From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: on the VPs
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:42:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.145023.17541@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <Bw5Apx.MqC@news.udel.edu>, barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:
>> 
>>Certainly we expect this ("cue cards") from the pros.  I think Gore and
>>Clinton are MUCH better at doing it, which I take as a negative.  If I
>>can TELL that you are giving me a prepared statement, how am I to know
>>if what you are saying is what you really believe.
>
>I don't know if they used cue cards or teleprompters, and I don't even

They did not use cue cards.  The post I was responding to said they
*appeared* to be using them.  I suppose they were, actually, but they
had memorized them.

>recommend voting for Clinton (or Bush or Perot), but if apparent spontaneity
>is your best measure of the truth of a candidate's statement or the strength
>of their convictions, you are in *sad* shape.  You're ripe to be taken in by
>the first actor that comes along and really, really, seems honest.  Or, just
>as bad, the salesman that comes along spouting vacuous truisms.

No, I am not in sad shape.  I did not say I believe everything I hear.
I did not say I base my belief in a staement solely on spontaneity.  If
a salesman comes along, I'll know he's a salesman and expect
exaggerations and/or lies (Clinton/Gore, Bush/Quayle).  If it matters,
I've never been taken in in my life, as far as I can tell.


>Witty, candid debate responses are fun, but are they *really* enough to base
>such an important decision on?  I think not.  Instead, I suggest evaluating:

I did not say they were the sole basis of my decision.  I am merely
saying that Perot and Stockdale's comments are spontaneous.  This, to
me, suggests that they have not worked on coming up with responses that
gain them the most points.  Instead, it seems to be an indicator that
they are giving their honest opinions.  So, I trust their comments to be
MUCH closer to what they believe than the other 4 debators' comments are
to what THEY believe.  OK?

>	-the candidate's plans
>	    do you agree with what he/she plans to do?

Yes, I do.

>	-his/her perceived ability to achieve them
>	    e.g., leadership ability, party backing, congressional backing

Of what I've seen, I think Perot has the ability to make deals and get
the job done.  

>	-his/her past record (very important with Bush/Clinton/Perot)
>	    has he/she been effective in the past?
>	    has he/she done good things (in your opinion) in the past?

In my opinion, Perot has been the most successful of the three at doing
what they set out to do.  I don't like professional politicians, which
the other two are.  I think of the three candidates who have a chance of
winning (I can't wait for the Lib. Party to get there -- another few
election years, I think), he is the one who is most resolved to get the
job done.  The others are products of their political parties, who have
to play the games of politics.  There is just to much of that.
And, to quote Admiral Stockdale, "Period!"

>Of moderate importance:
>
>	-the running mate
>	-speaking skills

Agreed.  And, though not a good public speaker (how many of us are?), I
think Stockdale has the decision-making ability, from what little I know
of him.

>Of little importance:

>	-appearance
>	-age
>	-financial standing
>	-military experience

I agree with the first three, bu tI do think military experience, of
SOME kind, is important.  Perhaps in "moderate importance" above.  It
would not matter if the President were not CiC of the armed forces.
Still, I would not vote based on it, except as a tie breaker.

>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
>Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham

Dewey Barich
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot