoric can be influential in such a close race, said Roderick Hart, professor of communication and government at the University of Texas at Austin. By Labor Day, about two-thirds of the electorate has decided who they will vote for, so the words Gore and Bush choose now are geared toward that additional one-third -- or independent and undecided voters, he said. \nHart said the candidates are doing a poor job using the techniques to gain support.\n"I think they're both terrible," he said. "I think, as a pair, they're the least articulate and least galvanizing pair we've had run for president in a very long time."\nWith such a close race, the candidates are watching their steps as they make public appearances so they don't make mistakes, Orman said.\n"They're both very cautious and they're measuring," he said. "They're both riding the election down to the wire."\nHe said one of the worst cases of such mistakes was in the 1976 race during the second debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Ford said Eastern Europe, including Poland and Romania, wasn't controlled by the communists, which hurt him in the race.\nPart of the study of rhetoric is what is known as "ethos" or people's perception of candidates. Andrews said determining how the candidates are doing is hard to report because of their differences.\nHe said Gore is perceived as someone with a firm grasp of the issues, but people's perception of him isn't as favorable as Bush's. Bush's "ethos," said Andrews, "is more positive, and he is seen as a more likeable person, even though his knowledge of the issues is perceived as being weak compared to Gore's"