From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Evil is afoot
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:43:06 GMT
Organization: Chevron

I've been saving this up for awhile.  When I started to lose sleep, I figured 
I'd better let it out.  The following opinion is definitely not shared by my
fellow West Texans.

This election *has* turned out to be a battle of good versus evil, much as the 
Republicans have stated.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree on 
who the evil ones are.  Republican economic and foreign policy is probably 
superior to the Democrat's, and Democratic social *policy* is superior to 
Republican (IMHO -- policy, not necessarily practices or results).  But I will 
absolutely not vote Republican this ticket based on the clear distinction 
between who are the good guys and who are the bad.

Republicans -- moral majority, God in their platform.  I submit to you 
that the Republican party right-wing has no business calling themselves 
Christians (maybe, followers of the old testament might be more correct).  
Since when did Christ advocate persecution of any group (like the Repubs 
persecute gays and other non-traditional family arrangements)???  What did he 
do?  He met with the "sinners" of his day and made a point of treating them 
like human beings.  He said "Love thy neighbor",  not "... only if he's a 
Christian with your particular beliefs".  God will judge the gays:  Christ 
said not to judge others, we're not qualified.  If a homosexual wants to 
assault your son, stop him.  If he wants to be able to hold a job and live his 
life as he thinks God intended without harming anyone else, who is government 
to get in the way?  I thought Republicans were against government 
interference.  And Jesus had strong words to say about the pseudo-religious 
people of his time, who would stand on street corners praying loudly so that 
all could hear.  Kind of reminds me of the Buchanon/Robertson arguments that 
the Republicans have God in their platform.  They are saying this to get your 
vote, not because they follow Christian principles.

Moral majority -- since our two foremost R's (Robertson and Reagan) both had 
shotgun weddings (full term children born about 7 months after their 
respective marriages), you'd think they'd have a wee bit more compassion (oh 
no, another of those things that Christ said we should have, compassion for 
*all* people) for other people who had made the same mistake.

Let's talk health care.  I think that an anti-health care position is 
indefensible as a Christian.  It's pretty indefensible from an economic 
standpoint too.  It costs all of us a hell of a lot more money to treat non-
insured people after they get real sick (when we *have* to by current law) 
than all the preventative medicine would have cost, especially for simple 
things such as prenatal care.  It costs about $100,000 to take care of a 
severe preemie.  How much better off would society be if we spent the $500 to 
get pregnant women into doctors once a month or so?  Sick poor people are 
forced to go to the emergency room of the county hospital because that's where 
they can't be turned away.  This wastes a tremendous amount of money and could 
cost lives because of overflows in the E-room.  We can debate the 
implementation, who pays what, can the federal government get the insurance 
companies cut (my guess is that they are the main opposition to a federal 
health plan!) but somehow, we need to make it work.  The Canadians I know love 
their system, so I must assume that the complaints about that system are just 
part of a misinformation plot (no, that never happens in America).

Let's talk misinformation and lies.  The Republicans bring up this paper that 
Hillary Clinton wrote 19 years ago about how we need to protect the rights of 
children as 'human beings with individual rights' in some cases.  The Repubs 
pull a line or two from that paper out of context and claim that Hillary is 
anti-marriage and anti-family.  She may well be, but it didn't say that in 
that paper.  She seemed to do a good job of keeping her family together during 
their "marital problems".  I don't see the Demos hitting Marilyn Q, even 
though she seems to be running for the "Nancy Reagan award" for witchiness.   
The Republicans also bring up talk of 128 tax increases for Bill Clinton's 
tenure as governor of Arkansas.  They include things such as the lengthening 
of a race track season as a tax increase because it means the state will take 
in more tax money.  Two, they fail to mention that he decreased taxes about 
the same number of times he actually increased them. Three, what is important 
is not the number, but the amount.  Four, every state had to increase taxes in 
the 80's, as Reagan cut a lot of the aid they used to get from the federal 
government (let's not debate whether it was good or not, the fact is it 
happened).  Repubs complaining about Clinton raising taxes is like your boss 
complaining you went out and got a second job after he cut your pay in half.

Quayle at first defended Bush's breaking of his no new taxes pledge on Bush's 
attention to Desert Shield.  Sounds good, although Saddam's invasion was weeks 
after the tax raise.  His first impulse is to make something up, and worry 
about the facts later.  Even Kemp (my favorite politician, really) got into 
the act when he was describing all the things that happened during Bush's 
term.  My recollection was that most of the things he said happened *despite* 
Bush, rather than because of him.  And most of the thing he said would happen 
in the next term won't, because they were Kemp's policies and Bush doesn't 
really like Kemp.

Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"?  Bush takes credit for all popular 
legislation, and says 'Congress made me do it' for all the rest.  In case 
anyone doesn't know, no Bush veto has been overturned:  Every law that was 
passed had Bush's OK.  I also fail to understand how someone could call 
Clinton a draft dodger when he did nothing illegal or even unethical according 
to the version of the story I've heard.  Sure he wanted to get out of going to 
Vietnam.  My cousins didn't want to go (one did and was lucky to survive, one 
got a high number).  Quayle had his rich family get him into the Indiana 
National Guard.  He has publicly stated that he was "disillusioned" with the 
war and wanted to avoid Vietnam.  What's so damn noble about that?  "He who is 
without sin can cast cast the first stone".  From a Christian standpoint, 
bearing false witness against your neighbor is just as important a commandment
to keep as the adultery one, and it doesn't seem that the Republicans are too 
repentant about their sins of lies and misinformation.

Let's talk family values.  A couple weeks ago on a talk show, some 
Republicans were criticizing the Clinton's family values because they went to 
different churches.  Do family values mean that the wife has to be subsidiary 
to her husband?  That families must do everything together?  Or is this just 
another ridiculous attempt to sling mud on the Clintons?  Bush vetoed a bill 
requiring companies to allow *unpaid* parental leave for children's sickness 
or a couple weeks at birth.  Whose values are you upholding, George, family's 
or big business's?  Such a small price for something that could be very 
important to a family?

Bush also does a good job of picking and choosing where he is moral.  Noriega: 
Drug dealing military dictator.  Hussein: Evil scourge of the desert.  The 
Chinese:  Just a little disagreement with some liberals, let's give them most 
favored nation's trade status.  Gee, who do you think that benefits?  Could it 
be big business??

The guy also decides he wants a budget balancing amendment just in time for 
the election.  Gee, too bad he couldn't draw one up himself earlier this year, 
rather that proposing one over $300 billion in the red.  He has no interest in 
balancing the budget, just winning the election.  Remember, he'll do 'whatever 
it takes' to win.  Maybe including proposing across the board tax cuts.  Even 
my conservative friends think he's just saying that to get elected.

Okay, maybe it's not as bad as a battle of good versus evil.  Maybe it's a 
battle of self interest versus fanatical, win at all costs, self interest.  The 
tactics of the Bush re-election staff scares me.  I get the feeling that this 
is what McCarthyism was like.  Label them as a communist, and then just 
discount anything they say because they're a communist.  label them as 
liberals, feminists, gay rights activists, environmentalists, and cultural 
elite, and then discount anything they say as extremism.  

I like to consider myself an environmentalist, although I work for an oil 
company.  I say "Gee, I hope they don't clear cut the area around the Trinity
Alps Wilderness (California) since it's a one-of-a-kind (as far as I know) 
spectacularly beautiful place."  Pat Buchanon says that make me an environ-
mentalist (probably a PBS-watching, pottery-throwing, gay activist too).  I 
say, "just find some other place to cut."  It's not too hard, northern 
California is covered with forest.  Quite a lot of the business up there is 
tourism, which won't be helped by *too* much logging.  A healthy balance is 
what most people ask for.  Labeling the other guy as extremist helps no one.
I was worried back in the early 80's that there would be a backlash against 
the environmental movement because of the left wing minority extremists, and 
now it has come to pass.  The Republicans in power are doing all they can to 
get around environmental laws.  Do you want your air to be like LA's?  It 
will be if clean air threatens jobs, especially during an election year.  "My
way or the highway" should be the Republican campaign slogan this time around.

I don't see so much of this junk coming out of the Democrats.  If I did, I 
would throw my vote away on Perot.  No, the Demos have been sticking to 
political issues for the most part.  Compare the two parties' major campaign 
mottos.  "Family values" (i.e. I didn't sleep with Gennifer Flowers) or "are 
you better off now than four years ago".  (I am better off, by the way).

It's too bad, because I like alot of the guts of the Republican platform.  
Indexing capital gains tax for inflation is a good idea (IMHO).  Term limits 
have been on my agenda for a few years.  The same goes for legal reform.  
School choice would be an interesting experiment.  I don't think the second 
amendment should be repealed.  I do think the welfare system needs a major 
overhaul.  But unless something major happens (Kemp named to replace Quayle??) 
George will not be getting my vote this year based on the immorality of his 
campaign.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43402 sci.econ:7330