Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:04:07 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

>> Why would the Debate Commission change to a single moderator format?

> That is *my* question left unanswered by the Commission.  Why after 16 years
> of using a panel for debates, change the format?  In watching the 1960 debate
> between Kennedy and Nixon, it seemed like the single monitor favored Kennedy,
> leaving no room for more than one voice asking questions. That may have help-
> ed Nixon more in his answers by, perhaps, seeing a liberal/conservative split
> panel.  While in the 1980 debate, Reagan appeared more relaxed than Carter
> with a panel. Granted, Reagan is a better public debater than Nixon, but even
> in 1976, Ford appeared more confident than Carter, despite the Carter win.

I *know* that was your question.  What I read (maybe mistakenly)
in your posing the question was that somehow the Commission is
biased.  In fact later you used the word "stacked" in referring
to the Commission's decision.  At any rate, have you really tried
to find the Commission's explanation on why they think their proposed
format is better?  I admit I haven't seen their complete report but
I have seen/heard enough excerpts to have some idea why they proposed
what they did.  It has something to do with real issues being
discussed in a more open format and that the single moderator
format would serve the people better.  Now, you might disagree
with their finding but one should not accuse them of being
biased or that they did not offer an explanation.

>> What do you mean?  The answer is in the negotiations that
>> has been going on since then.

> Negotiations were made for Bush to appear on the Larry King show to answer
> his questions.  Bush even appeared on Rush's show to answer his questions.
> I think the Clinton camp should negotiate for him to appear on King's and
> Rush's show in the same format.  I'll bet the public should like it also.

Maybe you don't remember what negotiations we were talking about.

I *thought* you were saying that Clinton has not answered Bush's
challenge to four debates.  I simply stated that the negotiations
for debates started less than 24 hours from Bush's challenge.

>> But you said "stacked deck"  How was it stacked?

> From what I have heard Bush would not debate because he believed the Commi-
> ssion was opting to the dictates of Clinton be changing the debate format.
> It would be that Bush felt it suddenly became a stacked deck. I this I agree.
> The sudden switch of the Commission may have become the 'stacked' part,
> considering that on Rush's radio talk show he specifically stated 'not cater
> to the dictates of that man', i.e. Clinton.  Perhaps he knows something
> about the Commission that we don't.

You are the first one I have heard that accuses the Commission of being
influenced by Clinton.  And the Commission did not "suddenly" change
the debate format.  As far as I know they have been working on this
for years.  And Bush was saying "catering" on his *own* part, not on the
part of the Commission.  So I still maintain you are the first
person of accusing the Commission of being stacked and biased.
I agree that perhaps their proposed format gives an edge to Clinton,
but that is far from being biased.

>> Yes I am sure.  See, I said the "appearance" of impartiality.
>> First on all, no one, not even Bush people has accused the
>> Commission of not being impartial.  Second, ex Republican and
>> Democratic presidents are honorary members, so is ex RNC chairman.

> In a way, Bush did accuse the Commission, he questions the change of format.
> If the Commission thought the public did not like the panel because of the
> bias of news media, changing to a single moderator was not the answer.  Bush
> must have known that too.  The panel idea should remain using either 2
> liberal and 2 conservative moderators.  I feel four is better than two
> for more depth.

But the Commission main objective was not to come up with a
format that is equally "fair" to both Bush and Clinton.  Their
job was to find a format which serves the people the best.  Just
because Bush thinks he is not a good debator and would be in a
disadvantage in the proposed format doesn't make the Commission
biased.

> Perhaps Bush should ask, if he is an honorary member, why they needed to
> change, and then let the public know why.

I don't know what you are talking about.  Bush is NOT an honorary
member.  Ford and Carter are.  And by accepting and maintaining their
honorary membership they are implying that they don't believe
the commission is either biased or "stacked."

> Sue Clark

--KAT