From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Clinton? NOT LIBERAL? was (Re: Prediction: Rush Limbaugh has hit his peak; He will)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Dec15.071417.27877@news.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:41:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.071417.27877@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:

   1) He supports NAFTA, but only with environmental restrictions tacked
   on.  Without going into details on the foolishness of that, the
   addition of enviro-regulation would, without a doubt, qualify him
   as a liberal.

Please do go into the details on the foolishness of that.  Why should
an American company have to compete with a company that isn't required
to have some semblance of evironmental restrictions to live up to?
I don't think it's a conservative/liberal issue anyway.  Conservatives
don't hate the environment.  Supporting a clean environment is an
issure everyone supports.  Conservatives want to make sure that the
laws aren't unnecessarily restrictive on business based on the seriousness
of the pollution.  You'll have to demonstrate how these regulations
are excessive before that makes him a liberal.  Now, most conservatives
(I think) might not support the job-retraining program which he wants
to pass along with it. To support the low-wage workers in the U.S.
which may lose their jobs to Mexico.

   2) He didn't really take one side or the other.  He could've been
   consistent and opposed it as he did the war in Vietnam, but I believe
   he felt it would damage his position with the large percentage of
   Americans who were in favor of the war.  In other words, his ambiguous
   statement allowed him to take both sides of the issue, thereby not
   offending anyone and keeping with as broad a base of support as
   possible. This doesn't prove or disprove his liberalism, neither does
   it demonstrate moderation.  An unclear stance, in fact, just makes him
   look a little shifty.

ehhh, ok his stance wasn't that clear, I admit.  It was basically the
same as mine.  I wanted more time for the sanctions to work, but once
the president made the decision, I was behind him.  Then again, I
wasn't running for president.  Still not a conservative/liberal issue
if you ask me.  Several conservatives opposed this war (Buchanan?).

   3)The under certain circumstances part makes me somewhat suspicious.
   Data, anyone?  Capital gains reductions is, though, I would agree,
   fiscally conservative.

the under certain circumstances is when gains are derived from
business stimulating investments.  He has hinted at indexing
capital gains, but I don't think we will see that.

   4)Death penalty?  Look, he's from Arkansas: to be Arkansas' governor,
   he had to be, and if he changed his mind upon running for
   President...to wit, no clear evidence there.

Huh? you were clear until this one.  Supporting the death penalty
is clearly not a liberal view point.

   So, yes, I think you need go on, with more definite examples of
   Clinton's moderate stance.

ok

he supports eliminating the welfare program as we know it today.
He wants all able bodied people to be required to work if they
haven't found a job in 2 years (this is still pretty lax, but
not liberal).

he supports the line-item veto (ok that's a bordline conservative/liberal issue)

he wants to cut 100,000 federal works from the public dole

he wants to cut the white house staff by 25%

he did want to cut congressional staff by the same amount
but he's not as strongly for it as he once was
(now look I'm being honest, if you try and claim that
 this is an example of him waffling while ignoring
 the rest of it, I'll ignore you, this argument is about
 whether Clinton is moderate or not)

he wants to reduce special-purpose HUD grants
(I don't know what the hell this is actually, but
 I know it couldn't be liberal)

he wants to freeze speinding on federal consultants

he wants to hire 100,000 more policemen

he wants to reform lobbying laws such as
eliminating the tax deduction for lobbying expenses

he signed an abortion restriction law in Arkansas
(I can't remember if it was parental consent, 24-hour
 waiting period, or both)


I can probably go on.  I know I haven't convinced the
ultra-conservatives (and probably won't)
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power