ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, October 10, 1996 TAG: 9610100052
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: RAY L. GARLAND
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
IT WOULD be nice to say of Bob Dole's part in the recent debate what Edith Sitwell said of her attacks upon critics of the great Welsh poet Dylan Thomas: "The air still seems to reverberate with the wooden sound of numskulls soundly hit." Alas, Dole was merely adequate, saved only by the fact President Clinton was hardly more so.
Like George Bush, Dole has problems with articulation. And when words are squeezed out, they're often a kind of shorthand that many don't entirely understand. But under relentless attack for "cuts" in Medicare, etc., what I don't understand is why Dole doesn't counter with Clinton's own plan to cut Medicare in 1993, or the president's recent statement that he will consider reducing the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment and pushing back the retirement age.
Still, as such things go, it wasn't a bad showing, thanks in large measure to Jim Lehrer's firm but kindly hand. Of all debate formats, this seems the best and most fair.
Their next and last joint appearance will be the Oprah-style show upon which Clinton insisted, and which many saw as clinching his victory in 1992.
Despite obvious flaws and dangers, this format is now firmly in fashion and will be with us awhile. That caused me to read the actual transcript of its debut in 1992 - a punishment I recommend for deserters.
What had stuck in the mind was the guy with the ponytail, who read from notes, "The focus of my work as domestic mediator is meeting the needs of children. ... I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, look to you to meet our needs?"
A good answer might have been, "I can meet no need without taking the means to do so from your pocket, or your neighbor's, with appropriate deductions for government overhead and waste. Look to your god, your community, or even inside yourself." But a candidate who said that today would go down in a heap.
The question that sank Bush came from a young woman, understandably nervous, who began by asking, "How has the national debt affected each of your lives?" By hearing only the words "national debt" and not listening carefully to the rest, Ross Perot and then Bush dashed off in the wrong direction, while Clinton bided his time. The rest of the question made clear she was speaking not of the debt but the recent recession. "How can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common man," she said, "if you have no experience in what's ailing them?"
It was a fair though peculiar question to ask three men who had long occupied positions of great power or wealth. But it's painful to read Bush's struggle to find the words. Right there, he made the Democrats' case that he was out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. Clinton said later he thought he wasn't doing well until the "debt" question, which illustrates both the hazards and opportunities of the Oprah format.
A hybrid version of the old debate format and the new talk-show style was tried recently in Virginia's U.S. Senate race, funded by a grant from Landmark publications and seen on the state's public-broadcasting stations. It featured Ken Bode as moderator, though standing behind a podium, not roaming the floor, and small groups of pre-selected voters in Williamsburg, Roanoke and Falls Church.
In many ways, it didn't work. Bode failed to keep Sen. John Warner and challenger Mark Warner on point, or limit their filibusters off point. But the main problem was that the questioners had thought too long of their questions, which were so generalized or esoteric as to defy anybody's cogent response.
Lessie in Williamsburg asked, "How will you demonstrate to potential young voters that you will be able to relate to their needs and address their needs?" Jim in Falls Church wondered, "What and how will you ever restore trust in the word politician?" Alton in Roanoke went beyond this to ask the candidates to define political leadership. He also wanted to know what criteria they would use "to measure whether or not you are providing adequate leadership."
I counted only one specific question. A college professor asked their position on abolishing the U.S. Department of Education and seemed pleased when both candidates assured him they wouldn't dream of doing that. No one saw fit to point out that the federal government puts up less than 3 percent of all the money spent on education in this country.
After both candidates pledged themselves to support more money for all popular causes, even those with a strongly conservative view weakened. But Jim in Falls Church was still trying. "Without jeopardizing children's education defense, what and where does the Constitution empower you to take money from some of us, give it to others and jeopardize our families and lives?"
Here, at last, was a short answer. "That's the tax code, my friend," said John Warner. But he quickly added he wanted to end the IRS "as it is today" and allow working Americans to keep more of their own money, which got the best applause of the night. He didn't tell Jim in Falls Church that when you exempt all the things he doesn't want to jeopardize, plus interest on the $5 trillion debt, there isn't much left.
Mark Warner, who stood his ground despite being somewhat overmatched by his opponent's constant claim to a purity of motive not seen in this country since George Washington, took a different tack: "We have to get our fiscal house in order. ... what I won't do is offer a massive tax cut."
Of course, politicians seldom prosper as bearers of hard tidings. But the danger in the blind leading the blind is the known existence of deep holes, into which all may fall together.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Long : 101 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICS CONGRESS POLITICS PRESIDENTby CNB