From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 22:00:15 GMT

Although the original article was posted several times to different
newsgroups, I've taken the liberty of cross-posting a single followup
to those newsgroups (less Inode waste that way...)


bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:

> *    Bush's latest attack on Bill Clinton for a trip he took 23 years
> ago is a pathetic attempt to divert the American people from the
> worst economic record in 50 years. 

Define "worst economic record". Inflation and interest rates were higher
under Carter. During the 1982 recession, unemployment peaked around 10.5%


> *    Bush said last night it's been an ugly political year.  He's
> right -- and he's responsible for it. 

I guess I must have missed where God gave a halo to Bill Clinton.


> *    The American people don't want to hear about Bill Clinton's 1969
> itinerary, they want to hear about the course America is going to
> take.  Bill Clinton has a plan to create millions of new jobs,

Yeah, if you define "jobs" as "working for the government".

> provide every American with affordable health care,

Estimates of the cost of Clinton's government-mandated business employee
training and health-care programs have ranged between 30 to 75 million,
with appx. 45 being the most common. Where is the money going to come
from?


> and improve our
> schools.  

Wow. More spending, eh? Guess those presses over at the treasury will
be running on overtime.


> George Bush can only offer more of the same.

Yes, Americans want change. The people of Homestead, FL got change too.
Sometimes change isn't for the better.


> *    Because the Republicans have such a miserable economic record,

All I have to say is one thing:		Jimmy Carter


> Larry King, "I don't have the facts."

Gee, quoting out of context now. You should go work for those
Republicans you criticize, as quoting out of context is just as
sleazy as what you are accusing Republicans of doing.


> *    Consider the source: these scurrilous charges were started by
> Bob Dornan ranting on the House floor, who admits he has no evidence

Clinton also addressed these issues on Larry King. There was some
"subsistence" to Dornan's claims, although he may have been way off
base with many of them.


> *    One sign of Bush's desperation is his moving to a direct attack
> on Clinton's opposition to the Vietnam war.

You don't find it a possible conflict of interest for an anti-war type
to be in control of the world's largest military power?


> *    There's a name for Bush's attack -- red-baiting.  Bush might
> have been a good candidate during the Cold War, he's not a candidate
> for the future.

Unfortunately, neither is Bill Clinton.


["facts" deleted]

> *    Clinton has repeatedly said that he opposed the war in Vietnam
> and that he attended several anti-war marches.  He participated in no
> anti-American demonstrations.


It was reported on the local news tonite that Clinton participated in an
anti-US demonstration while "travelling". Unfortunately, I did not catch
the attribution.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8562 alt.politics.clinton:9621