From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:12:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
>>      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>> National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>> 
>>      In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>>      saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>>      Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>>      two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>>      to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>>      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>>      1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>>      for federal poverty programs.
>> 
>> It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>> another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>> dwarfs his private generosity.

How dare you bring in such filth to this network! :)

>Now hold it there one ding-danged minute.  Do you KNOW to which
>charities the the Quayles donated?  A lot of rich people's charity
>giving goes to the opera, symphony, and moldy art gallery of their
>choice.  Nothing  wrong with that, but it doesn't have a lot to do
>with the traditional definition of charity.

This is not the time to bring out the Webster's and define "charity."

I admit I don't know to which charities the Quayles are benefactors, but
harping on the Quayles' donations to "rich people's charities" hits
quite an interesting chord. 

I don't know what you mean if there's a more "correct/politically
correct" charity to which you should donate your money to indicate that
you "care" or not. Would you prefer that your local symphony shut down
since donating to a homeless shelter is a more worthwhile charity?

Just because Dan may have contributed to the Indiana Symphony and Opera
doesn't mean the charity just sits on their money and does nothing
except pay the posh salaries of the musicians and artists. Some may
actually have programs designed for enriching children's awareness of
culture and music. That is probably the case with many theatrical
troupes.

>I would ask you to reserve judgement until you get all the facts, but
>from the tone of this post, you made up your mind some time during the
>Eisenhower administration.  Go back to sleep -- we'll wake you for the
>millenium.

I doubt anyone would be satisfied if the list of philanthropic
organizations the Quayles donate to is released. You'll have people
saying, "See he doesn't even donate money to the homeless; he doesn't
care about them." or "He isn't even a $1000 donor to the Pediatric AIDS
foundation! He doesn't care about them." and so on. It would be
interesting to find out though... for everyone in politics.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
Living proof of Dan Quayle's statement: what a waste it is to lose one's
mind or not to have a mind at all. How true it is.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc