The Pendulum
Thursday, October 18, 1984
Political debates
evade real issues
Press conferences have become as much a part of cam
paigning, as any public rally or fund-raiser. The format of
the first Presidential debate, which covered only issues
concerning domestic affairs, consisted of a series of
questions posed by a panel of journalists and timed re
sponses by Reagan and Mondale.
This format of debate allowed the candidates to escape
from attacking each other, and instead they concentrated
on responding to the journalists that questioned them
rather than each other.
In a true debate, there is an issue or issues that are
argued affirmatively and negatively, then each candi
date is given the opportunity to rebut or refute what has
been said. In the debate between Reagan and Mondale
both candidates avoided directly answering questions on
religion and abortion.
To the viewer, the debate would have clearly been just
another press conference where the candidates echoed
their differences of opinion which have been a part of
Campaign ‘84 since its Labor Day kickoff.
Ideally, a debate would inform and interest voters in
the issues that affect them not only now, but in the years
ahead as well. But, to talk about who “won” the debate
between Reagan and Mondale would be ridiculous.
Assistant Professor of Communications, Dr. Anne Pon
der said of the debate, “One debate on domestic policy
does not clarify a candidate’s position. Getting off the
subject with rhetoric is easier, as is arguing emotionally
or personally when the proposition is unclear.”
While a real debate between leaders would give voters
the opportunity to know more about issues they are de
bating, the negative aspect would be that the best deba
ter is not necessarily the best president. In last week’s
debate Reagan sermonized on the economic success of
the country in the last couple of years and Mondale criti
cized the large federal deficit, the arms race and nuclear
war.
The journalists who ask questions are surrogates for
the public interest in a timely and perceptive way. But,
perhaps there is too much of an image problem involved
in a televised debate. The time has come for voters to
close the gap on the two candidates by listening to the
real issues of the campaign. Unfortunately, it is doubtful
that this Sunday’s second and final debate before the
election next month will have the effect of showing the
candidates as they really are.
Peanuts® by Charles Schultz
YOU'RE LUCKY, QO YOU
KNOW THAT, 6IRP? YOU'RE
LUCKY BECAUSE YOU PON'T
HAVE TO 5TUPY MATH!
YOU PONT HAVE TO KNOW
ABOUT I?ATI0NAUZIN6 THE
PeNOMINATOR ANP PUM8
THINGS LIKE THAT
Umney 15 ...
Letters tO'the editor
Reagan’s pro-life stand
To the editor:
I am proud, as a pro-lifer, to
support President Reagan in
his bid for re-election. I am
most proud of the way in which,
during his debate with Walter
Mondale, he refused to falter
about his stand on the issue of
abortion. President Reagan is
not ashamed to proclaim that
abortion is murder.
He has the personal fortitude
necessary to refrain from bow
ing to political expediency. I
am also proud that President
Reagan chose to support his
stand against abortion on con
stitutional ground, by stressing
that the unborn child deserves
full protection of his constitu
tional rights unless the unborn
child is unequivocally not a hu
man life
Doesn’t the electorate recog
nize that Walter Mondale re
fused to answer whether or not
he believes that abortion is
murder? When Walter Mon
dale was in turn posed with the
same question he chose to
ignore the question and in
stead involved the issue of a
Librarian responds
to complaint
woman’s right to a personal
choice in the matter of abor
tion.
President Reagan in turn re
sponded by saying that any
murderer could confess a per
sonal choice motivating in his
decision to murder; however,
this personal choice is invalid
when it infringes upon the per
sonal rights and constitutional
protections of his victim.
In the same way, the unborn
child deserves by his constitu
tional rights the protection of
his life and liberty from the
personal choice and prefer
ence of another.
Bev Stadermannz
To the editor:
I would like to thank Mouche
Maggio for her letter to the edi
tor (“Library quiet urged,” The
Pendulum XI, no. 6: October 11,
1984) because it provided a per
fect opportunity to point out to
her and other concerned stu
dents that appropriate mea
sures have been taken in re
sponse to criticism appearing
in past issues of The Pen
dulum.
Her objectives fall into two
categories: (1) the cleaning
schedule in the library; and (2)
See Letters page 5
7n/T sir 7slZ23 7
1978 United Feature SyndKate. Inc
The Pendulum Staff
Editor
Associate Editor
Student Affairs Editor
Features Editor
Photographers
Senior Editor
Ad Manager
Adviser
Loul(ia l-ouka
Penny Thomas
Vicky Jiggetts
Maureen Sweeney
Mike Brown
Butch Flake
Joe Coco
Stuart White
Jo Craven
Mouche Maggio
Robert Nowell
The Pendulum welcomes letters, limited
to 250 words, from our readers. Longer
material may be submitted as opinion
des. All letters submitted must be signed,
and a phone numt>er given so that the let
ters valktity can be checked. The editor
reserves the right to edit for length, libel,
good taste and accuracy. The deadline for
submitting material is 2 p.m. Monday. Our
office is kxated in 102 Williamson Avenue,
phone 584-2331 or 584-2467.
The paper is published by the Com-
municatk)ns Media Board of Elon College
Founded on October 14,1974, as the stu
dent newspaper serving the Eton College
community. The Pendulum is published
each Thursday durir>g tfie regular terms
except for examination and holiday
periods. The PernJulum Is printed by The
Buriington Dally Times-News.