From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: The Second Battle of October
Summary: Vice Presidential Debate comments
Keywords: Vice Presidential Debates, Atlanta, Gore, Quayle, Stockdale
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:04:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Again another essay in my thoughts about debates. Here is my commentary
on the Vice Presidential Debate. This time, I watched in my dorm commons
room with friends of mine. I was also sick with a damn cold. We watched
the debates on CNN this time, and listened to reporters comments on CNN
following the end of the debate, then switched over to CSPAN to listen
to viewers' calls.

I. The format (single moderator) is obviously more ideally suited
towards two people rather than three. Hal Bruno did an above-average job
in being moderator.

You also saw two senators primed in their debating skills and
taking different strategies regarding the debates. Both Quayle and Gore
stayed with their debating strategies, and as a result, I could not
really determine a winner for this debate among these two based on whose
strategy worked better. However, based on the image we have been
accustomed to regarding Quayle and Gore, Quayle won the debate.
Factually I wasn't really impressed with anyone in the debate because
what you saw was Senators using debating strategies rather than a true
methodical enumeration of ideas.

II. Sympathy vote goes to Admiral Stockdale. This format favors the
aggressive debater, which Stockdale obviously was not. He spoke a lot of
good one-liners, but they'll only play them on TV, not give you points
in a debate. Given opportunities to speak Stockdale did not take them as
he yielded his time to the younger men. The "hearing aid" bit and "run
out of ammo" comment made him not only a non-factor in this debate but
also accentuated why he was not ready for prime time. If Stockdale were
about 45, he would be ridiculed worse than Dan Quayle!

III. Gore's strategy was to present the position of the Clinton/Gore
campaign during the 1.25 minute statement prior to the 5 minute
discussion period and end it with a question directed at Quayle, which
if Quayle had answered would take up Quayle's time to state the
Bush/Quayle position on the subject. This is a debate tactic which is
used frequently, and the way a person wins with this tactic is if the
opposition starts answering the opponent's question at length without
making any substantive points. However starting practically every
response in the 1.25 min statement with "Bill Clinton and I believe..."
made him sound totally prepared and contrived. He was very calm and
composed throughout the debate. Those supporting Gore will say he seemed
"Presidential"; those against will claim he was "wooden" and an
"automaton." [The BQ supporters started remarking, "I am Locutus of
Gore. The land you called America no longer exists. From this day
forward you will service ... us." >> "Vice President Quayle. Fire."
Reference to Star Trek the Next Generation "Best of Both Worlds, Part
I."]

IV. Quayle's strategy was to be aggressive and hit on two points
throughout the night: Clinton/Gore's "tax and spend" policy and
Clinton's character. He itemizes this strategy in the beginning and at
the end of the debate and consistently brings either one or the other up
throughout the night. This is a strategy to control the discussion of
the debate and keep it focused in the minds of the audience about these
two things. He was very relaxed and comfortable throughout this debate,
and now I think that of the six people in the past two debates, Dan
Quayle actually sounded like he stood for something that was very
important to him. This is not the Dan Quayle of the 1988 debates, and
his aggressive style played well to the audience (as it is very
effective in this format). Now his aggressiveness to his opponents could
be construed as Quayle going "ballistic" or "out of control"; his
strategy to his opponents would give them reason to say he "avoided" the
questions presented to him. 

But the one thing that Quayle did that was most effective
broke any consistent rules I had on how to debate: he ended his
closing remarks with a question. Now, think about it. If you ended a
research dissertation with a question, you'll immediately be denied your
Master's or Ph.D. degree. If you ended a research paper or an executive
report with a question, you'd get slammed. Bringing a question implies
doubt, and usually that doubt is reflected on the position of the
debater presenting the closing statement. A closing statement is the
last chance one has to convince the audience that his position is
correct, and putting a question in normally backfires. But Quayle didn't
do that; he ended his statements with "Do you trust Bill Clinton to be
your President?" However his strategy was to bring doubt to the Clinton
economic plan and his character; and this question -- as the last
sentence in his closing remarks -- hit a bulls-eye in accordance with
this strategy. Note that in Stockdale and Gore's closing statements,
applause followed their speeches; Quayle's was followed by silence
(followed by applause). This silence actually accentuated the question,
made it resonate in the audience's minds, hence bringing psychologically
the doubt regarding Clinton's character. [This silence also indicates
why ending a closing statement with a question is so unusual.]

