From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ***STOP THE NONSENSE, ALREADY***(was Re: Not a president yet)
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:03:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Originator: wdp@gagme

In article <1992Nov10.061537.20379@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.102517.19427@gagme.chi.il.us> wdp@gagme.chi.il.us 
> (Bill Pfeiffer) writes: 
>
>> Bill Clinton's message was one of unity, shared purpose and a strength
>> that is borne out of a pooled effort.  
>>
>>      [.. huge amount of feel-good cheerleading deleted ..]
>> 
>> I ask you all to listen to your candidate and start PUSHING.  You all
>> voted because you love your country.  The process elected Bill, but
>> you are STILL Americans.  If you loved your country on Nov 3, continue
>> to love it now and pull together.  We can build a better tomorow.

[Doug:]
>Does anyone else feel nauseous upon reading this impassioned
>huggy-feely ``government can do no wrong'' cheerleading?  I feel
>dread at the prospect of the Democrats taking control of the  
>country.  George Bush screwed up a lot of things, but he said
>one thing right: government is too big, and spends too much. 
>Unfortunately, Bush never had the balls to back up his words.

How sad it is that we have come to the point where cynicism and
pigeon-holing have risen to such a high level.  I think it is a shame
and a sham that you see things in such 'black vs white' Democrat vs
Republican sort of limited view.  To a mindset like yours, there are
no individuals, just groups and lables.  

You are judging Mr Clinton, NOT as a man, but by the (perceived)
mistakes of some in his party's past.  Since you seem so pre-disposed
against 'Democrats', I suppose that you would like to see a nation
where there IS no other party.  A nation where the Republican primary
would be the general election.  Or perhaps you don't mind two parties,
as long as they both reflect YOUR view.

If the idea of 'pulling together' and shared effort to build a
stronger nation makes you nauseous, then I feel bad for you.  You have
apparently gotten so jaded by 12 years of short-term self-interest,
that it is a foriegn and distateful thing for you to think in larger
more human terms.  Even George Bush had the grace and wisdom to suggest that we
all get behind the new president and do our part.  

Also, nowhere in my original article did I suggest that government can
do no wrong.  Hardly! Nowhere in my article did I suggest that government is
too small and needs to grow.  You invented all of that from your own
mind. All my article suggested is that we stop the petty political
games and if we love our country, get behind it and work hard for it.
You see, Doug, you and many of those who feel like you seem to, don't
bother to really hear what someone is saying.  It is far eaiser to
repeat catch phrases, rhetoric and borrowed opinion, blasting anyone
who might disagree with the opinion you have been told to have.

>Now with the Democrats in control, they're going to unleash 
>all the years of pent-up frustration and hungering for social 
>programs and public mandates at a time when we need them the
>least. 

Now, Doug is psychic.  He somehow knows what will happen in the future.
Borne of pre-judgement based upon party affiliation.  Pre-judgement is
the root form of prejudice.   

Doug ..Doug .. take a chill-pill, dude!  Your paranoia will
destroy-ya.  You may be right, but you may be wrong, too.  It is
only four years, Doug.  Your boys have been in office for 12.  This IS
a multi-party nation.  Bill Clinton will be under a lot of scrutiny
from all of us.  Nobody will tolerate what you suggest above.  If he
tries to push us over the edge, he will not succede.  Every indication
is that he won't try.  

>The new burdens that Clinton and Congress will place 
>on businesses, such as mandated health care and family leave, 
>are going to hurt US competitiveness and drive the economy 
>into the ground.  

Again, Doug seems to have more 'knowledge' about what is to come than
anyone I know.  Whenever there is change, there is risk.  Many are so
uncomfortable with change that they invent boogie men to scare
themselves and others.  The Republican boogie-men and scare tactics
proved no match for the strong feeling among the electorate that
change was needed.  While Bill Clinton did not get the majority of the
popular vote, the concept of change certainly did.  People are fed up
with what 12 years of Republican rule has brought us.  Between Perot
and Clinton, there certainly was a mandate for change.  

>What can be done to de-rail the Democrat's efforts to turn
>this country into a socialist's paradise?  There doesn't
>seem to be anyone capable of stopping the Democratic tax 
>and spend juggernaut. 

Now this is scary.

'What can be done to de-rail the Democrats ...'
                     ^^^^^^^
Before Mr Clinton has a chance to do anything, this man is so paranoid
and full of prejudice that all he can think of is 'de-railing' the
results of his country's election process.  Doug, we are not talking
about a violent revolution here.  We are discussing the legitimate
choice made by legitimate process of American elections.   This is the
same process that elected Reagan and Bush, and defeted Democrats.  Did
you complain then?  I dare say that you didn't.  

Socialist Paradise?  Now really, Doug.  Arn't we being a bit extreme
here?  Just as extremists on the left have called Mr Bush a 'facist',
calling Mr Clinton a 'socialist' is going a bit far.   He does have a
social agenda.  He has spoken out about re-investing in OUR country,
bringing jobs and dignity back to the people, but socialist?  I don't
think so.  However, I would not object to the 'paradise' part :-).

In my article, I called on Clinton supporters to stop gloating,
because that is not dignified.  I asked Perot and Bush supporters to
listen to the voice of _their_ candidates and get behind the new
President for the good of our nation.  I know that there will always
be people who cannot accept change, who will always fear it.  I know
there will always be 'Limbots' who will continue to see the world
through the eyes of ridicule, distrust and hindsight.  But ask
yourself this, Doug.  If Clinton (read: Democrats) are so evil that
all you can think of is 'de-railing' him/them, why - oh why, was this
election the biggest turn-out in over 20 years?  If things are so
darned peachy, why did Ross Perot, the most radical of the three, get
over 20% of the popular vote?  Why, then,  dispite the constant railing of
Rush Limbaugh (on over 500 radio stations 5 days a week) and dispite
the bashing by Republican candidates, did it turn out the way it did?
The answer is simple.  The message of change resonated so strongly
with the Amercian people that it overcame the fear.

Not only did Clinton win, but new faces are everywhere.  Women in the senate,
Hispanics, Blacks.  Face it, Doug, the world is changing.  Politics is
changing.  From my perspective, none too soon either.  I am not
expecting you to AGREE with Bill Clinton, just to respect the nation,
the office, and the process that brought it all together.  Instead of
thinking in 'catch phrases' like TAXANDSPEND (one word), COMMIELIBS,
LIBERALS, and such, instead of impressing yourself on how well you can
imitate Rush Limbaugh, and spew out cutesy insults like 'Billery' and
'Slick Willy', why not try forming your own opinions.  Take a
risk, don't be afraid of 'feeling good'.  Don't be so fearful of
'huggy feelings' and new horizons.  

If it nauseates you see this country work, then I cannot offer you an
antacid for that condition.  I think the USA is a pretty cool country,
with or without Mr Clinton.

Later.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh