Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:46:43 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

Another dreary day, and even colder:

>>>that the single moderator format would serve the people better.

>>I guess that is where we disagree....

>Who is we?  Actually I am not sure which format I like better. My
>biggest objection is with limited followups (I think only one was
>allowed last time.)  I think if a person is ducking a question, it
>should be asked several times until either it is answered or it
>becomes obvious that the candidate is ducking.

I apologize, I was under the idea that you were in favor of a single
monitor.  If we have debates that use both formats, that will be a
great example for the public to decide which is the better system,
if there is one.  Perhaps even use both in future.  That sounds like
a good idea.

But I do agree that I would like to see more follow-up questions when
a panel is used, and yes, a question being ducked *should* be pressed
to be answered.  Both Clinton and Bush have done that, and the public
is tired of it.  The public *wants* the hard questions answered.

>We can agree to disagree on that.  It was the accusation that the
>*bipartisan* Commission was biased and stacked that bothered me.

I am willing to place my suspicion in neutral, then watch the debates
carefully.  On the GOP-L file, we are still talking about this, and
suspicion still runs high.

>One point regarding Rush Limbaugh and Larry King.
>Limbaugh might have many attributes, but being objective is not one of them.

I disagree.  When Bush was on his show, his questions were hardball that could
have been asked to Clinton as well.  He did not show partisanship in his
questions, and I have listened to his questions several times over on the
cassette taping of his show I did that day when the President was on.  He
has already been invited to monitor the Vice-Presidential debate, but I do
not know if he has accepted as of yet.  Both King and Limbaugh could and I
think *should* ask hard questions.

>When he was on Meet the Press he said, "if I interview President Bush I will
>ask him if the fetus is a person, then why would you allow for exception
>in cases of rape and incest."  So then he gets to interview President Bush.
>And do you think he did ask that question?  No, he didn't.

Yes, he should have asked that question!  Whether it is candidate I don't
or do support, since this is a very important issue this election year,
it should be brought out.

>>>Bush is NOT an honorary member.

>>I was assuming that ex-presidents became honorary members of the Commission.

>This is a really intriguing answer by you.

Oh-oh, what have I done now?

>Do you think Bush is a soon to be ex-president?

Only after four more years, but after then, even presidents no longer in
office are still referred to as former president or out of respect even
addressed as Mr. President.  But with a ratio of four Republican presidents
to only one Democratic, the odds are still in our favor.  Clinton as ex-gov-
ernor is good enough for the country.

Sue Clark

>Was that a Freudian slip.

I don't know, did he wear one?  (Truthfully, I don't know much of any-
thing about S. Freud, so I am sorry if I missed your meaning.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU