From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:06:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>Like I stated in another post, I don't think Clinton has a shred
>>of character, but I consoled myself after the election in the
>>thought that most of Clinton's campaign promises would be good
>>for the country and maybe he would do a fine job.  Now after
>>his blatant abandonment of those promises, he appears to be just
>>another old guard Democrat who is placing top priority on implementing
>>left-wing, liberal social policy and further addicting the public
>>to the nipple of big government through increased spending.
>>
>>His ability to improve education in this country is suspect, and besides,
>>his top priority is supposed to be the economy.  You can hardly translate
>>what he did in Arkansas (not much) to the rest of the country.  And even
>>though I don't respect his record, I am all for him trying to improve
>>education and the economy.  I just don't like how his top priority has been
>>shifted to a left-wing, liberal agenda.  Like one of Clinton's staffers
>>said this week when asked what he thought the public's opinion of the first
>>few days of the Clinton administration was, he replied:
>> 'If you're an illegal alien lesbian whose trying to get an abortion, the
>>      first few days of the Clinton administration have been GREAT!'
 
matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:
>Whoa. He didn't do much in Arkansas?? Back up what you say, because I 
>am quite familiar with his accomplishments. And he wasn't voted the 
>most effective governor for nothing...
>
>In Arkansas, the major needs were education and the economy. He committed 
>himself to improving both, and did so.
>
>In America, our primary needs are health care and the economy. I believe he 
>will do his best to improve these areas, and they will be the ultimate 
>indicator of his success during his first term. 

OK, I'll grant you that in some areas, like education, Clinton made some
gains while Governor.  But realistically, he was not the best choice
the Democrats could have made when selecting their Presidential 
candidate.  The fact is that Clinton was one of the token Democrats who 
got in under the wire during primary season.  Those Democrats who got
into the primaries initially didn't expect to win against an incumbent
President with sky-high approval ratings.  More likely they were trying
to set themselves up for a serious run in 1996.  As Bush became vulnerable
the Clinton forces downplayed his negatives (the most I can remember a 
winning candidate having) and overinflated his record.  Arkansas is
unique in it's problems and doesn't match up well with the rest of the
country.  While Clinton may have worked minor wonders there, his methods
can't be extrapolated to the rest of the country.
 
>Some of the other issues, e.g.  the recent situation involving gays and 
>the military, must be treated carefully.  While I agree with his stance,
>the process should move slowly and involve two-way communication with
>the people, or else he will alienate many people and lose the election
>in 1996, much as he lost the governorship in Arkansas in 1980 for 
>pushing reform without gathering consensus.

This is an example of what I think his biggest problem is.  He thinks
that the people wanted EVERYTHING he talked about doing during the
campaign, and now acts surprised when there's a backlash to his
actions.  The people wanted him to concentrate on the ECONOMY (which
involves both education and health care), not social tinkering, even
if it seems like an easy thing to do in one day.  As far as 'gays in
the military' goes, I would allow it ONLY if all seperation of 
military personnel were gotten rid of.  This means everybody, both
men and women, bunk together, shower together, etc..  If you're
going to let everybody in, then you shouldn't seperate them once
they are there.  If the military isn't willing to do this, then I'd
have to be for keeping the ban.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1377 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!