Profs view and review debate

As the candidates faced off for the final time before Election Day last night, more than 75 Penn students gathered in Logan Hall to watch the debate and participate in a discussion afterward. In an event sponsored by the Undergraduate Communications Society, both undergraduate and graduate students came together to witness Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush square off in their third debate, this time at Washington University in St. Louis. Those who stayed past the closing arguments of the candidates -- less than half did -- discussed the debate with a panel of two Annenberg professors, an Annenberg post-doctoral fellow and a College freshman. "Don't ask us who won," Professor Elihu Katz stated as the discussion got underway, rhetorically asking, "What does winning mean?" "There are different dimensions in terms of who won," he explained. "If you thought that Gore won the first debate, the media convinced you in four days that he lost." Professor David Eisenhower, a scholar of the presidency and political communications, agreed that the assignment of victory, especially in this election, would be meaningless and premature. "I didn't see anything tonight that is going to alter the dynamics of a race that is going to be fought to the end," he said. "The question I ask myself is not who won or who lost, but what did Gore hope to accomplish and what did Bush hope to accomplish and did they achieve their objectives?" Eisenhower, grandson of former President Dwight Eisenhower, pointed out that Gore's challenge lay in mobilizing a Democratic party all too eager to go further in expanding the government without "setting off the alarms of the American people." Bush's objective, on the other hand, was, in Eisenhower's words, to "voice the mood of the electorate which is in favor of change without risk." According to Eisenhower, both candidates achieved their goals. Paul Waldman, an Annenberg post-doctoral fellow, expounded on Eisenhower's analysis. "People don't like government in the abstract, but favor government services and programs," Waldman explained, reasoning that Bush purposely plays to the general difference between himself and Gore, while Gore concentrates on the specific programs he would focus on as president. Time after time, throughout the three debates, Bush highlighted the the philosophical distinction between Gore and himself. "It's the difference between big federal government and somebody who's coming from outside of Washington who will trust individuals," Bush said in his closing statement last night. Gore, for his part, has been pointed in his use of statistics. On the question of military preparedness, Gore said last night, "In my budget, I propose $100 billion for this purpose. The governor proposes $45 billion. I propose more than twice as much because I think it's needed." "I think that in specifics, I'd give Gore a little more than Bush," said College freshman Nicolas Rodriquez, a panelist and member of College Democrats. College sophomore Mark Kocivar-Norbury, a member of the mostly Democratic audience, agreed. "Gore seems to have a good handle on the facts, but Bush is going to be really successful on a sort of mass-market level," he said. "Philosophically, Bush is more compatible with the people of the nation," Eisenhower said in response to Kocivar-Norbury's assessment. Both those who organized the gathering and those who attended were pleased at how things went. "Eventually, this kind of grassroots talking will filter up through the political process," said Eric Miller, a Folklore graduate student. "I think it was a wonderful event," said UCS co-chair Whitny Perkins, a College senior. "We did a lot of planning and it really paid off." "It seems that students are apathetic about politics," said Pamela Meredith, a College senior and the other coordinator of the event. "I was pleased with the turnout."