From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> <l9nom7INNpj@spim.mips.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:22:34 GMT

In article <l9nom7INNpj@spim.mips.com> ankur@mips.com (Ankur Saha) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
   >
   >   In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
   >
   >This is another one of those democratic lies I mentioned in another post.
   >At no time did anyone criticize Hillary for having a career.  She was
   >criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,
   >marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
   >indeed fair game, with all that implies.
   >

   For some article she wrote in 1973, when

   o Bush was pro-choice
   o Reagan was right-wing
   o Nixon was president
   o Gramm was a democrat
   o Elvis was alive

   In brief, give me a break!

What's your point?  Are you saying her writings shouldn't be examined
just because they were written in 1973?  Once something's on paper it's
there forever and if you have new views it's up to you to disavow your
older positions.

   >The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
   >for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
   >the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
   >opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.
   >

   Which year's convention was that?  Do you think Don Regan was lying?
   Is it normal for first ladies to use astrologers? How does that compare
   with Hillary's situation?

Again, it seems you miss the point.  The fact is she was picked over
mercilessly in the press.  Whether or not there was a convention in sight
is irrelevant, the fact is that that treatment opened the door to
criticism of first ladies.  In fact, I am completely in agreement that
candidates wives are fair game if they are involved in politics.

Whether Don Regan was lying or walking on water is not the issue.  The
issue is that she took a lot of heat for getting involved.

I don't know whether or not it's "normal" for first ladies to consult
astrologers, but I do know there are more astrologers than astronomers.
So, it's fair to conclude that some number of people take them seriously.
If you doubt that just pop on down to your friendly neighborhood magazine
stand and count the astrology magazines and books.  Somebody's buying them.

   >I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
   >is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
   >State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
   >of her legal and political positions is in order.
   >

   Yeah, a fair and balanced source of information.

If you had bothered to read my paragraph you would notice that I said the
claim was not established but that if it turns out to be true then it is
indeed our business how she thinks.  Even if she's not being considered
she's going to be politically active and we have every right as citizens
to examine her views in great detail.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines