From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:40:43 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=>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.

Essentially, that's what I said.

One of the weird ironies of debates is that no one will remember a
debate because of its content, but you will hear comments about the
persona each candidate displayed. Oddly enough, it is character and
personality that are more memorable -- i.e., image -- than content.
(Indiscrepancies are addressed and should be addressed in the media, but
first impressions are the reasons why many people thought Perot won
debate I.)

=>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.

Agreed there.

=>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 expect that the single-moderator format (kinda) that will be used in
Richmond will help him more with showing forth his character. He has
already shown a few signs of displaying his emotion in a campaign speech
I heard today. I have heard Clinton speak a few times prior to his
running for President, and I agree that Clinton didn't seem like himself
in Debate I.

=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.

I don't expect it to.

=>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.

I didn't see that until a CSPAN replay. I was too busy writing down
stuff in my point-by-point transcript to take notice. I also try not to
alienate the few radio purists who listened on the radio. Bush didn't
need to reply to Clinton at that situation, but I agree in a pure debate
that's not what one should do.

=>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.  

My "says who" is from knowing many debaters and noting what makes
certain debaters successful and what doesn't. I don't think if he
answered everything immediately that he would have been called "slick"
to me unless his statements were not solid. But pausing doesn't make you
look good in a debate. More below.

->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.

But in a debate you shouldn't need to stop and think. I know he was
considering the question asked, but that is deadly to an argument in a
debate. It's ironic that the Clinton organization responds so quickly to
charges the President makes in this campaign, and a two-second or
three-second pause is needed for Clinton to answer what his conception
of a family is. Even more below.

->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?

In a debate. [Answering "on what planet."]

This is not a conversation. Temperance and intelligence are
very important when it comes to being President, but it doesn't mean
anything when you are in a debating situation. The name of the game is
to give convincing arguments and win based on how convincing your points
are. Pausing, although it may be for meditating for the right words for
a response, harms any image of the strength of your convictions in these
answers.

=>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.

My interpretations are based on debate tactics used by friends in high
school, here at Duke, and politicians on C-SPAN. I would criticize Bush
for the same things. I am critical of his lack of "passion" at times
during the debate.

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

Gaffe was probably the wrong word.

I know that. But he didn't answer the question about his views on
Bosnia-Hercegovina/Somalia anyway. That one-liner by itself was great
(although I wouldn't know about how "beautiful" the troops are).

=>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.

I didn't listen to CNN so I don't think I'm confusing the two.

=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.

Actually I didn't hear that. I don't think Clinton's claim that this is
the worst economy is 50 years though is accurate factually. But thanks
for including the Clarinews article.

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

A few paragraphs above state the irony of these debates.

->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?"

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections