From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Quayle/Bush Competency?
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:48:15 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Fred,

Your two postings fill me with great disquiet. Not because,
as you imagine, you're right and we're wrong, but rather because
you post absolute nonsense with apparent sincerity. And it's
nonsense that's both dangerous and damaging. So I'm going to
answer each of your postings separately, as carefully as I can.

In article <1992Aug25.114434.2017@wkuvx1.bitnet>, barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
|> To all Bush and Quayle bashers--
|> 
|>   Though a registered independent myself, I find myself drawn to the
|> defense of our President and Veep.  First off, the free trade agree-
|> ment with Mexico, though much maligned, is a good one. 

Though I disagree in part, I'll reserve final judgement until I see 
the results. However, I will respond to your own assumptions as you 
raise them.

|> A good deal of
|> crime in the southwest US can be attributed to illegal immigrants.

I disagree strongly. And I, at least, have spent some time there. Have
you? What illegal immigrants primarily do in this country is manual 
agricultural work, domestic work (maids and cleaning ladies), garment-
industry piecework, casual labor (road crews; construction, etc.),
menial restaurant work, and lots of other low-paying, low-status jobs 
that Americans by and large consider beneath them. If the "flood of
ill-imm's" was stopped, you'd be paying drastically more for your food
(both at the market and at restaurants), your clothes, your cleaning 
service...the number who turn to crime is miniscule, probably smaller
in proportion to the number of rich white kids who do so. That is my 
*observation*, not my opinion.

|> Now while this bill won't stop the flood of ill-imm's, it does address
|> the issue that if our neighbor (Mexico) prospers, we will prosper some
|> as well (fewer ill-imms). 

Third mistake. See above. Without illegal immigrants to provide
low-cost willing labor to a number of American industries, our 
general cost of living would skyrocket.

However, if Mexico does prosper, it can provide a larger market
for our exports, so your point is correct even though your reason
is incorrect.

|> If they fail, that failure will cause
|> thousands of people willing to do almost anything to support them-
|> selves and/or their families to flee to our country.  Unable to find
|> jobs (or at least decent jobs) here, they turn to crime, the one
|> occupation which never seems to suffer from economic hard times.

You seem to know how to sing only one song. I suggest you learn
the correct words...

|>  So,
|> it _is_ in our best interests to see Mexico profit. 

At last! I agree!

|> Now, one might
|> argue that, while helping others is all fine and dandy, it's something
|> altogether different when it starts costing jobs.  True, the point is
|> conceded, but look at the long-term effects.  Protectionism is a fail-
|> ure; only the "fat cats" prosper from this, as quality decreases due
|> to lack of competition, while prices rise. 

I assume the contrary example of Japan's protectionist policies just 
somehow slipped your mind :^)

|> Is there anyone who 
|> believes we can't beat Mexico in terms of quality?  Losing a few jobs
|> now may very well wake up the American people.

The next error. There's no way we can beat Mexico in terms of quality,
because Mexico is *us* (as in U.S.). The great beneficiaries of the
free trade agreement will be multi-national corporations, many of
whom are American, who will move production South with no loss in
quality, but a great reduction in the costs of both labor and 
regulation. There's no way Hewlett-Packard will be competing with
"Garcia Computers"; HP has already moved manufacturing plants into
several low-labor-cost nations. If they're not already in Mexico,
they will be soon. And HP *means* quality.

|>   Second, Quayle and his slip ups.  Did anyone notice that Clinton
|> and Gore _both_ butchered Bible quotes in their speeches at the Demo
|> Convention?  Religious leaders were upset, but how much press coverage
|> did it receive?  Nada.  Anyone care to guess what would have happened
|> if Quayle did the same thing? 

It's newsworthy when Quayle does it because he can't seem to string
three thoughts together without swallowing his shoelaces. Anybody
can slip up from time to time, and I don't hold that against them.
Dan, however, has raised the practice to a High Art. 

|> The fact is, liberals who know Quayle's
|> past record, who know what Dan Quayle really is like, are _scared_ of
|> him; they have been since he was named. 

Yes, I'm scared, but only because he's a heartbeat away - not for 
any of the "reasons" you post below...:^)

|> Quayle isn't some bumbling
|> idiot; he's a very competent politician. 

He's a mean-spirited, privileged, opportunistic, callous, *powerful*
bumbling idiot. So I guess your statement was correct; we really do
require the extra words. :^)

|> The liberal media looked so
|> hard for something to smear Quayle with (ex: making up the rumor that
|> he was picked solely on the basis of his looks, trying to mislead
|> people into believing he joined the National Guard just to get out of 
|> the war, etc.).  They failed. 

Repeat after me..."There is no Liberal Media". It's an urban myth. It's
a convenient strawman for the reactionaries to bash, but by and large 
it doesn't exist. Take a look at national readership, or viewership,
or whatever, and compare. USA Today. New York Daily News. San Francisco
Examiner. Boston Herald. Network Nightly News (with a few exceptions
like Sam Donaldson, who's more of the piranha school of liberalism). 
Local Nightly News. Talk Radio. The vast majority of American media
are as conservative as hell.

As for your supposed "smears", to the best of my knowledge they've
all been substantiated.

|> It's always easier to laugh at someone
|> than intelligently and reasonably deal with the issues they espouse;
|> this is the approach the liberal media took.

Then please do deal with those issues. His positions frighten me.
Presumably you agree with them. Please raise one so we can all discuss 
it reasonably and intelligently (I'm serious).

|>    Third, no, Bush has not been the best of Presidents.  Yes, he has
|> made mistakes. 

Damn right.

|> His biggest-"read my lips..." 

No, postings in this newsgroup *must* aver that his choice of VP was
his biggest :^)

|> I knew as soon as he
|> said it that Congress had him where they wanted him.  He was faced
|> with a choice: either break his tax promise or see programs he had
|> also promised go down the drain.

Excuse me? How could raising more money possibly cause programs
to be cancelled? I believe you have it backwards...

|>  He let himself get put into a bad
|> position, and he paid for it.  And, more significantly, he didn't
|> shirk his responsibility in regard to the matter; he willingly took
|> the blame, something I don't ever remember another politician doing.

He took the blame at the time that he signed the budget compromise,
yes. But he's been running from that act and blaming Congress instead
ever since the firestorm of dismayed reationary opinion rose in anger.
George could have showed some political balls; instead, he just points
his finger and whines about Congress.

No guts.

Don Coolidge
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com