From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:02:51 CDT


In article <Sep.15.07.41.14.1992.9777@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.142859.17019@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> > Gerard M. Vignes:
> 
> >> Bill Clinton had his chance, during the Vietnam War,
> >> to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.
> 
> > George Bush had his chance, during his first term,
> > to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.
> 
> And he was indeed found wanting in many respects.
> 
> >> If he didn't have it back then,
> >> what makes anyone think he's got it now?
> 
> > Good point.  No second term.
> 
> Russ says this, of course, on the basis of considerations other than
> George Bush's supposed shortcomings.

It's Bush's *proven* failure vs Clinton's *potential* success or failure.

>                                       Others, naturally, might differ.
> George Bush is a far cry from my idea of an ideal President.

That belief seems to cross party/ideological lines.
>                                                               But what
> also needs to be taken into consideration is the alternative.  Russ no
> doubt finds Clinton much more appealing from an ideological standpoint
> (which, for me, is more than enough reason to reject him).

Before I can tell if Clinton is "more appealing" than Bush, I have to
know Bush's ideological standpoint.  Is it the Conservative correctness
of his 1988 campaign, his weathervane sense of direction for the last
4 years, his Santa Clause promised (from farm subsities to job training),
or his return to Conservative correctness (no tax increases "ever") for 
his 1992 campaign?
>                                                              But Mr.
> Vignes brings up a very good point, i.e., Mr. Clinton's character (or
> rather, the lack of same).

Again, it must be judged against Bush's track record.  "read my lips".
I was "out of the loop" in Iran/Contra (even thought the Weinberger/Schultz
note indicate differently).  Even Republicans from George Will to Bob
Dole know Bush is a liar.  I have questions about Clinton's ability to
always tell the truth, but Bush has demontrated he is a repeated liar.

>                            The last time we had a veritable scumbag
> as President was when LBJ held that office -- and he (and his legacy)
> has very nearly destroyed this country.

If Nixon does not qualify as a "scumbag", I don't know who does.

By the way, the Cato institute shows that domestic spending under Bush
has risen *faster* than any president since FDR.  Carter is a fiscal
conservative compared to Bush.
>                                         The last thing we need now is
> Bill Clinton to finish the job.

If Clinton sucks, we can vote him out too...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc