From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush bashing, etc....
Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:43:22 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <BtLIL8.GDB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Shoeless Joe) writes:
> 
> 
> 	I would like to address a common theme I see every evening on the
> news and see every night on talk shows. This would be the Bush-bashing that
> is so prevalent and so acceptable in today's liberal media. (No one can argue
> that the American media is not liberal).

Ah contraire....This is a myth perpetrated by the conservatives in a vain
attempt to deflect our scrutiny of Bush's abysmal domestic policy record.

> Why is it that our president, a man
> we elected (if you didn't vote in '88 but were of age, then shut up and don't
> complain) can be portrayed as a man who has done absolutely nothing in his
> first term in office?

Because he hasn't done anything. He didn't even propose a health care
plan for the first 3 1/2 years.

> Further, why is it that Field Marshall von Clinton
> gets about three times as much media coverage (on the average) as President
> Bush does?

Because Bush has said and done nothing news worthy. While Clinton gives
us position papers with some detail, Bush gives us the same lies, distortion,
and rhetoric every speech. How news worthy is blaming Congress for the
upteenth time?

> 	One of the most common compaints is that George Bush has reniged (sp?)
> on his promise of 'no new taxes'. First, let's look at this statement. 'No'
> is a negation, 'new' refers to something which is already there, and 'taxes', 
> well we all know what taxes are. It sounds to me like what Mr. President
> said what that he would not create any new taxes, and although he stressed
> in his campaigning in '88 that he would not *like* to raise taxes, a lack
> of agreement between the executive and legislative branches (no matter on
> whom you place the blame) forced him to do that.

So you are saying he mislead us to get our vote...that makes me feel much
better. There is no cheaper and more dishonest way to get votes than to
spout "no new taxes". It plays on the ignorance of much of the electorate.

> 	Another complaint is that he would have X amount of jobs created by
> 199X. I don't think that in 1988 Mr. Bush could foresee that the media would
> report that America is in a deep recession with no hope of getting out (I
> believe Mr. Greenspan disagrees with this). Because of the media hype, people
> stopped spending their normal amount of money and hence the economy slowed 
> down.

The media caused this? How about the abysmal economic forecasts by well-
respected economists, how about that people are noticing that they are not
doing as well as their parents (on average), how about the fact that health
care is going up at 4 times the rate of inflation, how about the fact that
college tuitions are going up at twice the rate of inflation?

> Congress was no help, either. Again, blame who you want, but Mr. Bush
> proposed many economic plans to Congress, all of which were rejected.

Oh yeah, post them, summarise them, show us these MANY economic plans
that he submitted...

> Now it
> seems to me that to keep this great nation of ours going, we must be able to
> have some sort of hope of agreement between the President and Congress. Keep
> in mind that their is only one President Bush, while there are 500+ members
> of the combined House and Senate, both controlled by the Democratic party.
> If there is to be a true system of checks and balances between the two brances,
> I think that the Congress is going to have to give something up. It is true
> that it would be much easier for Mr. Bush to change his policies, but for
> him to do so in order to please Congress would reduce him to nothing more
> than a puppet, subject to the whims of a Democratic Congress. For the
> record, I also admit that Mr. President needs to give up a little more, too,
> but the bulk of the giving up needs to be done by Congress.

Why should Congress cave in? Our Senators and Congressmen are our most
accessible link to the federal government. They are the people responsible
for protecting our interests. I'm not saying they always do the best job,
but that is what the presidential veto is for. Maybe you like the sound of King
Bush? Bush has been fond of presenting ultimatums to congress instead of
compromises. That is why he gets nowhere. It is his job to work with congress,
not to give orders to it.

> 
> 
> 		thomas ehardt
> 		DuPage County (IL) Republican
> 		fully registered in Washington DC
> 		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
> 
> 
> 	Another thing: why is it that the media made such a hype over Dan
> 	Quayle's being in the National Guard during the Vietnam Way, while
> 	no further exposure has been given to Gov. Clinton's position
> 	during that time.

Probably because Clinton didn't play Mr. Hawk every time a question of
using the military came up.

>  Now I seem to remember an interview with the
> 	Governor in which he admitted to 'doing everything necessary to 
> 	avoid the draft,' including writing letters of cowardice (I can
> 	describe them as nothing less)

They were letters stating his disagreement with our involvement
in the vietnam conflict. To state otherwise means you did not read them or
you are purposely distorting their content.

>  to senators, governors, etc. He
> 	stated that he does not regret avoiding the draft (he went to Oxford
> 	during the war so as to avoid being drafted) and also said that he
> 	would not hesitate to do the same again, if he ever needed to.
> 
> 			Just another thought.
> 
> 

Dr. Norman J. LaFave