Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:53:48 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

Hello K=A*T,

How's your Monday?

> Very good answer, but you didn't answer *my* question.  This is
> what you sad:

I see.  The impression that I got during the 1988 debate panel and every
panel for presidential debates since I first started watching them in 1972,
was the in-depth followup to the questions by different minds.

> Why would the Debate Commission change to a single moderator format?

That is *my* question left unanswered by the Commission.  Why after 16 years
of using a panel for debates, change the format?  In watching the 1960 debate
between Kennedy and Nixon, it seemed like the single monitor favored Kennedy,
leaving no room for more than one voice asking questions.  That may have help-
ed Nixon more in his answers by, perhaps, seeing a liberal/conservative split
panel.  While in the 1980 debate, Reagan appeared more relaxed than Carter
with a panel.  Granted, Reagan is a better public debater than Nixon, but even
in 1976, Ford appeared more confident than Carter, despite the Carter win.

I seem to get more out of a panel than a single moderator, and I seem to
hear from my fellow Circulation desk workers the same thing.

> What do you mean?  The answer is in the negotiations that
> has been going on since then.

Negotiations were made for Bush to appear on the Larry King show to answer
his questions.  Bush even appeared on Rush's show to answer his questions.
I think the Clinton camp should negotiate for him to appear on King's and
Rush's show in the same format.  I'll bet the public should like it also.

> But you said "stacked deck"  How was it stacked?

From what I have heard Bush would not debate because he believed the Commi-
ssion was opting to the dictates of Clinton be changing the debate format.
It would be that Bush felt it suddenly became a stacked deck.  I this I agree.
The sudden switch of the Commission may have become the 'stacked' part,
considering that on Rush's radio talk show he specifically stated 'not cater
to the dictates of that man', i.e. Clinton.  Perhaps he knows something
about the Commission that we don't.

>>> The *bipartisan* Debate Commission, however, has the appearance of being
>>> impartial and fair.

>> Are you sure?  How do you know for certain?

> Yes I am sure.  See, I said the "appearance" of impartiality.
> First on all, no one, not even Bush people has accused the
> Commission of not being impartial.  Second, ex Republican and
> Democratic presidents are honorary members, so is ex RNC chairman.

In a way, Bush did accuse the Commission, he questions the change of format.
If the Commission thought the public did not like the panel because of the
bias of news media, changing to a single moderator was not the answer.  Bush
must have known that too.  The panel idea should remain using either 2
liberal and 2 conservative moderators.  I feel four is better than two
for more depth.

Perhaps Bush should ask, if he is an honorary member, why they needed to
change, and then let the public know why.

Sue Clark

'You know Dick, if the outcome of the war were left up to me, I would go
one on one with Rommell, him in his tank and me in mine.  We would shake
hands and commence battle.'  - General George S. Patton

Now, that's a debate!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU