From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: VP debates
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:51:35 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct13210923@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>Well, these debates are much harder to grade.

Agreed.  But then again, the VP is not the head of the ticket.

>Adm Stockdale:
>	hit a few populist lines

Everything he said jives with Perot (surprise, surprise).  Again, this
ticket wins in the one-liners.  I paraphrase:  "My position on abortion
is that the woman has control of her own body, period"  Then, when the
moderator began to prompt for the follow-up, Stockdale reiterates
"Period!"  Also, the ping-pong match comment and the gridlock comments
were great.

>	seemed a bit out of there--kept walking away from his podium

Definitely, he was uncomfortable, though he began to warm up towards the
end.  But, to his credit, he is not a person used to being in the public
eye, and I can perfectly well understand this.  *I* would feel rather
uncomfortable making one of my first, if not *the* first public
appearance in a debate being watched by (probably) millions.  Also, I
must wonder if any of his physical discomfort stems from the years as a
POW in Viet Nam.  Has any of the torture left permanent physical effects?
(I won't address psychological, I'm sure there are but he seems to have
dealt with those).  Overall, he strengthened my feelings that the entire
Perot movement is from the heart, unpolished, and full of know-how and
common sense.  No "what do the people want to hear?", no "What do I need
to do or say to win?" that we hear from the Party People.  A BIG score for
Perot/Stockdale '92.

>	utterly in the backdrop  between Gore and Quayle

Related to the public-orating comments above.  Also, probably the best
place to stand, considering the mud-slinging and name calling going on.
Again, no wonder the gridlock exists.

>Quayle:
>	didn't fumble overmuch or misspell any words

It's hard to misspell when you are not writing! :-)  I still like his
joke spelling of liberal --     C-L-I-N-T-O-N   -E!

>	hammered away at Clinton's character & tax/spend

Bush/Quayle's last fighting chance, I think.  Clinton/Gore would
probably be doing something similar if they were so far behind.  Almost
any regular politician would.

>	ignored economy, really

Everyone but Stockdale did, except for quoting Party Lines.  There is
simply too much of that.  "Period!"

>Gore:
>	tried to neutralize character issue, didn't really succeed

Didn't succeed because there is *something* there.  Bill Clinton did not
get the nickname "Slick Willy" for nothing.  He has been (seemingly) on
both sides of several issues.

>	hammered away at economic record, scored a few points
>	seemed overrehearsed?

Yes, he seamed over-rehearsed, as did Clinton.  Clinton even took a
while to remember his planned response the other night.  He was just
staring at the screen for a while, then he remembered to turn on the
tape recorder in his throat, and away he went.

Again, this is one thing I have always liked about Perot (and now
Stockdale).  Their answers are out-of-the-heart answers.  These are not
prepared statements, these are not "what can I say to sound like an
answer but not upset anyone."  We have straight-forward, honest replies.
I don't think anyone would deny this.  Disagree with the *content*,
absolutely, but I don't think you can deny the honesty behind the
comments.  Hasn't the system been *begging* for this type of persona for
long enough?  Isn't this what many of us want in our candidates?

>Who wins?  Well, it depends.  Will the character issue resonate more
>than the economic issue?  If so, Quayle & Bush won.  If the economy
>beats the character issues and/or Gore's attacks on Bush's character
>resonate enough to stalemate, Gore & Clinton win.

I think no one won, and no one lost.  It was too dirty to deal with.
Frankly, I am dissappointed (but not surprised) with both of the
Party candidates.  Just like Stockdale said (paraphrased), "I think 
this is why we have a gridlock in Washington."

>Only time will tell on that score.  In the meantime, my view is
>simple:  there are three issues in this campaign.  They are:  the
>economy, the economy & the economy.  This should give the edge to
>Gore.

In the category of mud-slinging, Gore would win, but Clinton has
not been President and has no economic track record for Quayle to 
throw mud on.  You can throw mud all you want on a proposal or plan, 
but people will (by and large) believe what they want to believe 
about a plan, so Quayle can't hurt Clinton's proposal, and vice versa.

>Oh, I should mention one more wildcard factor:  lots of charges, some
>of which were false (according to Peter Jennings) were hurled around.
>If the charges were out and out incorrect, then this might
>retoractively hurt whoever threw out the most inaccuracies.  I'll be
>reading the Times tommorrow.

I think I'd have to disagree here.  In general, people will forget these
things as time passes.  Unless the charges were REALLY out of line,
which I don't think was the case in either case.  If they had been, they
would have failed on their own at the time they were stated.

>Peace.

Someday, when humans (as a whole) grow up.

Dewey