From: michaell@snake28.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:09:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.224027.14125@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>     
>>Pathetic fools like you may see diversity in selecting the proper balance
>>of politically correct skin tones and genitals but the truth is that to
>>date ALL of Bill's appointments reflect one view point, one ideology and
>>one very far left political philosophy, regardless of the the genetic 
>>make up of the people appointed.  Not so much as an honest days work amongst
>>that collection of ivory tower academics and career politicians. 
>
>I ask again: Bentsen subscribes to a "very far left political
>philosophy"?  The guy from Goldman, Sachs (that citadel of Ivory Tower
>academics and career politicians) has a "very far left political
>philosophy"?  Proclamations like this, Paulie-boy, just undermine your
>credibility.

First of all, I take insult to being called a "pathetic fool".  So far, I have
seen no appointments that have been of people unqualified for the position.
Clinton has appointed people with a decent variety of positions - but still
able to work with, not against, the Clinton administrations goals.  Why would
Clinton support a trickle-downer?  That's what he ran _against_ for god's sake.
Over 60% voted against the borrow and spend tactics of the last dozen or more
years, and while 19% went to Perot, I am very confident that if Perot had not
been in the race, Clinton would have been well over 50%.  Before Perot 
re-entered, Clinton always, always, always, had a real sizable lead over Bush.

But that is ancient history now.

And honest days work?  I'm a student here at UW-Madison, and so I know DHHS
designate Donna Shalala's work at a decent perspective.  While far rightists
may accuse her as some "High priestess of political correctness", she has a
number of critics to her far left as well.  She successfully attacked a huge
deficit in the athletic department, by some less-then-popular measures, both
a targeted $10 that came from tuition and went towards the athletic department,
and cutting some programs, but also recruiting two strong coaches to income
generating sports, and while they aren't winning teams yet, attendence and
enthusiasm is up, and the athletic department deficit is almost removed.  The
real-world administrative skills that required will be useful at DHHS.

She also was involved with restructuring our hospital, and while it isn't
decided yet what will be done, the harshest criticism has come from the left.

True, Madison is not a archly-conservative campus, by any means (thankfully),
but Shalala has done an excellent job here as Chancellor, and clearly has spent
many days working hard at improving our university, and I'm proud that the
President-elect has appointed her.  If she's as far left as the appointments go,
which I'll grant, this administration will serve this country well.

If anyone can point out someone who isn't very qualified for the position, 
I'll be amazed.  Bush may have appointed some people so cynically, but I haven't
seen that yet from Clinton.

And finally -- if these are all "very far left" appointments, I'm frightened to
see how far right Mr. Galvanek is.

Michael Lee


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton