Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:49:26 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

Hello to all today:

Hi KAT, how goes it on a cold, wet dreary day here in Omaha.  It was
almost 80 degrees yesterday, today, blah, in the 40's with snow out
west...they can have it.

> What I read (maybe mistakenly) in your posing the question was that
> somehow the Commission is biased.

I guess I only became suspious of the Commission because Bush appeared to
be also.  I think he wanted the Commission to remain a panel just as much
as I do.

> In fact, later you used the word "stacked" in referring to the Commission's
> decision.

The word "stacked" was typed with doubt and suspicion to the Commission.  I
became angry because of the change back to a single monitor.  If the Commis-
sion was in the process of changing it years ago, then this should have been
widely and more openly stated before the election year campaign.  This would
have not have been questioned to much.  How many years ago was this decided
upon to change the format?

>At any rate, have you really tried to the Commission's decision.

Yes, I have tried to look for written documentation to know their reasons why
they changed, but without success.

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

I guess that is where we disagree.  Debates that I have witnessed, especially
on PBS, that had panels were so much more stimulating to me, a meeting of
minds, you might say.

> It has something to do with real issues being discussed in a more open
format and that the single moderator format would serve the people better.

I do not see how a single moderator would serve the people better. Where as
I believe a panel is better for stimulation, how does a single moderator
serve the people better?

> but one should not accuse them of being biased or that they did not offer
> an explanation.

I only suspected when President Bush refused to debate as quickly as Clinton
accepted, and mentioned his doubts on Rush's radio talk show.  They should
put out written documentation for all to read as to why the change, it makes
people think there is bias, especially right in the middle of an election year.

> I *thought* you were saying that Clinton has not answered Bush's
> challenge to four debates.

Oh no, I knew he had answered and both camps were negotiating, but I would
like to see Clinton on Rush's TV or radio show as Bush was on Larry King's
show.

> Just because Bush thinks he is not a good debator.

I was not impressed with Clinton's speaking style, and I certainly think he
will not be a powerful debator.

> Bush is NOT an honorary member.

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

> And by accepting and maintaining their honorary membership...

Is honorary membership a major influence in affecting the decisions of the
Commission?  Just wondering.  It would be interesting to see in print how
they went about changing the format.

> You are the first one I have heard that accuses the Commission of being
> influenced by Clinton.

Sorry, I missed adding that earlier.  I guess it is the little or no-
warning of the change of debate format that even none of my political hounds
here at UNMC even heard about.  It could be what I consider the poor timing
also.  It seems quite funny somehow, I guess.

Goombye for now,

Sue Clark