Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Thu, Sep 17 1992 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 04:53:17 EDT Message-ID: 09-17 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Sept. 17, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Thursday morning in USA TODAY: Debates, Perot. TODAY'S DEBATE - PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: USA TODAY'S OPINION: No one was served Wednesday when the first planned presidential debate was canceled after President Bush failed to agree to its terms. Not Bush, who could appear afraid to go head-to-head with his younger foe. Not Bill Clinton, who should want voters to see how he fares in debate with a sitting president. And certainly not voters, who for the first time in 20 years may have to choose a president without seeing the candidates in the same room at the same time, fielding the same questions. For this reason alone, Bush and Clinton should stop bickering over terms and agree to meet. Preferably, they should do so as proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates - created, ironically, by both parties to end this quadrennial quibble. The panel recommended that Bush and Clinton be separated only by a moderator. ... Those extra questioners turn the event into more of a joint appearance than a debate and dilute time voters get to hear the candidates - time on which voters depend increasingly. In the last presidential election, 26% of voters listed debates as important, found ABC News polls. In 1984, 20% did so, and in 1980, 18%. ... After Bush did well in his last debate with Democrat Michael Dukakis, 68% of voters polled predicted he would win - compared to 54% before the debate. That may help explain why both the Bush and Clinton camps hang tough on the details of debates. Bush ... has made Clinton's relative inexperience a linchpin of his strategy. That could suffer if Clinton appears to command a debate - just as Clinton's current lead in the polls could take a direct hit if he botches a debate. So they both could lose - unless they don't debate at all. Then the voters lose. OTHER VIEW: WILLIAM HAMILTON, a syndicated columnist and former consultant to Republican political candidates: Presidential debates are not very important because they are, in fact, merely position-stating contests. The winner is the candidate who most successfully states a few key positions .... Both camps follow a formula. From the time available, they subtract the minutes for the moderator's opening remarks, for introductions of panelists and for the candidates' opening and closing remarks. The time remaining constitutes the so-called debate. Each campaign divides the "debate" time in half. That's how long each candidate has to get across his positions. ... But what about the questions posed by the moderator or a group of panelists? If a question happens to coincide with one or more of the key positions the candidate is primed to elaborate, it gets answered. The only art part is if the question asked does not match one of the candidate's key positions. That poses the only real challenge in the process: how to appear to engage the questioner while turning the question into an opportunity to say whatever you want. Arguably, voters learn nothing from these "debates" they couldn't learn by reading campaign literature, except they do get to see the candidates side by side. Hoping to come off as "presidential," Bill Clinton seeks to occupy any stage with President Bush. Look for the major media - still shamelessly pimping for Bill Clinton - to try to hound George Bush to debate on Clinton's terms. Look for Bush strategist James Baker to insist on direct, inter-campaign negotiations leading to either a mutual agreement or no "debates" at all. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON ROSS PEROT IN PRESIDENTIAL RACE: COLUMBUS, Ohio, Julia DuPont, 26, accounting asst.: No, I wouldn't. He's already entered and left the race. You can't really trust him. Does he really want to run? He wanted to only when he thought he could win. And if he's decided not to be a candidate, he shouldn't be out there saying, "You should endorse my platform." JACKSON, Miss., Ellistine Holly, 50, music professor: I'd like some of his ideas adopted and considered, but I'm not sure I'd like to see the man in office. I'm very impressed by the way he can look at the financial and business side of politics. In terms of the man on the street, he's been a little alienated from what we need. MUSKOGEE, Okla., Carolyn Bratton, 36, homemaker: I'd like to hear what he has to say as a presidential candidate. I'm going to vote for Clinton now, but I really don't know that much about Perot. My mind could be changed. It just depends on what I hear between now and then. ROSEMEAD, Calif., Kenny Matsui, 19, student: Definitely not. If you want to be president of the United States, you have to make commitments toward one direction. I don't believe he's done that. The people who support him he's already let down in a major way. I did support him for a short while. He's not right anymore. HOUSTON, Texas, Richard Farias, 44, community leader: Yes. I think Ross Perot brings a fresh perspective to the whole issue of education and to uplifting the otherwise disadvantaged people in this country. I had the pleasure of meeting him a little over a year ago. He is the type of person who could put this country back on the map. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM