From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:25:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct16.185841.14250@u.washington.edu> machman@stein.u.washington.edu (the machman) writes:
>>but think of the actual questions.  The question didn't make sense:
>>"How has the debt (or deficit?) affected you?".  It hasn't affected
>>*anyone* yet.  Bush, somewhat astutely, pointed that out by saying that
>>it will affect his grandchildren.  (So did Perot.)  Clinton modified the
>>question to be "How has the recession affected you?".  Of course, it
>>didn't affect him either.  But he managed to concoct some homey story 
>>about some couple he met on his travels around the country.
>
>Pay attention.  It was the moderator who modified the question from
>"deficit" to "recession".  And if you think the deficit hasn't affected
>anyone yet, your head is up there in the clouds along with Bush's.  I also
>doubt his story was "concocted" as you are wont to believe.  You think
>being in touch with citizens of this country is a bad thing?  

Also, in both versions of the question: deficit and recession: the KEY
word and emphasis was placed by the person asking on the word YOU.
How has this affected YOU PERSONALLY.
Bush started answering that question by talking about interest rates!
And that's not what she was after.  I could tell that easily when she
asked the question, why couldn't Bush?

>
>
>"Well-rehearsed", or maybe he knows his stuff?  I find it exasperating that
>people actually -complain- that Clinton comes across as knowledgeable and
>well-informed.
>
>There's that negative "slick" buzzword again.  What sort of !Real Solutions!
>did you hear from Perot or Bush?  Just because Clinton can list solutions
>to the nation's problems, that means he's "slick"?  What the hell do you
>people want?  Do you want to be spoon-fed platitudes about how we're really
>not doing as bad as we could be, or do you want to hear some concrete ideas
>and solutions for how we can put this country back on track to prosperity?
>
>I


Agreed.  Clinton is not a robotic construct made by the evil Democraticons,
programmed with information and the power to hypnotize or manipulate
the minds of us foolish Earthlings.  
He is a guy from a small state whose population thinks highly enough of
him to have elected him to their highest position five times, and whose
actions in that small state over teh last 12 years have improved that
state's development.  
No scandals I've ever heard of have come out of his Governorship, unlike
someone else I could mention.
When it comes to electing leaders, smaller populations usually do a much
better job than larger ones because by definition, the smaller population
has a much better chance of actually having contact with the candidates
and thus a much better chance of accurately gauging the candidate's
intentions, fitness to rule, and effectiveness.  
It's a case of the judgement ofArkansas' population five times over over
the last twelve years versus the judgement of the national press and/or
his political rivals over he last single year.  
I think the people of Arkansas are smarter than the press, and rivals
have their own ulterior motives.
Thus I percieve Bill Clinton to be the best person for the job this time,
and I will vote for him.

Steven.K.Manfred@uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot