From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Debate?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:05:46 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:
: 
: 
: An unusally informed co-worker of mine tells me that today Mr. Bush has 
: agreed to debate Mr. Clinton by the rules set forth previously. And also that
: Mr. Bush made a statement like "For some reason Mr. Clinton is no longer
: afraid to debate ME!" Can somebody verify this??? Regardless I look forward
: to the debates and call for a law making them mandatory.

Well, here are the details from a UPI news story I've just seen.

*  The Bush-Quayle campaign told the Clinton folks that Bush will debate
   twice if a panel of journalists rather than a single moderator asks
   the questions.

*  Clinton prefers the moderator format designed by a bipartisan 
   commission on presidential debates.

*  Clinton will be in East Lansing, MI on 22 September (the date
   and place designated by the commission), and will be ready
   to debate, whether or not Bush shows up

*  James Baker and Robert Teeter, on behalf of the Bush capaign,
   call for two debates, not the three originally set by the
   commission.  They also want one vice presidential debate.

*  Bush prefers the debate format used in the last election campaign,
   where four journalists take turn asking the candidates questions.
   The candidates then deliver short responses and rebuttals

*  UPI reports that Bush officials are afraid that the single moderator
   format will benefit Clinton, who is described as a strong debater
   able to call on facts and figures with relative ease.

*  UPI also reports that Bush prefers the Q & A format, as that is what
   he has become used to at news conferences.

*  The author of the article also comments that the format permits a
   candidate to make his point without necessarily having to worry about
   the details.

Those statements/opinions are not mine.  I'm just passing along what
I've read.  I will admit that I couldn't help but wonder about a 
little "pro-Dem." bias sneaking in on that last point, but the point
the author made is IMHO a good one.

The two candidates seem to be trying to gain some advantage by arguing
about how the debates will be run.  Clinton wants the type of
debate he's used to, where he can produce facts and figures.  Bush
seems to want the type of "debate" he's used to, where he can make
points without being bothered by details -- an opportunity to
get some good sound bytes, with potentially little substance, in
an attempt to woo the "unwashed masses" of the American public, who
seem to not be troubled by the lack of substance in either candidate's
campaign.

It would be nice if Marrou could get himself invited to these debates,
though.  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc