From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:54:52 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>I. The debate itself was very instructive as to what the candidates
>stood for without much negative mud-slinging. The questions were very

No direct mud-slinging anyway.  However there was lots of clever
and indirect mud-slinging.  I think that Bush wins the prize for this
category.  He's the king of "Saying but not saying", so that when
confronted, he can respond "I never said that!".

>II. Perot would be declared the winner of the debate because of his
>candor and ability to connect with the audience. When I did see him on

So he wins the "schmooze" competition?  He had the walk and the talk,
but he didn't have the content.  When pressed for specifics his only
answer was: "Do you wanna talk about it or do you want to do it?"
Apparently, we can't have both.

>hearts of American voters. He has now regained stature as a force to be
>reckoned with in this election.

Yes - its a shame how the American public is so easily baffled with
bullshit.  Not even good bullshit.

>not neutralize Bush. On the contrary, Bush launched a huge ICBM when he
>reminded HRP that the US and Russia had achieved a deal concerning
>nuclear weapons. [Sorry about the pun, but I had to do it.] Perot did

What is a ICBM?  If you mean he won big points on that one, the I agree,
but I don't think he won the boxing match because he got in one good 
punch.

>win on sound bites, but I don't know if you ask all his supporters if

Yes, thats true.  Again, what a shame that the public has such a
short attention span that sound bites are their information source.

>IV. Clinton was helped by Perot, but he didn't help himself. His

I agree the Clinton didn't come across well.  In his attempts to be
serious and presidential, he looked stiff and rehearsed.  However, 
having seen him hundreds of times before this, I take this as an
acception rather that the rule.  I've never seen him like that before
and I think all he needs to do is loosen up.

I don't think its a reflection on his character or his ability
to be president.  I think its a reflection of bad handling. I'm
sure that this won't happen again.

>greatest moment was in fighting back the charges of anti-patriotism
>(which again Bush did not attack him on this point). It is interesting

Yes. That was the only time that he sounded genuine.  Did you see that
Bush didn't look him in the eye?  Clinton looked right at him and
slammed him and Bush looked down and shuffled papers on his podium.

>father to start his own business; but I digress. He however was NOT as
>well prepared as I had expected. In a broadcast debate, the last thing
>you should do is pause. 

Says who?  If Clinton had every answer on the tip of his tongue then
he would have gotten slammed for being too slick.  They would say that
he has an answer for everything (in a bad way), and that he has a
promise for everyone.  Which is what they've been saying.

By the way, he was very well prepared.  

>Now once is okay if you have to think about an
>answer, but if I counted correctly, Clinton paused four times in this

I have no problem with any of them pausing before speaking.  It shows
that they are considering the question that they were asked, not
quickly deciding which prepared statement they will give.

>allegations and questions, a pause like those Clinton made is very
>ironic and gives him a perception not of being Presidential or
>"open-minded" (which is the last thing you want to be in a debate), but

Thinking about a question means you're not open-minded?  On what planet?
Taking time to consider what you've been asked shows temperence and 
intelligence.  Two very important qualifications for the president.
Do you want to say whatever he has prepared without thinking about
whether or not it actually answers the question?

>contrived and groping for the "correct" answer.

I think you are reading far more into this than is there.  And I think
you are really stabbing in the dark for your interpretations of what
is and what is not presidential.

>Clinton also said he would not support sending ground troops
>into Sarajevo. However, recall that Bill said he would approve of
>bombing raids to Sarajevo. Militarily, this doesn't seem to make any
>sense. One cannot just bomb the hell out of a city without knowing who
>one's enemies are or what the objectives of the mission are also. Does

I admit that I know very little about military tactics, but it seems
to me that you aren't going to find out anything about your enemy
or the objectives of your mission by sending in ground troops first.
If I remember correctly (and I may not), we bombed the hell out of
Iraq before sending in ground troops, because we got all our information
from other sources.

>Europeans and not for the US -- his biggest gaffe came here: "our forces
>are not made up of the beautiful people." Clinton basically said, "me

Why was that a gaffe?  He was hitting home with the working class.
His point was that todays soldiers come from working class backgrounds.

>VI. Immediate viewer response. Perot won. That's it. On C-SPAN, more
>than two-thirds of the calls coming in the hour immediately after the
>debate said they were seriously looking at Perot or going to vote for
>him now. The rest said they liked BUSH!!! It wasn't until they had
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did C-SPAN take different calls then CNN? Or are you mixing up the two?
CNN's calls were pretty evenly distributed.

BTW, you must know by now, that, according to the official debate judges,
who focus on content, that Bill Clinton was the clear winner, followed
by Perot.  Of the 6 judges, 4 chose Clinton and 2 chose Ross.  None
chose Bush.  The candidates were judged on: analysis, evidence, rebuttal,
cross-examination (as if there was any time for that), and communication.

Too bad that the voters aren't interested in content.  They're only
interested in believing that the candidated is a nice guy.

>VII. Drinking game. For the next Presidential debate, for every time
>Bush says "tax and spend" all Democrats must drink a beer; for every
>time, Clinton says "invest" all Republicans must drink a beer. Have fun.

Of course, we must all drink every time Perot says "Do you wanna talk
about it or do you wanna do it?"

BTW, here's the actual Clarinews file that I was referring to earlier:

-------------------------

A panel of debate judges assembled by United Press International says
Bill Clinton won the first presidential debate... and Ross Perot came in
second. The judges evaluated Clinton, Perot and President Bush on
analysis, evidence, rebuttal, cross-examination and communication. Four
of the six judges picked Clinton as the top performer and the other two
selected Perot.

        One of the judges notes the president says he's NOT an ``Oxford
debater'' and says Bush proved that during his confrontation with the
two men who want his job.

        Polls taken immediately after the debate favor Clinton over Bush and
showeverybody is taking Perot seriously. In a USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll
of 452 registered voters, 62 percent view Perot more favorably as a
result of the debate... compared with 13 percent more favorable for Bush
and 29 percent more favorable for Clinton.

        On the negative side, 24 percent came away from the debate with a
less favorable view of Bush, 14 percent less favorable for Clinton, but
only five percent less favorable for Perot.

        In a poll of 433 registered voters by Newsweek 70 percent now say
they take Perot more seriously.


--------------------------------
-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc