From: dlin@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Debate results
Summary: vote for James and Barbara
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:12:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <EeqDtfC00WB5IIRZgD@andrew.cmu.edu> ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donpaul C. Stephens) writes:
>By now we have all seen the debate [or should].
>
>As I saw it the following things happened:
>Bush defended his actions and pointed out what a great man Jim Baker is.
>He seemed to push the point that 'when' he gets reelected, Jim Baker will
>move into domestic affairs to do for them what he has done for int'l ones

Yes!  My husband and I looked at each other and simultaneously
asked, "Why isn't James Baker running for President?"  Later on,
when Bush went on about what great things Barbara Bush has done for
the country, we asked why Barbara isn't running for President, too.
Our general sense throughout the debate was that Bush was going to
get Baker to work on the problems while he plays lightning rounds of
golf.

>I love the AFTER the el;ection part. and the fact that all of his domestic
>policies are only slated for AFTER the election and with a 'new' congress.
>He said he will continue to veto the congress up until after elections
>
I couldn't quite grasp this line of argument from Bush, either.  After
spending *months* blaming the Congress for all of the country's
woes, how can he possibly think that after the election, he'll be
able to work with the new Congress?  Even though there will be many
new members of Congress, there will still be plenty of existing
Congresspersons around after the election.  And, given how he failed
in his '88 promise of a "kinder and gentler" nation, and failed on
his promise to put aside partisan politics and work with the
Congress, how are we to expect that after such a divisive and negative
campaign that Bush will be able to work with Congress for a second
term?  I think he's poisoned the waters irreparably.  At best, he
could only squeak through the election, so he won't have a "mandate"
from the voters.

>To his credit, Bush seemed to be the only candidate that spelled out exactly
>what his policies are and what he intends to do. Neither Perot nor
>Clinton addresses the details so

Hmm, I thought that Perot did the best job of spelling out the
problems facing the country, especially in the economic areas, but
Clinton did the best job of spelling out specifics in policy
agendas.  
>
[...]
>I think it was pretty much a near-dead heat between Clinton and Perot w/
>Bush a distant second.
>
I thought that Perot came across as more credible than he has been
since he re-entered the campaign, but he was still woefully short on
specifics.  His "send me up there and I'll do the job" rhetoric has
a certain visceral appeal, but it also left me thinking that he
really doesn't understand the complexities of government.  There's
little doubt that he is a doer and can accomplish many things as a
CEO, but the government isn't modeled after a private corporation.

Clinton struck me as measured, steady and "Presidential" which, I
think, was the main thing he needed to project during the first
debate.  Bush just came across to me as desperate, falling back on
the old refrain of "who [sic] do you trust?"  

BTW, Clinton was the only candidate who wasn't wearing cufflinks,
and he should have pointed out that that makes him more like the
"ordinary citizen" than either Bush or Perot :-).  Of course, I wish
he had said "transmitted" rather than "transmuted" when speaking on
the family values issue.  Luckily, I don't think too many folks will
call him on that little slip.

-- 
Diane C. Lin			"Live now; make *now* always the
dlin@weber.ucsd.edu	         most precious time.  Now will 
(Dylan's mom, 22 months)	 never come again." (ST:TNG)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush