From: SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET (welcome to the faith dome explosion)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: clinton jams, bush rambles, perot advertises
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:42:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>>His answers were clear, in many cases specific, well thought out without
>>sounding rehearsed, and he answered most of the questions that were asked,
>>without veering away.  This was particularly evident on questions regarding
>>gun control, defense, and the deficit.
>Well thought out?  Clinton's answer on gun control was well thought
>out?  It didn't make any sense and revealed only that either he
>doesn't know what he's talking about or he's uninterested in showing
>that he does.

The phrase was "well thought out without sounding rehearsed."  Both points
refer to the articulation and style of his answer, whether it was completely
expressed and coherent.  The "without sounding rehearsed" is important, as it
discloses the context of the statement, as well as providing a contrast with
my view of Clinton during the first debate, in which he *did* sound rehearsed.

Clinton's answer on gun control seemed that way to me, although your mileage
may have varied.  Perhaps I should point out at this point that it does not
follow that I agree with him or the measures he advocates, simply because I
opined that his statement on the matter was clearly sounded out.  I agree that
the Brady Bill probably won't affect crime much, and while I have to agree with
Clinton that background checks are generally desirable, I disagree with him
that a seven-day waiting period is necessary to ensure it's success, or
desirable from a constitutional standpoint (an abridgement of a constitutional
right for a limited time is still an abridgement, after all).

>I couldn't figure out what Bush/Perot knew from their answers.
>Some choice.

I agree.  Instead of three meaty steaks, we are given three cups of thin,
watery gruel, and asked which will fill us up.  (So to speak).

>Clinton is very good at giving answers that sound good to people who
>don't know about the subject under discussion.  (BTW - The presidency
>isn't a closed-book test, so ....)  Is he really that ignorant, or is
>he playing to the ignorant?  This may be good politics, but ....

True.  The same can, of course, be said for Bush and Perot, which is why my
reaction to the debate was largely confined to the theatrical aspects of it.
After all, complaining about the lack of substance and the deceptive tactics
of all three candidates gets palpably redundant after a short while.

>-andy's rule for listening to policy discussions by candidates is to
>        ignore them when they're talking about things he doesn't know
>        about, because "does he sound good?" isn't a reliable way to
>        know whether or not said candidate makes any sense, and to
>        grade them when they talk about things he knows about.

Gary thinks Andy equated "well thought out" with "made sense" in Gary's
original post, and just extrapolated Gary's opinions on gun control from
there.  Gary will try to be more explicit in the future, to prevent further
miscues on Andy's part.  Gary is now going to the cupboard to get a 'hoho'.

Gary W. Olson                "You tell the truth, you go to the guillotine,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  you lose your head but your conscience is clean,
18 days and counting down...  don't buy into no one elses' dream,
                              say what you mean and say it mean."
                             -SFOTW, "Ramrod"