From: leo@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (leonard.oppenheimer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: New Quayle Quote (NY Times, 10/7/92)
Summary: Original New York Times article
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:11:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T

I am new to this newsgroup.  From what I have seen of it so far, I do not
plan to stay long, since it seems to welcome only the mindless
Quayle-bashing that one sees again and again in the media.


I am the first to admit that Quayle has had some bad goofs, like potato etc.
However, I find that:

a) He almost always seems to come out on the correct and proper side of the
issues that he has dealt with, and has been a consistent and steadfast
supporter of those causes that would bring this country back to to its
senses from many of the excesses of the loony left.  On the issues of legal
reform, family values, support for Israel, and the importance of free
enterprise, he has been an important advocate of mainstream American values.

b) The media (and this newsgroup) are extremely unfair to him.  As has been
stated many times, Murphy Brown is a perfect example.  The issue was so
twisted and convoluted, and so different from the thrust of what was an
excellent speech with an important message, that it was truly deplorable to
anyone with a sense of fair play.

A perfect example of the way things get twisted in this newsgroup was this
posting.  I have downloaded the original article, and appended it to this.
Compare the original and the "citation"/commentary of the poster, and make
your own judgment as to whether the posting was fair.

Lenny Oppenheimer
___________

In article <7069@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
>I'm surprised I haven't seen this one here yet.  Dan's statement is
>not all that pathetic (for Dan) until you see what question he was
>trying to answer.
>
>	Dan's answer:
>
>	"Hawaii is a unique state," he said.  "It is a small
>	state.  It is a state that is by itself.  It is a --
>	it is different than the other 49 states.  Well, all
>	states are different, but it's got a particularly
>	unique situation."
>
>	The question:
>
>	Dan was asked whether Hawaii's universal health-care
>	plan might serve as a national model.
>
>This is from the NY Times, 10/7/92, p. A11.  The entire article,
>titled "Quayle Speaks Just Find (With a Script, That Is) is worth
>reading. (The sub-title is "Questions about Quayle's intellectual
>grasp.")  Maybe someone could scan it and post all of it.
>
>A Quayle aide explained Dan's problem as follows (same article):
>	"That's the problem with being Dan Quayle.  Sometimes
>	there's a data download as he's shifting gears."  
>If anyone can explain this explanation to me, I would be grateful.
>
>Remember -- a vote for Bush is a vote for Quayle.  Don't risk it.
>
>David  (A former Republican and you can thank Bush for it.)


Original Article:
--------------------
                  Copyright 1992 The New York Times Company  
                               The New York Times

                October  7, 1992, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 17; Column 1; National Desk

LENGTH: 1294 words

HEADLINE: THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Political Memo;
 Quayle's  Working Hard To Give a Better Speech

BYLINE: By KEVIN SACK, Special to The New York Times

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Oct. 4

 BODY:
   With his speech at the Republican National Convention, and in
thought-provoking addresses on everything from legal reform to cultural elitism,
Vice President Dan  Quayle  has gone a long way this year toward disproving the
notion, voiced most harshly by his own wife, that he cannot deliver a speech.

   But recent moments on the campaign trail suggest that Mr.  Quayle  is still
not sure-footed when he is forced to speak extemporaneously, as he will be in
the Vice-Presidential debate on Oct. 13. Next to his convention speech, Mr.
 Quayle  and his aides view the debate as their best opportunity to enhance the
Vice President's image, a mission that is crucial to his political future, both
this year and in 1996.

    Mr.  Quayle  seems to have the most difficulty with technical questions
about Administration policy. Consider a question-and-answer session following a
recent health-care speech by Mr.  Quayle  in Phoenix, where one man asked how
President Bush's proposal for medical-malpractice reform would treat damages
awarded for pain and suffering.
 
'Kevin, What Do We Do . . . ?'

    Mr.  Quayle,  an earnest look on his face, began to fidget. "I, I can't tell
you exactly what we do on that pain and suffering in the ---- " the Vice
President said, his voice trailing off as he looked offstage toward Kevin E.
Moley, the deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who
has been coaching him. "Kevin, what do we do on the pain and suffering on our
malpractice proposal?"

   After listening briefly to Mr. Moley, Mr.  Quayle  continued. "So, it doesn't
address it specifically," he said. "The state -- the states could in fact --
what we basically do is -- try to do -- is get the states to come up with
medical malpractice legislation. We have, I think it's five criteria in our
suggested recommendations. But once they meet the five criteria, then they get a
favorable distribution from us if they meet -- basically forcing the states to
adopt this medical malpractice legislation, and that's the way that you do it."

   What Mr.  Quayle  presumably did not recall is that one of the five
malpractice measures would require states to place a cap of $250,000 on damages
for pain and suffering to avoid a cutoff of Federal financing.                                                                       PAGE    3
                      The New York Times, October 7, 1992                       

   Some members of the audience at St. Joseph's Hospital did not find Mr.
 Quayle's  response very reassuring.

   "If I was standing up there and was supposedly putting forth a policy for
something as important as a campaign for President, I would have had that answer
on the tip of my tongue, especially if I was a lawyer," said Dr. Jeffrey H.
Hill.
 
Refers to Index Cards

    Despite Marilyn  Quayle's  pronouncement earlier this year in an interview
with The Washington Post that her husband "can't read a speech," Mr.  Quayle 
has excelled during the 1992 campaign when reading from a text. His prose was
both humorous and elegant, for instance, in a speech two weeks ago in Fort Worth
in which he unveiled a top-10 list of Gov. Bill Clinton's flip-flops.

   But after almost four years as Vice President and after months of
campaigning, Mr.  Quayle  still refers to index cards when delivering the most
standard speech. And while he is capable of handling a technical question
adroitly, as he did last week in answering a query on the obscure issue of
ethanol production, Mr.  Quayle  often finds himself sinking when he is without
the security of a script.

   It does not necessarily happen every day, but it happens often enough to
raise questions about the Vice President's facility with both language and
subject matter.

   On Sept. 20, for instance, on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," David
Broder, the Washington Post political reporter and columnist, asked Mr.  Quayle 
about the Administration's opposition to a bill aimed at limiting cable
television rates.

   MR. BRODER: Doesn't that sound like a case where the public is getting
shafted and there may be a need for local regulation or F.C.C. regulation?

   MR.  QUAYLE:  Yeah. There is F.C.C. regulation. There is regulation.

   Q.  There's not control of rates or service.

   A.  That's true, but there is ----

   Q.  Well, tell me in simple terms that people can understand: Why shouldn't
they be regulated?

   A.  O.K., simple terms, here's the choice. Here's the choice in simple terms.
Are you going to try to constrain the price increase through regulation or
through genuine competition? Our preference is to do it through genuine
competition.

   Q.  But there isn't genuine competition.

   A.  That's right. Because you have -- but the cities that grant these things
can certainly be more competitive and have more openness if they're ----                                                                       PAGE    4
                      The New York Times, October 7, 1992                       

   Q. So your suggestion is that they go out and have two or three different
companies wire these communities to get competition?

   A.  I'm not going to get into the micromanagement of the cable industry.

   In the last month, Mr.  Quayle  has visited a number of hospitals to
highlight the Administration's position on health care. But his well-informed
audiences have often found his presentations shallow. When a woman at a hospital
in Colorado Springs asked Mr.  Quayle  last week whether Hawaii's universal
health-care plan might serve as a national model, Mr.  Quayle  left it unclear
whether he knew anything about the plan. He tackled the question anyway.
 
Arriving Unprepared

    "Hawaii is a unique state," he said. "It is a small state. It is a state
that is by itself. It is a -- it is different than the other 49 states. Well,
all states are different, but it's got a particularly unique situation."

   Mr.  Quayle  also suffers at times from a lack of preparation. In late August
he called a news conference while touring a high-technology factory near Detroit
to announce that the Pentagon would spend $300 million to upgrade the Army's M-1
tanks at a Michigan plant. But when reporters asked Mr.  Quayle  how the tanks
would be upgraded and how many jobs would be saved, he had no idea.

   "I guess you'll have to ask the details to the management," Mr.  Quayle 
said, standing next to Gov. John Engler of Michigan. "I am here. The Governor
and I are announcing this today. It was just signed off on by the Department of
Defense as something that we have been monitoring, and the Governor obviously
has been very involved in this. And we're making this announcement today."

   There are times, of course, when obfuscation is deliberate. The Vice
President has shown great skill, for instance, in muddying his position on
abortion. He has said in recent interviews that he supports the Republican
platform, which calls for a total ban on abortion. But he has been careful not
to utter the phrase "constitutional ban," and he has said that he also supports
Pennsylvania's abortion law, which would simply restrict abortion.
 
Playing Down the Debate

    Aides to Mr.  Quayle  and to the Bush campaign said they are not concerned
about Mr.  Quayle's  performance in the debate, even though Senator Al Gore, his
Democratic opponent, is known for his mastery of policy details. The
Vice-Presidential debate will be a minor event compared with the three
Presidential debates, they said. And they are confident that Mr.  Quayle,  who
has been reading briefing books for more than a month, will be ready for the
challenge.

   Mr.  Quayle  and his staff also believe that the Vice President is
beautifully positioned because low expectations could transform a mere draw into
a victory. But they recognize that Mr.  Quayle  will have little margin for
error because of the public's perception of him as a bumbler.

   "That's the problem with being Dan  Quayle, " said one aide, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity. "Sometimes there's a data download as he's shifting
gears. But I think he knows the issues better than most people think."                                                                       PAGE    5
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle