From: jxxl@aquarius.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Debate debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:21:55 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:

# I too would like to stick ny nose out and state that Admiral Stockdale
# is, in my opinion, to be more qualified to be a VP than either Quayle
# or Gore. What we saw in the debate were two politicians who were very
# skillful in playing partisan politics. Yelling at each other, spreading
# lies on opponents, avoiding key technical issues and going for phrases
# that only make their side look good infront of the American people, etc.
# Neither one of them were trying to discuss the issues in an open 
# minded intelligent way. None of their blabber is going to make this
# country better off. Quayle did this by acting like the "Attack puppy 
# from hell", while Gore did his bit by acting like a programmed robot.

You might as well say that football teams could score lots more touch-
downs if only they'd cooperate and stop blocking each other at the
line of scrimmage. Politics is competition. There is no right answer
for any issue that comes up in a campaign. If there was, there would
be no point in discussing it. Do Perot and Stockdale think they will
discover the single best answer to any problem that comes up and that
everyone else will say, it's so obvious, why didn't I think of that?
Not very realistic. The issue is not truth, as it is in science; the
issue is values. What do you put the highest values on? Whatever it
is, you'll get your way in politics only by persuading the most people
to follow you. The campaign models the process in a practical setting--
it exists to determine who is better at garnering support. "The issues"
are a bag of air to fight over, just like the football.

# In this VP debate which resembled a food fight, we had this intellectual 
# man Admiral Stockdale stuck between these two politicians wondering 
# what the hell is going on. Just like him, so was I. Wondering how far 
# can the Democratic and Republican parties go on, taking the American 
# people to be a bunch of idiots, turning them on and off by saying "its not
# my fault, its their fault, ..." Or, "not me, nanananah ..." The most 
# relevant comment in this debate came when Stockdale said something
# to the effect that "this is why there is is this gridlock in Washington."

Hasn't Stockdale read the Constitution? "Gridlock" is one of the
fundamental design elements of the government--the balance between the
three branches. I assume you don't mean literal "gridlock" which like
traffic gridlock would mean things had ground to a dead halt--last time I
looked Federal offices were open and doing business. The approximate
gridlock that exists between the three branches and especially between
the Executive and Legislative guarantee that nothing will get done until
the midnight hour, when the consequnces of delay have become incontestable.
The three biggest dangers to America this century were--arguably--WWI,
WWII, and the Cold War. Entry into WWI was delayed for three years. Entry
into WWII was delayed for two years. The resolution to the Cold War was
deferred so long, the problem went away on its own. Is the deficit at
the point where action is imperative? Perot has convinced me that the
hour is late, but not that the midnight hour is here.

# We've seen so far what "politics as usual" has
# done to this country. The question is, do we want this garbage to
# continue? Clinton and Gore keep on talking about CHANGE. Does anyone
# with any intelligence out there think that anything is going
# to change when Clinton/Gore take office?

Yes. The biggest plum I can see is the next round of Supreme Court
appointments. The Court is close to being shifted irreversibly to the
right for many years. A Clinton victory is likely to prevent that.

# The problems that we are facing today requires us to have intelligent
# leaders who have the intellectual capability to grasp the fundamental
# difficulties this country faces in the global arena and execute
# solutions to them. After this debate, I noticed that most people were
# choosing Gore and/or Quayle to be the "winner". But, unfortunately,
# being a winner in a food fight is not necessarily a good qualification
# to be a VP. I agree with everyone that Stockdale was the "looser" in
# the debate. Of course, he would be. A man with any intelligence and
# dignity would clearly be a looser in such a brawl. I am not saying 
# that Stockdale is the best choice that Ross could have picked. 
# However, facing the fact that we have only Stockdale, Gore and Quayle
# to choose from, I'd say Stockdale is the best choice. 

I don't understand why Stockdale was so eager to stand up for his beliefs
with bombs and bullets in Vietnam, but is reluctant to fight for his
political ideas by doing the homework it requires. Get real. People
with no stomach for competition and argument cannot succeed in politics.

John