From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug29.193807.8246@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:26:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.193807.8246@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug29114940@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

   >   You forgot '...and know your audience.'.  I don't know what your credentials
   >   are but maybe you were in over your head trying to understand it.
   >
   >I think the quality of my writing speaks for itself.  Instead of just
   >taking snotty little pot shots why don't you go read her stuff and then
   >come back and show us just how good it is?

	   Well, I read the article, and I didn't find it too difficult to grasp.
   I did find it redundant, long and boring, for what its worth. 

I didn't say it was difficult to grasp, I said it contained several
ambiguities.

	   In 1973, the precidents for childrens rights simply did not exist.

Whaaaaaat?  I remember plenty of cases of child abuse being tried.  There
were also plenty of cases children being removed from homes for a variety
of unhealthy reasons.  The issue didn't have the aura of hysteria that it
has today (remember the McMartin case).

   There was very little in the way of guidelines regarding when the state should
   step in and take responsibility for a child. There are many cases, involving
   battered children, gross neglect and sexual abuse where there is little dispute
   that a child should be removed from a home, but at the time, it was not clear
   exactly where the line should be drawn.

It's still not clear where that line should be drawn.

	   Hillary Clintons article was a discussion of dependants rights, and
   helped assemble the basis for a large chunk of widely accepted law. The paper
   contained little new material, and simply saught to construct a framework
   for determining the rights of dependants.

Are you saying Hillary's writings influenced law?  Care to cite some proof?

	   Its great to make political hay by claiming that supporting dependants
   rigths is equivelent to supporting the rights of children to sue their parents
   over taking out the garbage, but in reality there are many cases, such as suing
   a neglegant father for child support, that have been championed as derivitives
   of the "family values" that we keep hearing about.

There are plenty of laws on these subjects on the books already.  Why not
inforce the ones that exist instead of asking the government to get even
deeper in our domestic beds.

	   IMHO: I think the "bash Hillery" strategy is a poor one, and I think
   that the lack of bush supporters among women is evidance of that. The GOP
   has demonized Hillery Clinton to the point that she can no reemerge on the
   scene as a martre, and make it stick, portraying the GOP as dirty players
   once again.

Not if they drop the emotionalism and concentrate on her record.

   >It is too bad the campaign is working this way.  There are real and
   >substantive differences between the parties and I wish the Republicans
   >would focus on these.  For example yesterday James J. Kilpatrick, in his
   >syndicated column, detailed several of Bush's education initiatives, each
   >of which was turned down by the Congress.  If I were Bush's campaign
   >manager I'd print up 250 million copies and send one to everybody in the
   >whole country.

	   There are many other conservatives who agree with you, but until you
   remove the party for the death grip of the religious right, your going to 
   see little more then family values, I'm afraid. Judging from the number
   of serious cantidates jumping ship, I wonder if the GOP will find itself
   even more entrenched in 1996.

Just conservatives?  I'm not so sure about that.