From: SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET (Sue Clark)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:Playing Poker
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:01:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Joyous and resounding applauses for Friday,

Meanwhile back at the debate....

>First, Bush believes he will recover in the polls immediately
>following the RNC and refuses to debate Clinton frearing
>it will make his opponent look "presidential."

To answer the first point, as I recall, nobody expected a a Bush surge
after the RNC, the Bush camp believed it would not happen, even editorial-
ists such as George Will, and James Kirkpatrick, and other conservatives
said there would be no Bush surge after the RNC.  They suggested that
Bush would begin a real slow recovery and momentum toward the end of
the campaign.  This may be happening, but the question now is how much
damage will Perot do to either Bush or Clinton in particularly key states
that both desparately need?  Perot may be a pesty fly in the ointment of
both, or not affect any form of voting swing at all.

>Second, the Bush White House, which previously endorsed the work of the
>Presidential Debate Commission, finds out they will have to debate to try
>to recover in the polls, but see they will be at a disadvantege with
>the chosen Democratic candidate.

Is not strategy a part of the political game?  If you were Bush, would you
agree to an obviously Democratically advantaged situation.  Clinton was on
the 'push' to debate to what seems to be a pre-arranged set up.  So, the
point I believe here was timing.  Bush under the Baker strategy saw the
disadvantage, (and Baker who is a past master at timing) allowed the
Clinton camp to become over-confident and continue to push the debate
issue.  Then came the bombshell, and this literally caught Clinton off
guard.  Last minute ploy???  No.  This is an ingenious move by the Bush
camp.  The news showed Clinton really off his confidence after the Bush
announcement, and actually made mention of it before the public.

It seems that Baker threw down his card in the form of four debate aces,
and whether we actually get four or not, the strategy to shake the Clinton
camp worked.  Baker still plays poker well.

Anyway, if a panel was good for Bush/Dukakis in 1988, why not 1992?  Why
would the Debate Commission change to a single moderator format?

>Maybe Clinton is right.  They should all go on the Larry King show.

Now who is playing last minute ploys.  I hear all the complaining on the part
of the Clinton camp about Bush not wanting to adhere to the supposedly bipar-
tisan??? PDC.  Come now, since when had the obviously liberal Larry King show
become part of the Presidential Debate Commission schedule?  Is it any wonder
Clinton suggested Larry King at the last minute?  But, King would be a bad
choice also, he is still too enraptured with the man he brought to us in
February, Ross Perot.

Clinton wanted to debate on national TV right after the RNC, Bush is no fool,
he would not debate a stacked deck, Baker knew that also.

Clinton, on the defense now, is not showing the 'presidental' look he seemed
to have before, plainly because Baker shook-up his plans.

But, remember, Bush did offer 2 debates with a single moderator, and 2 with
a panel.  That is fair now, isn't it?

Sue Clark

'Who will moderate the debates?  Here's a scoop: Bush wants Rush Limbaugh,
Clinton wants Murphy Brown.'  - Jeff Greenfield in today's editorial 'A
Simple Guide to the Great Debate Conflict'.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU