From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Who's the chicken?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:48:02 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:

: Now that the republicans have proposed debates that Bush will attend, 
: they're now calling Clinton a chicken if he doesn't accept.  

[Multiple lines of drivel from a person who can't hit return every 70-75
 characters elided.]

I have to admit, I will lose respect for Clinton, if he doesn't do
something resembling accepting Bush's challenge within the next day or
so.  Not that I have all that much respect for either Bill or George
to begin with.

I can't help but wonder what Bush has up his sleeve with his debate 
proposal (4 Presidential, 2 Vice-Presidential debates, alternating
between panel and single-moderator formats).  After his hard-line
stance, he now seems so eager.

Here are my guesses as to why he's doing it:

	1.  Bush hopes to look strong for holding his line on the debate
	    matter, and now wants to gain brownie points with the public
	    for appearing to take the initiative and issue a compromise.

	2.  Bush hopes that the two press conference style "debates" will
	    help make for his potential weak appearance in the real debates.

	3.  Since most of the proposed debate dates coincide with MLB
	    playoffs and the World Series, Bush hopes that there won't
	    be too many people watching..

	4.  Bush and Quayle have not had much luck in improving their
	    chances for reelection since the Republican Convention.
	    This might be a wild gamble to improve their standings.
	    At this point, they don't have too much to lose that
	    they won't lose otherwise, and they have an awful lot
	    to gain.

However, this does seem like one helluva risk for George and Our Boy.
I think that there isn't a _sane_ and educated person alive who doesn't
believe that Dan Quayle will not be able to improve his image too much
in a nationally televised debate against Al Gore.  I think that Clinton
will easily "win" the real debates against Bush, and the over-glorified
press conferences will probably be pretty "close."  Either Bush or
Clinton could win, depending on what non-issues are raised by the
panelists.

Also, the last debate under Bush's plan would be the Sunday before the
election.  (Anyone know what its format will be?)  Neither candidate
will be able to recover from any "damage" done by that debate before
the election.  An interesting gamble, I think.

At least, it looks like there will be debates.  And possibly, if
Perot reenters the race, the candidates will talk about real issues
finally!  Although I really doubt that the debates will get me to
change my mind about whom I will vote for (Marrou), I would feel
a lot better when I vote if I had a better feel for those people
running.


--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton