From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:01:50 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Sorry for the long article, but I've responded pretty much line-by-line
to Gordon's attack.

In article <GORDON.92Apr15145005@lugh.think.com>, gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:
me> [Bush and Clinton are sleazy but not corrupt]
>
> Bailing out Neal's Savings and Loan?

Bush didn't bail it out. Congress did. And it wasn't specifically his
Bush's S&L, his son happened to be involved in an industry that got
bailed out.

> False residency in Texas to avoid taxes?

Bush is a real live texas resident. He lived there, he made money there,
and he left Texas only when he started representing Texas in washington.
If you require everyone who moves from a state to D.C. as a politician
to give up their home state residency, you will have only one-term
congresscritters. Because they won't be eligible after having served.

Texas was the last state that he lived in as a private citizen.

> These are two examples of corruption, if not outright breaking the law.

Neither is illegal, neither is corrupt. I suggest you stop posturing
and start thinking. Perhaps a dictionary will help.

me> [Bush & Clinton are sleazy]
>
> So you agree?  Why would you limit your choice to a "sleaze"
> and a liar?

Rather than include someone who is, at a minimum, a loose cannon. Yes.
Certainly rather than simply abdicating my decision and leaving it to
someone else.

> We do have a constitution that the military, Supreme Court,
> Congress, and general public all support.

So? I'll admit, a military crackdown in the U.S. would be difficult. At
least until Metzenbaum and company succeed in disarming the populace.
But keep in mind that roughly 70% of Peru's citizens support Fujimori's
actions - with 70% public support, congress would back <younameit>. Hark
back to the '40s and the japanese internment camps. Or the '50s and the
house unamerican activities committee.

> I am not worried about a military coup from an elected politician.
> This is not Peru.

Trusting soul. Are Americans inherently better than Peruvians?

me> Don't put someone on the ballot just because you think it will shake up
me> the other campaigners.
> 
> Why not?

Didn't you read my post? Because he might win. Or he might cause someone
otherwise unelectable to win by default (witness Edwin Edwards!).

me> [list of scuzzy people I suggested the house might elect]
> 
> The House can only choose one of the top five people who
> were voted on by the electoral college.  Presumably this
> would be Clinton, Bush, Perot, Quayle, and Clinton's running
> mate.

Correct. I hadn't read this in a while, and my only reference text which
has a copy lives at home. I just knew it went to the house in the case of
deadlock. I was unaware that they were restricted to a list supplied by
the electoral college, and of the modified form of voting. Note, by the
way, that one of the scuzzy people I mentioned is in the above list.
Possibly two.

me> [by now you should know a lot about the candidates]
>
> I know allegations about who Clinton and Bush sleep with.  I
> know the customers of Hillary Clinton's law firm.  I know
> about evading the Vietnam war draft.  I know that Saddam is
> still in power.

You should stop reading the headlines and start reading the articles.
And by the way, we are prevented by law from running an operation to
remove Saddam from power by force. Even during wartime.

> Unfortunately, the problems of the United States center
> around poverty,

Bush: Status quo.
Clinton: by and large, status quo. indications of a desire to increase
         entitlements.

> unemployment,

Bush: Work on the economy by trying to boost business, the people
         will take care of themselves.
Clinton: Worry about the people first and the economy will take care of
         itself.

> homelessness,

Don't know that either has a strong position. I disagree that homelessness
itself is the problem; I contend it's a symptom of poverty.

> lack of access to medical care,

Bush: Status quo. Worry about increasing costs of medical care.
Clinton: Increase eligibility for Medicare.

> hate-motivated violence,

Bush: Increase criminal penalties
Clinton: Work on bringing together groups who hate each other

At least the above is what they say. As far as Bush is concerned, it is
somewhat backed up by his years as president. Clinton seems to have more
discrepancies between what he says and what he preaches - but I stopped
paying attention to what he said back when I tallied up my disagreements
with him vs. those with Mr. Bush.

If Tsongas were still in the campaign, I'd be more interested - Since
Clinton doesn't interest me, my decision is made and I've been ignoring
the campaign. But the desire for an entertaining campaign that lasts all
the way to november, doesn't justify the application of loose cannons.

> A campaign is where politicians "sell" issues and where the
> american electorate "buys" solutions.

Do you want a sales job or do you want to make an informed decision?
We already know that campaign promises are akin to computer vaporware.
Try finding out what a politician has been and is, and vote on that basis.
Don't vote on the basis of what promises you can get him to make. Because
he won't keep them.

> Experience has shown to me that you are not familiar with
> American politics. 

Fascinating. I disagree with you on a number of issues. I certainly 
disagree with you on what the important issues are. (I would have listed:
civil rights, abortion rights, foreign policy, economic policy, ect.).

There is a big difference between disagreeing with you and being
unfamiliar with american politics.

> Candidates do change their policies and their constituencies.

Yeah, but not every election. They certainly change their promises
every election (or renew the ones they failed to keep last time), but
changes in policies that are motivated by politics happen prior to
a campaign, not during a campaign. Or we wouldn't have this vast
cynicism about politician's promises.

> More locally, Weld's support on gay issues arose during his campaign.

I smell some revisionism here. Perhaps a public stance of support for
gay issues arose during the campaign, but his support of them today
happens to fit within his general libertarian philosophy. If his stance
is only a result of a campaign promise, it's a refreshing change.

> In fact, campaigns are when
> politicians are most approachable for modifying their views.

It's certainly where they are most approachable to make promises about
modifying their views.

> I want the existing candidates to have enough stature to be
> able to deal with issues.  A race between Bush and Clinton
> is inviting a dirty, personal smear campaign because neither
> can rise above that.

The fact that the campaign isn't going to be fun for you doesn't justify
doing something stupid. Presumably, you supported someone in the democratic
campaign who has since left the race. The campaign is a process of pretty
much continuous winnowing of unacceptable candidates; your candidate was
unacceptable in some way. Adding in random candidates late in the game
does not result in a better end result.

If you couldn't get your candidate to win your own party, what makes you
think you can pick another candidate later on to win the entire election?
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.