From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:44:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
=joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
=>In addition:
=
=>Bill Clinton said ("Putting People First"):
=>    "I will take the following steps:
=>    * Staff reductions. I will reduce the White House staff by 25 percent and
=>      challenge Congress to do the same.
=
=>But Monday 11/16/92, Bill backed off on the promise of asking Congress
=>to cut their staff 25%. He now says Congress should just lower their staffs
=>over time. [He still plans to pare back the White House staff].
=
=One reason is that they took staff cuts last year, UNLIKE the White House.  
=He's still challenged them by doing his own cuts -- they just wimped out.
=Sounds like Clinton is willing to compromise -- much better than GRIDLOCK.

More like he's kissing ass. Pardon the pun.

=>He also said:
=>    * Line item veto. To eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government
=>      waste, I will ask Congress to give me the line item veto.
=
=>Bill has now backed off on that by changing the rules for Congressional
=>overrides of this line item veto fromt he normal 2/3 to a simple majority.
=
=Well, I thought the line-item veto was Bush's campaign promise!  It's nice 
=to see that Clinton is partially approving an idea strongly supported by 
=Republicans.  Sounds like a non-partisan president to me.

Oh really? Why didn't Clinton say he supported a line-item veto, too,
during the debates? Why was it that Bush kept saying he was calling for
a line-item veto when Clinton was practically silent on the whole thing?
Remember the PPF plan was printed up in JUNE.

=>The Democratic Platform says:
=>  We don't have an American to waste.  Democrats will continue to 
=>  lead the fight to ensure that no Americans suffer discrimination or 
=>  deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, language, national 
=>  origin, religion, age, disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or other
=>  characteristics irrelevant to ability. 
=
=>Bill now says he he no longer has a timetable or structure to 
=>follow regarding relaxing the ban on homosexuals in the military.
=
=He's still going to do it, but he will bring it in slowly so the bigots 
=won't howl so loud.  Sounds like a decent compromise -- much better than 
=GRIDLOCK.

Well, I hope we won't need to see how prudent the change in policy is
the next time we have to send troops to a conflict overseas. Oh, I'm
sorry, Clinton wouldn't do that.

=>Before the election, I stated that I liked Bill Clinton but wouldn't vote
=>for him because of all the Democrats that would come hands outstrectched to
=>Clinton. I was concerned they would get him to back off his pledges after
=>the election. Granted, most of his pledges are still there to be fulfilled
=>but it is starting to look like politics and spending as usual and he is not
=>even President yet...
=
=Look at all the Defense contractors that came to Reagan with 
=their outstretched hands when he was elected.  Didn't that bother you? 
=I'd rather that our government sponsor social and economical reforms rather 
=than death.
=
=Sounds like Clinton knows the "art of the deal", which is how things 
=get done in business and government.  Looks like we get to kiss GRIDLOCK 
=good-bye and see our government in motion again.  I'm looking forward 
=to it.

So am I. If things get screwed up, there will be no doubt as to who is
responsible.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc