From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Casey 1996! (Was Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 24 Sep 92 03:15:23 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep24.011039.841@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <mykes.0e30@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >>
> >> I wouldn't dare hope to see anyone else but Dan Quayle make the VP in
> >> 1992 (and Bush make the Big P), if for nothing else but that a
> >> stumbling fireman crew is far preferable to a skilled, mad bomber like
> >> Clinton.
> >>
> >
> >I agree with your assesment 100%.  I'm a republican who's against
> >Bush and against Clinton.  Just against Clinton more for the obvious
> >reasons.  I'd rather see 4 more years of Bush than have to need a
> >major miracle in 1996 to recover from 4 years of Clinton...
>
> Well, I say get Robert Casey for 1996. At least *Casey* has the nation's
> top health care and child support systems, and at least *Casey* has
> the most women in his cabinet, above any other Democratic Top
> Executive in the US.
>

Frankly, Bush's cabinet and other top administration posts are populated
with women and minorities (and both in the same person).

> Robert Casey would definitely beat Bush if he had won the Democratic
> Convention nomination.
>
> They say he is a screw-up for a governor, but could he be worse than
> Pete Wilson in CA? At least Pennsylvania is coming UP - California,
> under Wilson, is going DOWN... (That and he won by 68%, the highest
> margin of anyone in recent memory, in the PA gubernatorial
> election...)
>

There are actually a few governors I like.  Tommy Thompson is one.  There
was a lot of talk about Ex-Governor Jim Thompson of Illinois becoming a
VP candidate, but I haven't heard much about him in the last 8 years or
so...  California is not known for having very good politicians.  Reagan
was a rare GREAT one.  But there isn't a single candidate for any office
in this whole state that is worth a damn.

> BTW, why do you dislike Clinton?
>

I really agree with his nickname "slick" for starters...  Why?  Not because
a lot of people call him slick willie, but because of certain actions he
has taken along the way to becoming the Democratic nominee.  In particular,
he was roasted during one of the Democratic primary debates for a failed
educational plan in Arkansas.  The next day he went back to Arkansas and
got an education bill passed.  Not because he cared (he should have had that
bill passed anytime in the last 11 years), but because he saw it as a flaw
in his record that would make him lose.  I call that slick.

I see way too much of Clinton on TV and all he does is cry foul when
the republicans say ANYTHING about his record, and he simply makes
totally bogus claims like "they won't discuss the issues."  I hear
Bush talk about the issues everytime he speaks.  And I am pretty amazed
that the republicans are not doing any personal attacks at all against
Clinton, given their reputation.  I also hear very little substance in
anything Clinton is saying.  He is constantly attacking Bush, yet he
crys foul when put on the defensive.  FWIW, when Bush was on Rush's
show, he openly gave Clinton some awesome advice.  He told Bill that
he should just come clean on the draft issue and tell the whole truth.
It would actually improve Clinton's image and chances to do so.  Bush
clearly believes in the "kinder, gentler" nation principles he ran on
in 1988, it seems.

I do not at all agree with his plan to "invest" in America.  I've read
about 40 different position papers and statements he's made and he clearly
plans to tax and spend (invest is another word for spend, IMO).  It is my
opinion that spending is way too high already - about 6% of GNP too high.
And to top it off, he claims he can generate significant new revenues (but
not enough to cover his investments) by taxing a targeted class (top 2%).
I do not belong to that top 2%, but believe that top 2% is doing a lot of
good - as much as they can given the 60% of gross tax revenues they are
already coughing up.  Particularly in the area of charitible donations.
And lest we forget that the beloved H. Ross Perot is one of those
top 2% who has done significant good, whether you like the man or not.

I want to see taxes go down, not up.  Not particularly for the rich, but
for everyone.  With Clinton's economic plan, we will have an additional
$70 Billion defecit and that money really does have to come from somewhere.
I submit that it can only come from the middle and lower classes after the
tax on the rich doesn't raise enough.  I am a firm believer that social
programs administered at the state level will be much better at solving
our woes.

Clinton's record in his home state is abysmal.  Compared to the US as
a whole, his state did worse than any other state.  It ranks consistently
in the bottom 5 in most fundamental economic and social catagories, according
to my Universal Almanac.  His state is the only one without a civil rights
bill of any kind.  The median income of a person in Arkansas is $5K below
the poverty line.

Lastly, I do not feel that Clinton is the best candidate his party could
produce.  Not even close.  Not even in the top 50.  I am a conservative,
and I actually donated $500 to the Tsongas campaign.  Tsongas wasn't the
best candidate of his party either, but he is in the top 50 and he has
integrity and honesty.	And he had the best message of all the democratic
candidates, IMO.  The guys who ran for the democratic ticket in 1988 to
challenge Bush were ALL, each and every one of them, more suited to be
president than Clinton is.  Even Jesse Jackson, who really would be a
radical change in American politics and government if he were elected.
The real democratic nominee this time around should have been one of
the following:	George Mitchell, Sam Nunn, Mario Cuomo, or Dick Gephardt.
Eugene McCarthy actually ran as a democrat but got ZERO press, but he
is very qualified.  Jimmy Carter is the most qualified of all the
democrats...  And believe it or not, I'd vote for George McGovern
in an instant if he were running.

As for Bush, he is supposed to be some evil person, out of touch, etc.
Yet the biggest fear I heard about him in 1988 was about his CIA ties.
Yet, during his 4 year term, he has been VERY diplomatic, and the CIA
may have been used in the most ethical manner of any presidency in my
lifetime.  People seem to ignore how big the government is and how slow
it really is to get it to move to get something real done.  In 1980, the
big issue was the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Heck, I remember
a bunch of scientists getting together for a bunch of meetings about the
issue.	Carl Sagan was very outspoken about the sheer quantity of nuclear
weapons possessed at the time by the US and USSR.  Now it is 12 years
later and Bush has sucessfully negotiated a treaty with the russians to
have us both end up with 1/10th the number of nukes in our arsenals by
the year 2000.	Perhaps one of the greatest achievements in this century.
Jimmy Carter bribed his way ($4 Billion per year, 2 each to Egypt and
Isreal) to a peace accord, yet the current peace talks between Isreal
and Syria and the Palestinians looks very promising.  Even to have them
talk with one another is a monumental achievement, IMO.

Now, it may sound like I'm a Bush supporter, but as I said, I am not.
But I see so many ridiculous claims about him and his presidency, that
I feel forced to defend him.  In 1988, people were flaming Reagan's
economic policy, and Bush had called it voodoo economics, himself.  Because
of this, my closest friends who are liberals were saying at the time that
it didn't matter who (Bush or Dukakis) got elected, that the economy was
going to be in the crapper.  Well, surprise!  It is.  Yet, I would have
expected FAR worse than what we really have at this point.

Actually, in many ways, things are indeed better, economically, than
any time in the last 50 years (refuting Clinton's claim that Bush has
had the worst presidency).  Interest rates are ridiculously low, inflation
is low enough to not be hurting people on fixed incomes (or generally
robbing us all of our money's value), the Dow Jones is at/near all time
highs, the GNP is growing, there's still 18 million more people working
(i.e. real jobs) now than in 1980, and the auto industry is experiencing
significant gains in market penetration in the US.  Things did not look
nearly as good in 1980.

When we actually had a recession, 9 quarters ago, Bush said we weren't.
Was he lying?  Yes and no.  He absolutely proposed economic growth bills
to congress that never made it out of committee.  To be specific, 117
specific proposals.  Without getting any action from congress, what power
did he have at all to influence the economy?  Instilling confidence.  Even
if he had to lie to do it.  Damn it, if he just went on TV, he'd have
really made a difference.

What don't I like about Bush?  Well, I understand that he feels the president's
job lies more in the foreign policy domain.  I actually agree with that to a
large extent.  However, he followed a terrifically successful president with
a proven successful economic program - 20 Million new jobs, doubled the
government revenues, doubled GNP, grew the stock market from under $1K to
over $3K, and had a tremendous long range vision.  He promised to continue
the policies, but clearly has not.  People who say that we've had trickledown
economic policies for the last 4 years are full of it.	Bush accepted a tax
hike in 1990, when Reagan would have gotten a tax CUT.	What Reagan was very
good at was in going on TV from the oval office and appealing to the people
to write/phone their congressmen and he got REAL action.  Bush has been very
good when he has gone on TV, too, but he has done it so rarely.  Bush is
also the only Republican President this century to get us into war - the
notion that Republicans are hawks is bogus...  Bush is a Nixon Republican,
not a conservative, though he tries to appeal to the Goldwater/Reagan wing
of the party...  Reagan surrounded himself with extremely sharp and able
people at the key cabinet and executive staff positions, while Bush has
not done a good job at that.  But that looks like it will change in 1992,
when he gets reelected.

In 1988, Bush was the best candidate the Republican party could come up
with.  Number one.  He is not this year, although he would still be an
outstanding statesman in someone's administration.  He did accomplish something
in 1988 that has not been done in at least the last 60 years in our country.
He went from being VP to president by getting elected.	Guys like Nixon,
Humphrey, Mondale were losers as VPs trying to become president.  LBJ
and Truman became president through the death of the president, and Ford
became president because Nixon resigned.  No simple feat, IMO.

So WHO would I like to be voting for for president?  Believe it or not,
I'd rather vote for Quayle as president than Bush or Clinton.  I'd rather
vote for Bush than Clinton, too.  But I'd much rather have the chance to
vote for Jack Kemp, first and foremost.  If not Kemp, I'd want to vote
for Phil Gramm.  Then James Baker would be a good vote, too.  Kemp and
Gramm are the top two economic minds in government today.  Kemp is the
best problem solver we have, also.  It is no coincidence that Kemp was
named secy. of education, initially, to fulfill Bush's promise to be
the education president, but he was put in the position where his problem
solving abilities were best used (to put out a real fire) - HUD.





>
> >> =============================================================================
> >>		 Another Democrat for George Bush.
> >> =============================================================================
> >
> >Actually, you are a Democrat against Bill Clinton :)
>
> You might say that.
>

I did say that. :)


>
> -----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
>		   The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: talk.abortion