ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, September 30, 1996 TAG: 9609300152
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DWAYNE YANCEY STAFF WRITER
THE WARNER-WARNER debate left voters feeling the candidates had skirted their questions and instead given formulaic responses.
Give six ordinary voters a chance to question the candidates for U.S. Senate in a televised debate, and what do you get?
Sunday, what Virginia got was six pretty angry voters.
Moments after the John Warner-Mark Warner debate concluded and the microphones were disconnected, the studio audience in Roanoke - linked by satellite with the main debate stage in Williamsburg - delivered its verdict on the hour-long encounter.
Thumbs down on both candidates.
Vigorously.
Asked if the Warners answered the voters' questions, the group shouted in unison: "No!"
"They took our questions and turned them into whatever they wanted to say," complained Alton Washington, a Roanoke minister.
And those answers weren't very impressive, the group agreed.
"Basically, it was political rhetoric," said Mary Louise Nackley, a retired Roanoke office worker. "It didn't help me make up my mind. Both were pretty much full of bull. They think we're dumb. They speak down to us. They think we don't want the answers to the questions. If they gave straight answers, the public would appreciate it."
The main complaint from the half-dozen voters who assembled at Roanoke public television station WBRA to take part in Virginia's first televised statewide debate to feature ordinary voters interrogating the candidates:
The Warners never answered the questions the voters posed, instead delivering what appeared to them to be rehearsed responses that sometimes only lightly touched on the original question.
"I'd fail both of them," said Bruce Prillaman, an industrial purchasing agent from Roanoke County. "The candidates have got to learn we're not really dumb and don't want to be fed pablum everyday. We don't want their canned responses."
Prillaman noted that he had posed a question about what criteria the Warners would use to make decisions - and cited, as an example, the ``smart'' road in Montgomery County. John Warner, in his reply, said he backed the proposed high-tech highway, but never explained why. Instead he went on to talk about the need for tax relief.
"I'm sitting here shaking my head, `that's not what I asked, man,''' Prillaman complained. "I didn't ask whether he supported it. I asked him what his criteria was. They didn't answer any of the questions."
Other panelists - selected by public television from a group of randomly-selected voters The Roanoke Times recruited this summer to talk about what's on voters' minds - agreed.
"They're very adept at skirting the issues," Nackley said.
"I feel I learned nothing about their positions," Washington said. "I couldn't speak more intelligently now than I could an hour ago."
"The candidates' handling of the questions was not helpful," chimed in April Moore, a free-lance newsletter writer from Shenandoah County who was recruited by Harrisonburg public television station WVPT and drove more than two hours down Interstate 81 to take part in the event.
Henry Sullivan, a Roanoke consultant, said the debate had changed his mind, but not necessarily for the better. "Now I have no clue who I'm going to vote for."
Craig Fifer, a Virginia Tech student, suggested the experience of watching candidates avoid voters' questions might lead some debate viewers to opt for a third choice on election day - not voting.
"I think that's why people don't vote," Prillaman agreed. "People perceive it's not going to make a difference."
Some of the panelists suggested that if they'd been able to question the candidates in person - and persist with follow-ups - the feedback might have prodded the candidates into more direct answers. And Sullivan suggested that candidates are accustomed to old-style debates, not these newfangled citizen participation events. "The candidates are victims of the format; they're a little new to this."
But the Roanoke panelists thought the format was a good one, and expressed the hope that future debates will continue to include ordinary voters. "On a positive note, it was an attempt at a new process," Prillaman said.
And Sullivan had his own suggestion for future debates: "Usually after these things they have the pundits on. Wouldn't it have been nice if the candidates heard our evaluation?"
LENGTH: Medium: 87 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: STEPHANIE KLEIN-DAVIS STAFF Mary Louise Nackley, Henryby CNBSullivan (right), and Bruce Prillaman (center) wait their turn to
ask questions. color KEYWORDS: POLITICS CONGRESS