From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:41:55 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.005404.13659@news.columbia.edu> 
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
>> was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
>> obvious gaffe.
>> 
>> Gore was wooden, and there were a couple of lines I thought he should
>> have followed up on but didn't.  So much for zinging your opponent
>> with the single-moderator.
>
>A few points....Gore never did refute Quayle's accusations that Clinton's 
>plan would impose taxes on the middle class unless you count the "Nope, it 
>won't" as a satisfactory explanation.   I think Quayle scored some big 
>points on the school choice issue by pointing out that allowing vouchers 
>for private schools would enable people who aren't rich to afford to send 
>kids to private schools.  Gore's contention that taxpayer money shouldn't 
>be spent on private schools was pretty weak.  After all, what are most 
>colleges?  Private schools.  And Clinton wants to spend more taxpayer 
>money to send students there.

Gore's problem was that he didn't come back at Quayle at this point by
noting that there would be a tax cut, so the tax increase would not be
quite as much as Quale said would be.  Further, there was a ripe
opportunity to hammer Bush on his most recent tax pledge, and how he
already slipped tax hikes and fee increases in his most recent budget
proposal [see TNR's Mike Kinsley, in a recent issue, I forget which
one].  I'm not sure why Gore passed up so obvious an avenue of attack.
And, no, taxpayer money should not be spent on private schools, but
Gore did not make his case very well.  Gore cannot counter Quayle's
assertions simply by making assertions of his own.  Quayle was wrong
at a number of points, and he could have been hammered by a citation
of facts by Gore.

>
>Gore did vote for the Carribean Basin Initiative according to his own 
>campaign manager.  To be fair, Quayle voted for it in 1983, but it was a 
>somewhat different program back then and had wide Democratic support.  So 
>Gore effectively lied.  (Quayle was never asked if he voted for it.)

Nightline clarified this point after the debate: Gore voted against he
initial CBI.  Later, when the CBI was included in a larger bill, Gore
voted for the larger bill.  This bill passed the Senate by something
like 95-0.  Gore didn't lie.  Quayle's fudging of the truth was worse,
IMHO, but Gore didn't counterpunch.

>
>I looked at page 304 in Gore's book.  Quayle was right.  Frankly, Gore was 
>very conservative in talking about his approach to the enviroment when you 
>compare it to what he wrote in his book.

Hardly.  Again, Nightline again: Gore mentions a global Marshall plan
that the US should lead.  Nowhere is a figure of $100 billion
mentioned.  Nightline speculates that the Republican reasoning is that
the Marshall plan cost $100 billion, so Gore must mean $100 billion.
No one accused the GOP of not being imaginative and not engaging in
flights of fancy.

>Quayle was effective in pointing out passage of the Clean Air Act.  Gore 
>did not take advantage of the opportunity to criticize the act as some 
>enviromentalists have.
>

The Act was rammed down Bush's throat.  He didn't want it.  Once the
Act was passed, Quayle did everything in his power the gut it.  [see
Greider's _Who Will Tell the People_ for the ref, among others] Gore
should have been able to hit him for that.  Instead, he stuck to his
prepared script, and Quayle looked like he made a substantial point.

>
>Quayle stuck to his guns on abortion (which may have hurt him slightly), 
>but Gore never responded to Quayle's question about wether Gore favored 
>placing any restrictions on abortion such as the 24 hour waiting period 
>imposed in Penn.    This was an important point as I think most people do 
>not favor unrestricted abortion nor an absolute ban on abortion.   I've 
>even considered that Bush is softer on the issue than he appears.   He 
>extreme position being taken only to counterbalance the extreme positions 
>of some Pro-choicers.   Part of the moderators question was wether or not 
>each candidate would consider abortion to be a litmus test for supreme 
>court justices.  Quayle missed out an opportunity to point out the Clinton 
>has made that a litmus test while the Republicans have not ,as evidenced 
>by some of the Reagan/Bush apointees.

Gore should have had a reasoned response on why the 24-hour waiting
period is a burden on some women instead of ducking it.  If you
haven't noticed, I prefer a vigorous, aggressive defense than what
Gore offered.  That some of the Reagan/Bush appointees disappointed
the Administration does not mean there wasn't a litmus test.

>
>Overall, Gore was a bore.  Stiff as a board and programmed on a WORM disk 
>drive.  He kept shaking his head and saying nope..nope to Quayles 
>allegations, but rarely offered an explanation for his nope.

This was the problem with Gore.  There were clear refutations to
Quayle's points.  It's just that he didn't make them on the spot.  I'm
arguing that Gore should have been able to rip apart some of Quayle
points, opening him up like a ripe peanut.  Accusations can't be
refuted by simle proclamation.  He should have said something more
than a simply, "No that's not true."  He missed obvious avenues of
attack.

>Quayle was 
>much more passionate in his delivery and also seemed much quicker to the 
>draw in rebuffing some of Gore's statements.    Stockdale had some good 
>one-liners, but I wouldn't want him to be just a heartbeat away from the 
>Oval Office.   I think he was sincere though.
>

Maybe we two should have our own Vice Shrub debate? :-)
[as if we don't do this all the time on the net]


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections