From: sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: New Quayle Quote (NY Times, 10/7/92)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:09:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.151104.14375@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> leo@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (leonard.oppenheimer) writes:
>I am new to this newsgroup.  From what I have seen of it so far, I do not
>plan to stay long, since it seems to welcome only the mindless
>Quayle-bashing that one sees again and again in the media.

We only do mindless bashing on our off-days.  Usually,
our bashing is well thought out.

>I am the first to admit that Quayle has had some bad goofs, like potato etc.
>However, I find that:
>
>a) He almost always seems to come out on the correct and proper side of the
>issues that he has dealt with, and has been a consistent and steadfast
>supporter of those causes that would bring this country back to to its
>senses from many of the excesses of the loony left.  On the issues of legal
>reform, family values, support for Israel, and the importance of free
>enterprise, he has been an important advocate of mainstream American values.

Wow!  Quayl is going to save us from looniness!  BWAAHAAHAA !

Your assumption that the subset of issues which you support and
which Dan-o's handlers tell him to support is somehow "mainstream"
is completely unfounded.  Nixon tried this trick with his
"silent majority"; like everything else associated with the
Dandroid, it is simply tepid leftovers.

My libertarian acquaintences would certainly take issue with
your claim that Dan-o somehow represents "free-enterprise",
unless it is the type in which we do the enterprise
and he gets it for free.

And how "important" has his support for these issues been,
in terms of effectiveness?  Sure, his speeches on these topics
warmed the hearts of those mired in Reagan-nostaliga, but
even most Republicans don't take him seriously.  His lasting
legacy will probably be the damage he has done to environmental
legislation through his leadership of the "Competitiveness" Council.

>b) The media (and this newsgroup) are extremely unfair to him.  As has been
>stated many times, Murphy Brown is a perfect example.  The issue was so
>twisted and convoluted, and so different from the thrust of what was an
>excellent speech with an important message, that it was truly deplorable to
>anyone with a sense of fair play.

The entire "Murphy Brown" speech has been posted in a.f.d-q.
We have all read it.  In it, the VP refers to a television
show (which he admitted he never watched before) as an example
of the "hollywood" elite glorifying single parenthood.
This issue, and DQ's statement on Larry King 
about his daughter's hypothetical abortion, get twisted when
DQ or the Republican damage control team deny making statements
or make desparate explanations about what Our Boy "really" meant.
 
>A perfect example of the way things get twisted in this newsgroup was this
>posting.  I have downloaded the original article, and appended it to this.
>Compare the original and the "citation"/commentary of the poster, and make
>your own judgment as to whether the posting was fair.
>
(NY Times article, previously posted, about Our Boy:  deleted)

OK.  The article gives CLEAR CONCRETE examples of the fact
that the Dandroid gives a good speech, but has (at best)
a shallow understanding of the issues he supports.
Juicy reading, but not news to us.  And, if the posting 
referencing the "Hawaii" boner was not literally accurate,
it certainly retained the spirit of Our Boy's lameness.

There is more than enough documentation to show that Dan Quayl
is an idiot, and an amusing one at that.  If you want
to support Republican causes, fine; there are many 
capable and intelligent representatives you can admire.
But why Quayl apologists insist on attaching their
hopes and dreams to this buffoon totally escapes me.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |