From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:37:14 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <2AA6874E.10293@news.service.uci.edu>, harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.194525.13117@menudo.uh.edu> inde788@Elroy.UH.EDU writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep3.085725.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> >>In article <550HqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
|> >>> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|> >>> 
|> >>>> In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> >>>> >Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
|> >>>> >explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
|> >>>>
|> >>>> Maybe as next President of the United States, he owes it to the residents to
|> >>>> see the damage directly himself? Just a thought.
|> >>>>
|> >>>> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
|> >>> 
|> >>> According to AP, he (Clinton) was invited by Chiles.  Maybe Chiles figured that
|> >>> if Bush got his photo-op, Clinton was entitled to his.  Clinton remarked last
|> >>> week that he felt it was better for him to stay away.  I guess that, given how
|> >>> useless Bush is, at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
|> >>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >>> like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.
|> >>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >>> 
|> >>> |Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|> >>> |Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|> >>> |3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|> >>> |Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
|> >>
|> >>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
|> >>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
|> >>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
|> >>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
|> >>nail on the head with the issues either...)?
|> >>
|> >You are missing a point, we will have a president who can atleast
|> >hit the nail on the head with the issues 50% of the time than a president
|> >who can even try hitting a nail on any issues.
|> >
|> >-Ashish.
|> 
|> Sure, Clinton can TALK about the issues, but what has he done to show that
|> he can or will deliver on what he "promises"?  Any candidate can just say what
|> the "majority" of people want to hear, but that doesn't mean he/she will act
|> on it.  I'm just tired of politicians saying one thing and doing another.
|> 
|> Harvey

For one thing, he was elected recently as the most effective state governor in the
United States by all the governors, Democrats and Republicans, mainly for the
improvement of the educational system and the creation of jobs in Arkansas.
The USA can use some improvement in those areas.  That alone would be enough
to pick Clinton over Bush. 
-- 
  Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc