From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re:      RUSH - More Good News
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:51:05 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

I don't understand much of this. If you regard criticism of Rush Limbaugh's
comments as subversive or over-liberal, Michael, then don't bother reading
this. But I really would like some explanations of some of the things you
have quoted R.L. as saying. If you don't want to waste bandwidth, I'd be
perfectly happy with a private e-mail response.

In article <CHRISTIA%92110718243484@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET> writes:

> 
>     1. Various headlines that make one wonder if Democratic silence.
> Clinton came off as a conservative and yet had programs for everything.

Clinton came off as a conservative? Eh?

> If he's going to do what he says, he must have all the gays and lesbians
> behind him and yet there wasn't much demonstrating. Was silence bought?
> Who knows, but recent headlines make one wonder.

What exactly are you (or Rush Limbaugh) suggesting here? That all the gay
and lesbian organisations were somehow bribed by the Democrats *not* to
campaign for Clinton for fear of embarrassment? I don't understand.

>     2.  Everywhere voters had a chance to vote on raising taxes, they
> voted it down. Yet Clinton plans to raise taxes. Voter results say "No
> more government, no more tax hikes."

I had heard that Clinton says he doesn't want to introduce more taxes in the
"middle-class" bracket. Now, perhaps he's lying (but have you any evidence?),
but perhaps you don't think that's enough. If the latter, why do you think the
richest people in the US shouldn't be taxed any more?

>     Rush --- Recent Headlines, Was Deomocratic Silence Bought? ---------
> 
>     Recent headlines from New York Newspapers....
> 
>     "Officials counting the days till they count Clinton aid"

Why is this incriminating?

>     "GAYS URGING CLINTON TO END MILITARY BAN"

Well, of course they are. And actually, I don't see why there should be any
law forbidding homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. There are no laws
forbidding liars, adulterers or gluttons to serve, for instance.

>     "Tough job ahead for a man with no majority"

He does have a majority; a large one. Or is this about Bush? I don't
understand.

>     Bush said we were "poised for recovery" and was "out of touch". Now
> that we were faced with no hope, we were told to vote for a "change". We
> voted for Clinton and got our change before he even took office.
> 
>     Irving R. Levine on the Today Show, 11/5, "(But) what Clinton has
> going for him is the fact that the economy is showing signs of upturn in
> factory output and construction even before he takes office." Miraculous,
> overnight, it's fixed. "Consumers have been battered by months of
> campaign oratory, not least of all by Clinton himself, stressing how bad
> things are. (MAKS> Yes, and it appears he lied.) The end of the bad news
> could lead to more consumer spending which is needed to turn the economy
> around."

This isn't as ludicrous as it appears. An economy is founded, to a frightening
degree, on people's expectations and states of mind; this is illustrated, for
instance, by the rapidity with which stock markets can crash. If everyone is
expecting amazing things to happen when Clinton takes office -- even if they're
completely unjustified in so expecting -- then this confidence really can make
a difference.

>     It's almost magic. It's like he doesn't even have to become
> president yet. He can just win the election and why, birds chirp, and
> people smile, and there's total happiness everywhere. The economy's
> coming back.

What are you suggesting, anyway? A huge pro-Democrat media campaign? I simply
don't believe it. 

>     By 55% to 37% electorate preferred to keep taxes down even if
> services suffered.

What electorate? Where? When?

>     California - Voters rejected by 58% to 42% a "Soak the Rich Plan"
> against business., The proposal included breaks for the less affluent.
> (Exactly what Bill Clinton proposes to do...)
>     and - Repealed a "Tax on Snacks", a part of 1991 revenue raising
> package.

"against business". Really unbiased reporting here, I see. Come on; 58-42
is a pretty narrow margin, and California is a more than usually affluent
state. You'd expect this sort of thing. I'm surprised the margin wasn't
more. 

Do you not think the state should do anything for its less well-off people,
anyway?

>     Colorado - Approved by 54% to 46% a proposal requiring all voter
> approval of all state and local tax increases.
>     and - Sales tax to fund schools lost 55% to 45%. (We must rebuild our
> schools, said Bill Clinton.)

Are you saying that schools in the USA don't need anything done with them?
That education funding is as good as it needs to be?

>     Arizona - State Legislature must have 2/3 majority in order to impose
> any tax increase.

Is this a recent thing? If not, I don't see why it's relevant.

>     Get the idea? There is not a whole lot of sentiment to raise taxes,
> but Clinton and party think that's what you want.
> 
>     New Hampshire - Defeated democratic gubernatorial candidate who
> advocated an income tax.

Oh, come on. What would you say if someone cited an instance of a defeated
Republican gubernatorial candidate who advocated no tax increases? That the
electorate favours more taxation after all? I doubt it...

>     Virtually everywhere that the voters had a choice in raising taxes
> they didn't. Make sure someone tells Governor Clinton.

I imagine he knows.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU