From: colette@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette Marine)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:56:27 GMT

In <1992Oct15.051822.10049@news.acns.nwu.edu> I write, but forget to 
adjust the Distribution on, thus the repost appearance:

>In <Bw59wx.BJw@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>>Like the man said, you must have watched a different debate. Gore lied
>>about his book, lied about his Senate voting record, and God only knows
>>WHAT else he lied about. Gore was as stiff as a wooden statue; he was
>>clearly reciting "canned" speeches. 

>Stiff as a wooden statue?  Can you say "understatement"?

>*but*...

>Did you even bother to *check* on the accuracy of what was said, or are
>you just cheerleading???

>Gore did not lie about his book.  Read the damn thing Quayle tried to cite,
>for crying out loud!  If you can't find it, look around the net.  It's been
>posted a zillion times today.  It's quite obvious that Gore was *not*
>proposing that the US pour $100 billion into foreign environmental efforts.
>All he was doing was giving an approximate figure in 1992 dollars of what
>the Post WWII Marshall Plan cost.  In fact, Gore even *said* in his book,
>*on that page* I believe, that it's economically unfeasible for the US to
>do something like that anymore, environment or no, and that any large-
>scale, global environmental effort *must* be funded by the *rest* of the
>world, *instead* of relying on the US to shoulder the burden.  Get a 
>copy of the book, or check one out from the library, or something.

>And, as far as defending the book against Stockton, I ask you again...
>have *you* looked up the article Gore cited.  Have you read it?  If not,
>how can you claim he's lying?

>Regarding Gore's Senate record, I would once again, respectfully point
>out that you seem to be missing some important facts.  Gore repeatedly
>voted against the measure Quayle accused him of voting for.  *However*,
>when the measure was tucked into a larger measure, of which the measure
>in question was only a small part, he did vote for the larger measure.
>This is not uncommon.  You make compromises on things you don't like
>for the greater good, in this case, what Gore perceived as the greater
>good of the *rest* of the measure into which the smaller measure in 
>question was tucked.  But, given that measure alone, Gore *never* voted
>for it.  He was strongly against it and voted against it.  It is
>misleading to the point of being dishonest for Quayle to claim that Gore
>supported it.  If Quayle wants to stand up and say "Al, you voted for 
>this measure which included such and such smaller, controversial, evil
>measure" then fine.  That would be accurate, and would allow Gore to
>explain his rationale for voting for it, which you could accept or reject.
>At least, that way, things would be a bit more above board.

>And lest you accuse me of cheerleading as well, I think Gore pretty
>much sucked, too.  Let's at least be honest, kids.

>>Depends on your point of view; many of us see it as telling the TRUTH
>>about the Sex & Gore economic proposals. Bill and Al attack Bush for
>>raising taxes, and plan to raise taxes even more. They attack Bush for

>Um... actually that's not true -- not according to the plan, at least.
>That's not to say that they *won't* do it, but according to the plan,
>the net tax increase is only around 50 billion, much, much less than
>the Bush-backed tax increase.  Though, I'll eat my cat if they really
>stick to that low a figure.  (shrug)

>>embracing the Liberal agenda, and say they'll do more of the same. For
>>God's sake, everything they bitch at Bush about, they plan to do even MORE
>>of!  

>I believe the point is BushQuayle's hypocrisy in playing the "trust"
>card.  How funny it is that they insist you can't trust what Clinton
>tells you, when Bush told us about some things he absolutely, no-way-jose,
>when-hell-freezes-over wasn't going to do, and then went and did them
>anyway.  Regardless of who *else* supported or started said tax increase,
>Bush promised he wouldn't do it and did do it.  *That* is one of the 
>key issues ClintonGore gets at when they attack Bush for the big tax
>increase.  Not to mention, that from the ClintonGore perspective, 
>their tax increase will supposedly be much, much smaller than George's
>as well (though I think you'd have to be a complete ninny to think
>that it will be as small as they say -- then again, I think you'd have
>to be brain dead to take *any* campaign promise at full face value).
>Point is, whether you believe them or support them or not, the Clinton
>Gore attack on this point *does* make strategic sense.

>>> It was obvious that Gore was the only candidate prepared to be up there.
>>> It was obvious that Gore was the only one of the three prepared to
>>> assume the presidency if necessary.  That's what the vice presidency is
>>> about, and by that standard, Gore won big.

>>Whew! And how many six-packs had YOU had before the debate?

>I think you're both wrong.  Neither won big.  I think they both lost,
>but in the larger scheme of things, given that, as some other netter
>said earlier today, all Quayle had to do was not drool on himself, he
>probably won by a nose, simply because Quayle exceeded his low
>expectations (by quite a bit, I might add) and Gore missed the mark on 
>his high expectations.  While the performance of both of them was 
>shameful, Quayle probably helped his campaign slightly more than Gore 
>did his.

>colette
>--
>Colette D. Marine             |cdm@nwu.edu
>Inst.for the Learning Sciences|or
>Northwestern University       |marine@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it

>                  
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7077 alt.politics.elections:16075 alt.politics.bush:8603 alt.politics.clinton:9667 talk.politics.misc:50859 talk.abortion:41936