O.C. Panel Gives Edge to Clinton in Contest : Politics: Local experts don’t think polls will be impacted significantly by candidates’ performances.

Ross Perot was the undisputed sound-bite king.

President Bush was faulted for failing to back with facts his contention that the country’s economic condition is not as bad as his opponents claim.

But on substance, Bill Clinton was rated best in the first three-way presidential debate in history Sunday, according to a panel of local judges who scored the contest for The Times Orange County Edition.

“I think Clinton came out the clear winner in this debate,” said Maryann Jones, law professor at Western State University College of Law. “He lost nothing. He came across as moderate, reasonable. He was extremely well prepared and his use of statistics was good. Perot is a wonderful speaker. You like to listen to him. . . . The problem was solutions. He has no tangible plans for anything.”

And given the absence of major gaffes, most of the debate coaches agreed that the contest would not result in any radical shift in public opinion polls, which showed Clinton with a sizable lead before Sunday.

Proving that point were three families who watched the first of three debates scheduled through Oct. 19. They said afterward that their minds were not changed by the performances of any of the candidates.

“We are not seeing anything new here,” said Neil Chapman, 41, a builder from Laguna Niguel, who has supported Perot from the beginning. “(Bush and Clinton) think it is a beauty contest: if they look good, they win, but Perot seems to be the only one who speaks the truth.”

Longtime Bush supporter Cliff Piscitelli, 42, of Laguna Hills felt that the President bolstered his candidacy by his debate performance.

“Bush did exactly what I wanted him to do,” Piscitelli said. “He was presidential, experienced, calm, knowledgeable, the most sincere.”

And Clinton’s vision came through strongly in the debate for lifelong Democrat Jerry Kenny, 49, of Laguna Beach, who said the Arkansas governor offers the best hope for the future.

“He appeals to middle America like no other (Democratic) candidate in the last 20 years. He’s different,” Kenny said.

Of the four local debate experts, three gave the top score to Clinton, and the other gave Perot a slight edge because of his strong delivery, which relied on one-line zingers to carry him through the 90-minute debate. Two placed Bush in second place, and two had him finishing last.

Using traditional debating criteria, the candidates were judged on how they explained the issues, presented evidence to support their positions, refuted opposing arguments and delivered their ideas.

Ken Turknette, a part-time faculty member at Chapman University, said the contest was almost a tie but gave the edge “by a whisker” to Perot, followed by Clinton and then Bush.

“I think (Perot) did the most to help himself out of the three,” Turknette said. “I do not believe people expected Ross Perot to be as glib with a mind that had as many specifics. . . . And his folksy humor at the end of his answers seemed to be quite appropriate.”

But the other judges faulted Perot for not advancing his position with specific facts or proposals.

Pat Ganer, professor of speech communication at Cypress College, said the debate made Perot a serious candidate, in part because he came across as “a much more entertaining figure.”

“Neither Bush nor Clinton had as many (one-liners), but the ones Clinton had were devastating,” Ganer said.

Ganer gave Clinton high marks for his rebuttal to Bush’s attack on Clinton’s anti-war activities in England during the Vietnam War.

Clinton invoked Bush’s father, Prescott, who as a U.S. senator stood up to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s 1950s red-baiting tactics. Clinton said the President was wrong to attack his patriotism.

Jeanine Congalton, assistant professor of speech communication at Cal State Fullerton, credited Clinton with using “a great deal of specific evidence in terms of statistics, examples. He made attempts to qualify his evidence. Bush did not seem to try to give us the evidence he should have had.”

“On every (question), Clinton came back with a plan,” Ganer added. “They all did basically what they needed to do and did not get themselves into trouble. All of that ultimately works to Clinton’s advantage because he went into these debates leading.”

The judges agreed that Bush hurt his cause by claiming that his opponents were being too pessimistic about the economy, without explaining why he believes the situation is better.

“That we are the U.S. and that’s what’s going to get us through, I found that to be fairly uncomfortable,” Congalton said. “I was surprised he did not use much specific evidence.”

Jones also thought Bush should not have used that argument several times during the debate.

“Bush appeared to be extremely defensive throughout, until his closing statement,” Jones said. “He came out sounding strong and presidential when he said ‘I am your President and unless you are sitting here you don’t know what it’s like.’ . . . Then he ends with this weak, ineffectual apology on domestic issues.”

