From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:42:45 GMT

In <1992Oct15.024912.15424@news.columbia.edu>, Elizabeth G. Levy writes:

>In article <98654@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
>>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
>>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story
>>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you reall
>>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and


>No, that was an old Time Magazine that Bush is using in his
>commercials.  The present one has something like "Bush = Deadmeat" on
>the cover (I'm paraphrasing a little, of course).  This was the central
>problem with Gore's performance, IMO.  He should have clobbered the Bush
>admin for its lies, but didn't do anything beyond a tepid recitation
>of the Shrub's broken campaign promises.  This is rich vein to mine,
>but Gore barely broke the surface.

>>the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment(supposedly
>>his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
>>with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?
>>
>>This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

>I'd say it was closer than you imply.  Gore did appear "presidential"
>and formal, so I suppose that would be plus points, especially when
>compared to Quayle's rabid puppy appearance.  It's just that Gore passed
>up opportunity after opportunity to plant an axe in Quayle.  Quayle didn't
>quite as much win as Gore lost.

I'd have to agree with that.  Someone mentioned earlier that the Clinton/Gore
campaign is using a "prevent defense," a point to which I would agree.  Still,
considering expectations and reputations, Quayle came out ahead in this one.

For those of you not familiar with football, teams use a "prevent defense"
when they are comfortably ahead in a game with not much time left.  It almost
always allows its opponent to come back a little bit, but not enough.  The
idea is to not screw something up so horribly that a 20-point lead can be lost
in the last few minutes--even if that means giving up 7 or 10 points.

I think that Gore blew it.  He was too plastic.  Being polished is one thing;
being robotic is another.  He barely even seemed *human*.  The Clinton/Gore
campaign seems to be trying to avoid a major foul-up, even if that means
passing up a few golden opportunities to bash the Republicans.  Perhaps they
are trying to coast into the election.  The Republicans have a pretty large
war chest, and I think that they still have plenty of ammunition left.  The
Democrats shouldn't forget that most Clinton support is anti-Bush and not as
much pro-Clinton.  Many Clinton supporters are not thrilled with Clinton, and
some are *looking* for reasons to vote for Bush.  Gore should have done more
than chant the party mantra against supply-side and defend his positions on the
environment.  He didn't.  Apparently, the nickel defense is in the game for
the Democrats.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
******************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/13/92
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6973 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5181