V. Perot: Clinton :: Stockdale: Quayle. Stockdale helped Quayle so much,
especially with respect to the environment question, that Gore's
prepared remarks -- remember Gore spoke last in the 1.25 min remarks --
sounded like he didn't listen at all to what Stockdale or Quayle had
said. Again his strategy was to leave those topics in the discussion
period, but Quayle's "theatrics" to yield time to Stockdale was
indicative that at least Quayle heard what Stockdale said. Gore was on
the defensive on this topic, which is very surprising.
	As for the p.304 thing, I didn't really consider it a literal
citation. I noted it in my point-by-point transcript but I didn't
consider it a valid point. [Reporters all over the country agree with
this, I know.] However, this is also a debate tactic; in a debate on TV,
image is everything. And the citation Quayle spit out seemed to me
rehearsed, believe it or not. Psychologically it was perfectly executed.
If Al had a copy of his book on the podium and looked up p.304, then
Gore would have been able to lunge after Quayle. In a debate, the
attacks must be refuted on the spot or the attacker wins. 

VI. Improvisational tactics favored Quayle because of his being relaxed
and his aggressive debating style. Now that sounds contradictory, but it
is the case (to me). Gore's abortion tactic to have DanQ say "I support
the right for a woman to choose" was rehearsed and didn't impress me
other than a challenge to Quayle. Quayle did not take up that challenge;
I would have liked to have seen Quayle say this, "I support the right
for a child to be born"; Quayle would have had resounding applause from
his section and turned Gore's strategy on its rear. Gore's resumption
during the discussion period sounded more like a continuation of his
1.25 minute speech and consequently gave the impression that he won that
part of the debate. But Gore could have done better; in responding to
Quayle, he could've hit the proverbial grand slam by remarking that
George Bush changed his position on abortion in order to be elected
President. Everyone on this net knows that; why didn't he remember to
bring it up? If Gore were more on an aggressive mode, he probably could
have remembered and ... whoa, Nellie!

Quayle's improvisational remarks kept to his strategy so well it scored
points (not at the time, but in looking at the entire debate on replay).
Did anyone hear Quayle's remarks when Stockdale asked Gore about how
Gore could account for the discrepancy in Gore's scientific data? Quayle
said, "He denies it." This is purely improvisation, but based on his
strategy. Quayle's "inhale" remark had to have been purely
extemporaneous as well (noting the timing of his remark in the debate)
and was wonderfully humorous. We will of course remember the "gridlock"
statement the Admiral had (I gave it four stars); Gore applauded and
Quayle laughed after this remark. That was the funniest moment in the
debate by far.

VII. For those who are arguing with me about those "pauses", in
Stockdale's opening remarks, he stopped to put on his glasses. I think
the pause was about five to eight seconds during which he put on his
glasses and started reading from his texts. I rest my case. You NEVER
EVER pause in a debate unless you are yielding for a response or are
doing something totally dramatic (which doesn't happen often).
Stockdale's statement concerning abortion would have been much better
had he stopped after his sentence that "a woman should do whatever she
wants with her body. Period." His appended remarks to that, although
they were substantive, made him sound like he was rambling. I don't need
to remark about Quayle and Gore's jumping on "can we have his time,
then?" other than that is what debaters do. Debating in an aggressive
mode and in the Senate will do that. You also don't say, "I'm out of
ammo." I can't say, "Stockdale never had a chance to talk about his
positions" because he never really took advantage of those chances.

VIII. Last remarks. President Dan Quayle doesn't seem so darn scary
as it used to be. Clinton and Gore were playing prevent defense. Bush
has to change the dynamics of the election in the next two debates to
win. Perot is now in trouble because of his selection of Stockdale.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8112 alt.politics.clinton:8994