From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton? NOT LIBERAL? was (Re: Prediction: Rush Limbaugh has hit his peak; He will)
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:29:07 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec15.071417.27877@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.010713.18503@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>>I would like to see your evidence on this -- direct evidence, policy-wise,
>>that he is a Liberal.  I will furnish some evidence he is a centrist.
>>1) He supports NAFTA; 2) He did not outright oppose the Gulf War (see below)
>>3) supports a capital-gains like tax cut for business under certain
>>circumstances 4) supports the death penalty...need I go on?
>>Of course, some of his positions are more liberal, but then that is the
>>definition of a centrist -- some of his positions are conservative, so
>>liberal, some moderate.  As Gary Hart said, "I look neither left nor
>>right but forward."
>
>1) He supports NAFTA, but only with environmental restrictions tacked
>on.  Without going into details on the foolishness of that, the
>addition of enviro-regulation would, without a doubt, qualify him
>as a liberal.

Environmental protection is hardly an issue of liberal vs. conservative.  It
is an issue of responsible people vs. irresponsible people.  But even Milton
Friedman, staunch opponent of big government and federal regulation, agrees
that the government has a role to play in protecting the environment.  His
favored approach differs from the current approach in that he prefers "green
taxes" to regulation, that is, tax certain raw material or finished products
in such a way as to make environmentally harmful practices relatively
unprofitable, and environmentally sound practices relatively profitable.  But
he doesn't oppose environmental protection by any means.  Incidentally, "green
taxes" are favored by the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Bill Clinton
was a founding member, and the chairman before his campaign began.  They would
like to use them to replace some portion of the income tax.  Tim Wirth, the
senator from Colorado, and a leading environmentalist, who is probably being
appointed Energy Secretary, favors consumption taxes over production taxes.
(I heard him speak at an environmental policy conference in Aspen last summer,
and that's what he said.)  I don't know - sounds centrist to me, if not
downright conservative.

>2) He didn't really take one side or the other.  He could've been
>consistent and opposed it as he did the war in Vietnam, but I believe
>he felt it would damage his position with the large percentage of
>Americans who were in favor of the war.  In other words, his ambiguous
>statement allowed him to take both sides of the issue, thereby not
>offending anyone and keeping with as broad a base of support as
>possible. This doesn't prove or disprove his liberalism, neither does
>it demonstrate moderation.  An unclear stance, in fact, just makes him
>look a little shifty.

>3)The under certain circumstances part makes me somewhat suspicious.
>Data, anyone?  Capital gains reductions is, though, I would agree,
>fiscally conservative.

>4)Death penalty?  Look, he's from Arkansas: to be Arkansas' governor,
>he had to be, and if he changed his mind upon running for
>President...to wit, no clear evidence there.

So, he's from a conservative state, and so the fact that he's taken
conservative positions doesn't indicate that he really isn't a liberal.
Right.  What will it take until you believe anything?

>So, yes, I think you need go on, with more definite examples of
>Clinton's moderate stance.

Sounds like he did pretty well at demonstrating Clinton's moderate stance.
The best you did in proving him liberal was saying that he might really be
more liberal than his positions would seem to indicate.  (You tried to show
him to be a liberal on the environment point, but I showed that you were
wrong, therefore it wasn't the best you did.)

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu