Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:52:14 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING

In article <9210081734.AA21296@MIT.EDU>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
says:

> *    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.  It is a sign of pure
> desperation.

Clinton's repeated attacks for Bush's 'worst economic record in 50 years'
(which is actually the SECOND-worst in -16- years) are pathetic attempts to
divert Americans' attention from the fact that his character is questionable.

> *    Bush said last night it's been an ugly political year.  He's
> right -- and he's responsible for it.  It's smear campaigns like he's
> running that have turned off the American people.

Yep, like that idiotic non-story about Bush's supposed affair with one of
his aides.  People actually believed this, without the aide herself even
making the allegation.  If not for the polls, this kind of attack on Bush
would make me think the Clinton camp was desperate.

> *    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,
> provide every American with affordable health care, and improve our
> schools.  George Bush can only offer more of the same.

Bush has the same kind of plans, but they've been buried in Congress.
The present congress can only offer more of the same, IMHO.

> *    Because the Republicans have such a miserable economic record,
> they've resorted to lobbing hand grenade after hand grenade, hoping
> that one will explode.  Even as he was attacking Clinton, Bush told
> Larry King, "I don't have the facts."

As opposed to Clinton's annoying tendency to forget what he has said and
done in his life, when he is asked.  Nobody's perfect.

> *    One sign of Bush's desperation is his moving to a direct attack
> on Clinton's opposition to the Vietnam war.  Recall Bush's 1989

The problem is that Clinton is not straightforward about it.  He's been
exposed as having told several lies about his past; why?  If he's not
worried about having done something wrong, he should proudly state: "I
skipped all my classes at Oxford to protest the Vietnam war, and to or-
ganize protests in several different countries."  He hasn't been straight-
forward about this.

There's nothing wrong with protesting a war, even if you -are- wrong.

> *    At least eight of the 32 Rhodes scholars in Clinton's class also
> traveled to Moscow on their own or in small groups.  There were no
> restrictions on traveling to Moscow. It was very inexpensive.

Unless you were Ross Perot, of course.
Why isn't it entirely comforting to me that Oxford students were allowed into
Moscow, no restrictions, during the Vietnam war.  (A time during which U.S.
and Soviet relations were NOT improving, as he has said they were.)

> *    Clinton's travels took him to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
> Russia, and Prague, Czechoslovakia before returning to England.
> Clinton traveled Europe as a tourist -- not to attend any meeting or
> demonstration.  While in Norway, he visited a friend from Hot Springs
> who was attending Oslo University.  He met Father McSorley
> coincidentally at the Oslo train station, they traveled to the
> University where Clinton was introduced to McSorley's friends, and
> then Clinton went to visit his friend.

That's not what the Father has said.  Who's lying?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------

P.S.  This post is,  of course, mainly for the benefit of those  who have
      missed Rush's enlightening shows over the last 2 or 3 days.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh