From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:38:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.193216.24461@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

[deleted, why Bush isn't at fault - blames on Congress]

>	It's not his fault, he's only the president!
>
>	This excuse is so incredably lame that I'm surprised that people are
>actually willing to make a case for it in public. There is no reason to
>think that the house will lose it's democratic majority with this election,
>although the Dems will lose a few seats. That means that Bush is going to
>have the same problem next term as he did this term. If the president is
>ineffective, it doesn't really matter why, he still shouldn't be president.

I look at the Congress as a vast tide of Socialism and liberal wealth
distribution from those who are capable to those who aren't.  I see
the Congress passing legislation that will punish those who work hard
for their wealth, who reward dependance on  the State, whose economic
policies have time and time again shown to fail - but demogogue enough
to get their dependant constituents to reelect them.  I see it as a
fast river of a liberal disaster held at bay by a dam.  This dam
isn't enough to keep all of the Socialism, the pork-barreling, and the
rabble-rousing at bay; there are too many hole and cracks in the dam.
There is a keystone in this dam holding the liberal agenda at bay,
a lynchpin holding the towering structure up - and that is a Republican
president.  And this election year, that Republican is George Bush.  

There may be aspects of George Bush with which I disagree - but our
country cannot bear the danger of having a Democrat as president who would
let loose the dam.

>	George Bush was railroaded by congress because Dukakis was right,
>George Bush is a wimp. He's not the first president to face a hostile 
>congress, and he won't be the last. If he's going to roll over for congress
>then he should either start likeing it or find a new line of work.

No, George Bush tried working with the Congress.  He signed a tax package
because he was promised that the Congress would cut spending - an effort
to reduce the deficit.  George Bush is trying to workfor what he beleives
is the best for our country.  And that often entails disagreeing with the
Congress.  It isn't a matter of liking or not - it hinges on acting on the
powers of the President to do good.  Bill Clinton would roll over.

>	I don't think that Clinton will roll over for congress. He will
>agree with them more often, but I think that Clinton will leave his mark
>on the country, unlike Bush who is just a placeholder for a better cantidate.
>If you really don't like Clinton, then a placeholder is a good thing, but
>it's foolish to think that Bush will be any different in a second term then
>he was in the first.

Funny, people view the Democrat Congress as the staple, the Way of doing things 
- permanent, eternal.  And that only the Presidency changes parties.
As George Bush has tried to explain many times, 'give me a Congress I can work
with'.  It solely depends on your political views.

>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
--
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh