From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:15:15 GMT

In article <85032@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 18403@oakhill.sps.mot.com, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.143550.1650@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.
>
>>I don't disagree with your analysis - it would be hard for Bush, or Perot,
>>to catch up, and yes, Clinton is in the runaway position.
>>But let's see what the rest of the debates bring.
>>Maybe America will see through Clinton's act and realize how unfit he
>>is for the Presidency.
>
>If you accept that Clinton is going to win,

I don't totally. that's why I said "Let's see."

>then why don't you tone down the
>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?

If anything, I am trying to be kind to Clinton, and give him
the benefit of the doubt.  Yet he insists on being an economic
illiterate who has (unfortunately like many others), a
mistaken view of what is right and what is wrong with America.  
We gave his type of a program a chance in the late 70's,
and he insists on repeating the mistake.

>After all, we are all in the same boat.
> The important thing is not whether Democrats or Republicans
>prevail, but whether our nation prevails.

> you will really be in a good position two and four years hence,
>when the Democrats have to explain why they haven't solved all the problems.

That is cold comfort. I'd rather our nation prevails, like you said.
And that means putting the best person in the top spot.
It isn't Slickster/Bore (oh, too abusive ... I meant Clinton/Gore). 

>Right now, Clinton
>and Gore are promising economic recovery, but the entire world economy is 
>tottering on the brink.

Both parts of your sentence are false. The world is in slo-mo, that's all.
There is no brink to totter on.  As for the Clinton plan, they promise
more Govt spending and greater Washington control on our lives and our
economy.  It is plain to most observors that this will *not* give us
economic recovery, except perhaps in the DC beltway area. 

>So it isn't likely that Clinton is going to be in a
>position to implement all his ideas.  I expect him to spend the next four years 
>trying to stave off an economic depression.  With both the legislature and the
>presidency in Democratic hands, it won't be possible for them to blame poor
>performance on a gridlock, veto-happy president.  They must turn things around,
>and they know it.  

What do you mean, turn things around? Clinton's already said
he wants to reverse the most successful economic boom in our generation.
Specifically, he wants to reverse the Reagan economic success.
That is *not* the turning I want, or the turning the nation needs.

>If Clinton is inevitable,

Geez, what is this PsychOps? ... it ain't over 'til its over.
"Let's see." okay?

>then it serves no purpose to trash his character and his ideas.

His ideas *are* trash, most of them anyway. One can't help but treat
them as such.

> Our hopes now rest on his success.

Oh please ... this is too much.
It is now UnAmerican to criticize President Presumptive Bill Clinton.
We must bow to him for 4 years while he "grows" in the job.

Just 12 years ago, our country was similarly in tough economic
shape. The leader who took the reigns then engineered the longest
peacetime expansion in our history.
Our *real* hopes rest on whoever becomes President realizing that
Reagan's economic success was a consequence of his policies,
and if the President fulfills the promise of Reagan's policies,
our nation may again see more prosperous times.

>>I am voting for Bush, because he has the best economic plan, one
>>that will provide growth, jobs, more businesses and higher exports, he will
>>provide the best leadership at home and abroad, and he will be the
>>best to deal, both constructively and using his veto pen, with the
>>next Congress.
>
>The problem is that Bush *has* been carrying out his economic plan over the past
>four years, and it hasn't helped.

Nope. His poblem was specifically that he compromised with the Democrats
on taxes and other issues, to the detriment of the economy, the
country, and his political career.

> .....  Clinton comes in with the traditional approach:
>spend (his "invest") money during a downturn.  Take care of the deficit more 
>slowly.  It may not work, but he is the best shot we've got at economic
>recovery.

"It may not work" .....
	
It's been done before, as I've said. It won't work. Grow the money supply,
pump the deficit, and spend your way to happiness. Let's revisit the late
1970's.  Yikes.

I don't care if Clinton is "inevitable" or Perot "has no chance" or
Bush is trailing.  Clinton is the wrong man for the Presidency. 

Patrick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc