From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Making electoral promises (was Re: Clinton gaffe of the day)
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:29:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>[...jking] Bush surrogates try to paint Clinton as a dangerous man, while
>>economic growth stats show that Bush's inaction is far more dangerous.
>
>How have you proven that?  Unless you have powers beyond mere mortals, 
>you have no idea what Clinton's policies will do to the country.  

This is more or less correct.  And, what is more, I would absolve
George Bush of all personal responsibility for the recent recession,
since it doesn't make sense to blame really big things on individuals.

It's tough to see the future, but what you can do is look at what the
candidates are saying, and decide whose version of reality looks more
plausible.  Or if they are plausible.  So, if you'd like to believe
that that Clinton can really cut 100,000 federal jobs through
attrition, fine.  If you believe that Bush will actually reveal a
detailed list of spending cuts that everybody will enjoy after the
election, great.

Another possible way to look at the future is to look at the past.

Did Clinton's policies really help Arkansas in some meaningful,
measurable way?  Was Bush really continually thwarted in his policies
by Congress?  What legislation did either man, propose, sign, and
veto?  How good were their appointments?

Interestingly, none of these questions have much to do with draft status,
who slept with whom, whose offspring lost money in business ventures, or
who can't spell worth a darn. :-)

>They could pull us out of the recession or just as likely put us in a 
>worse position.

Whoa!  How do you know this is "just as likely"?  How often in the US
has unemployment, say, gotten much worse than 7.7%.  (Tentative
answer: during the 30s, in the mid-70s, and during the early 80s, i.e.
not too often.)  Personally, I'd bet that almost any set of policies
would make things at least somewhat better; you seem much to
pessimistic.

>Why don't you, instead of slamming Bush constantly, not only tell us what
>Clinton will do, but give us an analysis of how you can 100% guarantee that
>the economy will pick up?  

I assume this question is sort of rhetorical, and prompted by the poster's
bravado.

>I heard someone give a suggestion to Clinton the other day - have him 
>announce that if the economy does not improve during his four years 
>in office, he will resign.  Why don't I think he'll say that [?]

Dunno your thinking on this, but let me make a guess:  because he's not
really, really stupid.  Candidates who speak too often in universals
should not be trusted all, in my opinion.  One of the candidates in the
1988 election promised never to sign new tax legislation and further
promised to create 15? million jobs.  What ridiculous things to say!

>Clinton has to earn my trust before I'll vote for him.  

I really don't see how he could do that if that Bush hasn't earned
some of your mistrust already.

>Like I stated in a recent post (which Clinton defenders have yet to 
>respond to) on Friday Frank Greer, a senior Clinton campaign advisor, 
>was asked point blank THREE times - Will Clinton guarentee that no 
>one making less than $200,000 will have to pay more in taxes under a 
>Clinton administration.  All that he had to answer was yes or no.  

...to prove that he had no more sense than George Bush in 1988 (or, to
be fair, Michael Dukakis in 1974).  The Clinton *plan* is to raise
taxes on the $200,000+ households, but everybody knows your
legislative mileage may differ.  Maybe a lot.

>He ducked the question all three times, changing the subject.  

I wish I had seen this, but since I didn't I'll have to take your word
on this.

>Quit giving me as reasons to vote for Clinton reasons not to vote for Bush!

Okay, here's a possible reason to vote for Clinton:  he knows better
than to promise many things that he might not be able to deliver, such
as your 1995 tax tables in advance.  Another possible reason is that you
could favor some parts of his economic program in principle to those
proposed by Bush (or Marrou or Perot or Fulani or the other people who
may appear on your ballot).  But in the end, I don't see how you can keep
"negative" reasons out of your consideration either way.

> Now, back to the intent of the original posting I made.  You want me to
>'stick to the economy'?  Tell that to CBS which spent the first five 
>minutes of it's evening news exposing how Quayle spelled potatoe 
>(Uh, I mean potato) wrong.  

Yow, it sure didn't get that kind of time here on the local news in
San Diego!  On the other hand, why on earth was Quayle doing a photo
op hosting a spelling bee when he could have been fielding questions
about investment tax credits or something? :-)  

>You have to fight fire with fire by ramming every trivial mistake 
>down Clinton's throat until the Quayle-bashers stop picking on him 
>like a bunch of immature kids teasing someone on the playground.  

I actually agree somewhat.  I don't really pay much attention to Dan
Quayle's or Bush's or anybody's verbal gaffes.  But it does burn me
when I see Quayle, say, touting the wonderful science that will be
done on Space Station Freedom when I have no faith that he has any
idea what he is talking about given what he is saying.  (The same
thing goes double for some of the bizarre comments made in Congress
recently, too.)

>Message to the media and the Democrats:
>                     Grow up and let's talk issues.

Fair enough.  Just as long as we can also talk about the candidates
public records, too.  And let's keep away from all unqualified
universals, too.  Well, most of them. :-)

jking



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh