From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Barbara's speech
Organization: Glassboro State College (We Have Logic Classes Here, Cheap)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:54:24 GMT


As a preface, I think discussing wives of the candidates is a bit silly; they
are not running for office.  Oddly, only one has actively done anything to
help parents keep an eye on what their kids hear: Tipper Gore.  But she isn't
being discussed at all.  Her idea for movie-style labels on records, and lyric
sheets so parents could tell what was being said, had some merit.  It wasn't
followed up well, but it was an idea worth consideration, and it was something
that is directly relevant to helping parents control what their kids listen
to.  Her actions to promote `family values' may not be perfect, but at least
she DID something -- everybody else is just wagging their tongues.

 --

From a rhetorical perspective, both Barbara Bush and Marilyn Quayle did a good
job; they had good applause lines, projected themselves well, and didn't seem
to be relying on the TelePrompters.  (The Vice President, by comparison, was
clearly reading from the screens almost constantly.  The way he bounced back
and forth from one to the other made it look like he was at a tennis match.)

Mrs Bush proved herself a class act by refusing to make any kind of personal
attack on the Clintons or Gores.  (Maybe we can make her Official Hostess and
dump George Bush in favor of James Baker. 8-)  Mrs Quayle, however, didn't do
so well.  She made a pointed reference to dodging the draft (it was even
underlined in the printed text of the speech, according to the MacNeil/Lehrer
crew) -- but the next day, in an interview, she said "That was just a list.
*I* didn't say anything about Clinton or Gore.  There was no juxtaposition;
you can draw your own conclusions."

From time to time, people post articles which quote two Bible passages out of
context, and it looks as if the Bible is inconsistent.  When somebody replies
"This isn't a contradiction..." the poster will come back "*I* never said
anything about a contradiction!  If YOU think it looks like a contradiction,
well, that's YOUR conclusion..."  These people, usually atheists, are not
interested in the facts; they are interested in baiting people and then
mocking their replies.  Most Christians find it highly annoying.

Mrs Quayle's reply in the interview looked like the exact same thing to me.
It is difficult to believe that a lawyer trained in rhetoric, working with
speechwriters and campaign advisors, would make a remark about dodging the
draft, underline it, and not once think about its relevance to the campaign.
In all honesty, I expected better from her; I expected her to just say that
it was a little dig at the opposition.  If we were voting for the wives, her
speech and later comments would be enough to make me vote against her.


Anyway, that's a nod to their rhetorical skills and their stage performances;
both women did fairly well.  However, they WERE speaking at the Convention,
and I expected some concrete arguments and evidence to justify the Republican
claims about what they support.  This wasn't just a Sunday afternoon chat;
these were campaign speeches.  Ergo, I took notes on the concrete topics that
they addressed -- they did not do very well.


In particular, they were both speaking on Family Values Night.  The Republican
Platform specifically states that:

	Elements within [...] the Democratic Party are waging a guerrilla
	war against American values[.]  They [...] promote hostility to
	the family's way of life.

I expected to hear somebody say precisely what the Democrats are doing which
attacks American values and the family's way of life.  Or, at least, say what
these values under attack are.

What did they say?

Marilyn Quayle said that "family values" meant God, hard work, discipline,
respect, integrity, industry, morality, and respect for others.

Barbara Bush said that she & George tried to teach integrity, strength,
courage, sharing, love of God, and pride in being an American.

To borrow a line from the 1984 election, "Where's the Beef?"  Neither woman
said anything to support the claims of the Republican Party.  Neither woman
said anything to indicate what "American values" the Democrats are against.
Combined, they talked for about an hour, on Family Values night, at a
convention whose official platform claims that "American values" are under
attack.  And neither one gave a single concrete example of what family values
the Democrats oppose, or why voting Republican will help protect my family.
Both women washed out, wasting airtime instead of addressing issues.


I said last week that I was very gullible, and that I try to make up for that
by logically analysing everything I hear.  The speeches given by Mrs Bush and
Mrs Quayle appealed to the `gullible' part of my brain.  But when I took a
close look at them, there were both logical rubbish.  No evidence, no
arguments, no attempt to support the platform their husbands are running on.
Neither woman made any effort to say why voting for Bush/Quayle would
positively affect families.  Neither woman made any effort to say why voting
for Clinton/Gore would hurt families.

Eight years ago, appealing to the gullible part of my brain might have made
some difference in how I voted -- and given the state of education in the US,
appealing to the gullibility of other people may be enough to win an election.
But fancy rhetoric isn't enough to win my vote any more; I will not be tricked
by fast talking politicians OR their wives.  In terms of swinging my vote to
the Republican candidates, both Mrs Bush and Mrs Quayle failed miserably.  In
terms of driving me over to the Democrats, Mrs Quayle's later comments
(especially given her high-sounding talk about `integrity') just may work.

[ Note: I am not decided how I will vote yet, and I am not endorsing any
  candidate.  The Democrats are not doing much better at convincing me why
  they'll run the country properly.  I remember the Democrats saying things
  that weren't worth the airtime, but I didn't think to take notes so I have
  no specifics.  But I don't think they were any better.  Parties aside, these
  people are ALL politicians. ]

 --

Carol Nemec wrote:

> I was also impressed with Barbara's handling of an interview Tues evening
> on PBS.  I had felt the news media really tearing the Republicans apart,
> something I had not noticed during the Democratic convention.  Barbara let
> her interviewer know she felt that way also!

I agree the Republicans are getting tougher criticism, but that's what a free
press gets you.  The press is beholden to their audience, and the audience is
made of ghouls.  Just as people like to slow down and look at traffic
accidents as they pass police cars and ambulances, and just as people like to
look at pictures of train wrecks, people like to see politicians get grilled.
Let's face it: humans are just vultures who can spell.

During the primaries, Bill Clinton got worked over viciously because of the
allegations of marital infidelity, which eventually fizzled out.  Before the
Convention, Mr Bush was way behind in the polls, and he IS the one currently
in office.  The press can smell blood, they know their readers/viewers want to
see something exciting, and so they tend to cover the trailing politicians
more critically -- they want to be there when somebody gets fired or uptight
and says or does something noteworthy.  If Mr Bush pulls ahead in the polls
after being so far behind, you can bet that Mr Clinton will be depicted as on
the verge of disaster, his campaign in a shambles.  That's The Way It Goes.

It may not be pretty, but the media moguls are businessmen: they show us what
we want to see.  At least it's both democratic and in keeping with free market
ideology.  1/2 8-)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of
 journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us
 in touch with the ignorance of the community." -- Oscar Wilde