Two of the coaches also said one clear loser in the debate was the format--that without a clear opportunity for rebuttals by the candidates, more specifics or counterpunches could not be drawn out.

“The format did not allow for Perot’s tendency to be testy, for example,” Ganer said. “Without follow-up questions, that just was not there so that type of feeling about Perot does not get pushed.”

And Turknette added: “I think the questions were gigantic, and these men were confined to one-minute answers.”

But for longtime supporters of each of the candidates, their man could do no wrong.

Jerry Kenny

In Laguna Beach, tax attorney Kenny, a lifelong Democrat, was pleased with the performance of Clinton.

Kenny, of the same political generation as Clinton, counts John F. Kennedy as one of his early political influences.

Kenny still strongly backed Clinton after the debate wrapped up.

“Question after question, Clinton has a message. He had specifics,” Kenny said. “He handled the questions directly and didn’t drift away from the challenges. He had substantive responses.”

Kenny was most impressed by Clinton’s comments on the economy, which he felt showed the substance Perot failed to demonstrate, as well as the vision Bush lacked.

Clinton’s response to Bush’s charges about his anti-war activities in England--which included a reference to Bush’s father--also drew an enthusiastic nod from Kenny. “That was an excellent answer,” Kenny said with a smile.

After Clinton’s response to questions on family values and the drug war, in which he mentioned his own brother’s struggle with drug abuse, Kenny said: “Clinton is coming off as more caring and concerned than Bush or Perot.”

Kenny was less impressed with Perot, who he felt offered no specifics to back up his colorful responses.

“He never talks about specific proposals. He wants to create task forces and talk to his supporters. It’s like he has a ‘secret plan’ . . . like Richard Nixon did.”

Perot did win Kenny’s admiration for his informal tone and sharp-witted answers.

“I think he’s helped re-establish himself,” Kenny said. “Tomorrow, they’ll remember the one-liners . . . but the real contest is between Bush and Clinton.”

Kenny saw the President as the big loser. Referring to Bush’s comparisons of Clinton to Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis, Kenny said: “He’s running against the past. . . . He’s out of touch.”

“What Bush had to do in this debate is say ‘things went wrong and here’s my plan’. . . . He didn’t do it.”

The Piscitellis

Bush did everything Debbie and Cliff Piscitelli of Laguna Hills wanted him to do, each said after watching the first debate.

The Piscitellis, partners in an Irvine-based mortgage company, hurried home from their son’s roller hockey game to catch the debate, which only reinforced their conviction that Bush is the right candidate.

“I feel as comfortable with voting for Bush as I did going into the debate,” said Cliff, 42, when the debate was over.

Each found Clinton unpalatable.

“I didn’t believe anything he said,” Debbie said. “With him, it’s just all politics. I can’t trust him.”

But billionaire Perot was a different story.

“What he said was inspiring, but just knowing economics is not what a presidential candidate needs to know about running a country. He doesn’t have the chops to run America,” Debbie said. “Bush ought to hire him as an economic adviser. I made up my mind (to vote for Bush) before the debate, and it just confirmed my beliefs.”

Cliff agreed, calling Perot “wonderful. What a great man. But it’s very simple to run a business. You can’t run a country like a business.”

Perot’s plans to lift the country out of the recession were too unrealistic, Debbie said. “He’s just gonna wave that wand to get it going, huh?” Debbie asked her husband and two children, Nicole, 12, and Danny, 9, who watched part of the debate.

Nicole wasn’t quite so skeptical as her mother. “I like how Perot wants to get rid of the debt because I don’t want to grow up and have to pay for it,” she said.

The Piscitellis often applauded and cheered as Bush spoke, in contrast to skepticism toward Perot and chilly hostility toward Clinton.

The Chapman Family

In South County, the Chapman family, avid Perot supporters since he first entered the race, gained hope for his long-shot candidacy from the debate.

“It is a scary time in this country. (The election) is a topic of conversation around here,” said Malia Chapman, 44, of Laguna Niguel. She watched the debate with her husband Neil, 41, who volunteers for the local Perot campaign, and their two daughters, Jennifer, 9, and Janell, 7.

A copy of the book “Ross Perot Speaks” decorated the living room table. An aging copy of the newspaper from the morning last summer that Perot quit the race rested near the television. The van parked in the driveway carried a Perot for President bumper sticker. Both Chapmans voted for George Bush in 1988. But during the past four years, the construction company they own has suffered through the recession.

“We did great during the ‘80s, but for the recession in the ‘90s, everybody was hurt,” said Neil. “We had to scale back business, and now we run the business completely out of our home.” As the debate began, Neil, owner of JCL Chapman Construction company, predicted that the first debate would be crucial.

“We are getting down to the wire,” Neil said, “Debates are very powerful” in influencing the voter’s decision.

“People don’t really make up their minds until October,” Malia said. Neil and Malia agreed that Perot’s inclusion in the debates makes his poor standing in the polls irrelevant.

“The fact that he was involved in the debates makes him a real player. People will acknowledge him again as a candidate,” Malia said.

Both felt that Perot’s message came through clearly and powerfully enough that their candidate need not hit a home run to win the first debate.

The Chapmans have been Perot supporters from the beginning and were unflagging in their support, even after Perot’s withdrawal.

Each said there was nothing new in Sunday night’s debate from any candidate, including their man, but predicted that Perot’s support would begin to climb again.

While Perot spoke, Neil and Malia watched in rapt attention, nodding in unison with each quip and turn of phrase.

During most of the debate, Jennifer and Janell sat with their parents struggling to stay interested in what the candidates said. Their parents seemed unswayed by anything Clinton or Bush had to say.

“I don’t see how anybody believes a word Clinton says,” said Malia. Neil echoed her, saying that Clinton and Bush are players in a two-party political system that is bankrupt. “People are mesmerized by the message, not Perot,” Neil said. “They feel like they will have a voice in the system.”

Times correspondents Bob Elston, Shelby Grad and Mimi Ko contributed to this report.

How the Candidates Fared

Using the rules of traditional debating contests, academic experts watched the presidential debates for The Times Orange County Edition and judged the performance of the candidates on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor, 2 fair, 3 average, 4 excellent and 5 superior.

Analysis: How well did the candidate examine and explain the issues?

Reasoning: How well did the candidate advance his position?

Evidence: How well did the candidate use specific facts, and what was the quality of the evidence he used to support his position?

Refutation: Did the candidate successfully rebut his opponents’ positions and evidence?

Delivery: How effective was the candidate in presenting what he had to say?

Jeanine Congalton, assistant professor of speech communication at Cal State Fullerton:

“I thought Clinton attempted to use a great deal of specific evidence in terms of statistics, examples; he made attempts to qualify his evidence. Bush did not seem to try to give us the evidence he should have had.” George Bush: Analysis: 3 Reasoning: 3 Evidence: 2 Refutation: 3 Delivery: 5 Total points: 16

Bill Clinton: Analysis: 4 Reasoning: 4 Evidence: 5 Refutation: 3 Delivery: 5 Total points: 21

Ross Perot: Analysis: 2 Reasoning: 3 Evidence: 2 Refutation: 2 Delivery: 5 Total points: 14

Pat Ganer, professor of speech communication at Cypress College:

“On every (question), Clinton came back with a plan. . . . They all did basically what they needed to do and did not get themselves into trouble. All of that ultimately works to Clinton’s advantage because he went into these debates leading. George Bush: Analysis: 3 Reasoning: 3 Evidence: 2 Refutation: 4 Delivery: 4 Total points: 16

Bill Clinton: Analysis: 4 Reasoning: 3 Evidence: 5 Refutation: 4 Delivery: 4 Total points: 20

Ross Perot: Analysis: 2 Reasoning: 2 Evidence: 3 Refutation: 3 Delivery: 4 Total points: 14

Maryann Jones, law professor at Western State University College of Law:

“I think Clinton came out the clear winner in this debate. He lost nothing. He came across as moderate, reasonable. He was extremely well prepared and his use of statistics was good. Perot is a wonderful speaker. You like to listen to him . . . the problem was solutions. He has no tangible plans for anything.” George Bush: Analysis: 2 Reasoning: 3 Evidence: 3 Refutation: 3 Delivery: 3 Total points: 14

Bill Clinton: Analysis: 3 Reasoning: 4 Evidence: 4 Refutation: 4 Delivery: 4 Total points: 19

Ross Perot: Analysis: 4 Reasoning: 3 Evidence: 3 Refutation: 3 Delivery: 5 Total points: 18