From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:49:40 GMT

In article <92241.151816DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:

      References: <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com>



   >>   refering to, of course, Hillary Clinton.  The GOP should have never
   >>   brought this up.  As it happens now it has brought these writings
   >>   into the spotlight, and they are being talked about everywhere as
   >>   being very well written and highly regarded by members of the law
   >>   community conservatives and liberals alike.  They tried to use it
   >>
   > Being well written does not equal being well thought out or right.
   > Actually I have read the article is question and it has a fair share of
   > ambiguities.  I was always taught that good writing was clear, concise
   > and did not confuse the reader.

   You forgot '...and know your audience.'.  I don't know what your credentials
   are but maybe you were in over your head trying to understand it.

I think the quality of my writing speaks for itself.  Instead of just
taking snotty little pot shots why don't you go read her stuff and then
come back and show us just how good it is?

   >
   >    to put down the Clinton campaign, but it's turning out to be a real
   >    boost as people begin to understand what it's *REALLY* all about.
   >    It has really helped bring all of the wonderful work Hillary has
   >    done for children all over the country.  Oh, by the way, she has
   >    received letters of praise for her work from Barbara Bush.
   >
   > >>marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
   >
   >    In her writings she uses this analogy to demonstrate a point about
   >    what is *WRONG* about some familys.  In other words, she was describing
   >    what a family should *NOT* be like.  Are all the lying right wing
   >    radicals staying with me on this or am I using too many negatives?
   >
   >  You should read the original before you misinterpret it.
   >
   I heard the article read and interupereted on KNPR.  I am confident of my
   interpretation as it is consistant with both conservative and liberal
   interpretations that I heard during the show of not only that article
   but several others that she has written since.

You HEARD somebody else read the article?  You didn't read it yourself
and thoughtfully go over the points it raised?  You let somebody else
interpret it for you and presume to know its contents?  How do you even
know they were reading the whole article?  How do you even know that they
were actually reading the article and not something entirely different?

   >
   > >>The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
   > >>for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
   > >>the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?   Sorry, they
   > >>opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.
   >
   >    And after all, with Reagan we did just get one decision maker didn't we??
   >
   > Anybody who thinks that the wife of a President isn't going to have some
   > influence on his thinking is a danger to himself and society as whole.
   > Which is my point.
   >
   (I'm not sure what you mean by 'danger to society' here, but anyway.)
   Your point maybe, but it's not the GOP point.  They deliberately spread
   vile misinformation that was actually slander because it said that she
   had taken a position she hadn't.  It wasn't just partly wrong, it was
   completely wrong.

By a danger to society I mean somebody voting without educating
him/her/self on the important issues.  I am well aware that most of the
voting populace doesn't do this, and look what we get.

They did not spread vile misinformation, they interpreted her words in a
quite reasonable way.  Again, go read the article yourself and stop
relying on what somebody else tells you it means.

   >
   > >>I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
   >
   >    Ahhh, that explains your radical rightwing extremist point of view.
   >
   > Hardly.  I happen to be pro-choice, an atheist, I believe ALL drugs
   > should be legalized and I believe that no one should be discriminated
   > against on the basis of something they are born with e.g. race or (gasp)
   > homosexuality.  I also believe that as a society we should help our poor
   > and downtrodden.  Where I part company with the liberals is in our beliefs
   > in the means we should employ to effect the helping.
   >
   Well, okay, I'm sorry I called you a rightwing extremist.  But with the
   way the far right has pushed forth their agenda on the GOP platform it's
   hard for me to imagine how anyone can support their platform and still
   believe in the things you do.  Good luck with promoting your agenda.

Quite simply the notion of that slick draft dodger and his radical wife
running the country scares the bejusus out of me, that's why I am voting
for Bush.

   > >>is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
   > >>State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
   > >>of her legal and political positions is in order.
   >
   >  Well you know what they say, if you read it in People Magazine, the
   >  National Enquirer, or hear it on Rush Limbaugh, then it must be true.
   >
   >I would be a nice excesize for you to document untruthful statements from
   >Rush Limbaugh.  He's quite rigorous in checking his facts.
   >
   No, it would be very unpleasant.  I followed him for a few months, but
   I will no longer.  I perceive him as a hate-monger running shock radio
   with a kind of right-wing Geraldo sensationalist twist to it.  He uses
   rhetorical tools to twist the 'what I meant' of 'Now, what I said was...',
   so that it comes out as '...so that's really what I've been saying all
   along!'.  And when he's so blatantly wrong about one of his 'predictions'
   that even rhetoric won't cover it up he just avoids discussing it again.
   I wouldn't listen to him again for any amount of money under six figures.

When I said untruthful I didn't mean failing to predict the future.
Again, if he makes untruthful statements please document them.

   >
   > >>Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
   > >>that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself. If you can't
   >
   >  (Well, that's not what was said or who said it, but I get your point.)
   >
   > Oh yes it is, I heard her say it.  Actually the above is a slight
   > misquote, what she actually said was, "Remember if you buy one you get
   > two."
   >
   >
   >  Hey, why stop with his wife, why not go after their daughter, friends,
   >  other relatives and pets too!?  Sounds like a tough decision to make,
   >  it depends on who is most vulnerable "...hmmmm, what kind of grades did
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    See below.

   >  their daughter get last year? ...has she failed any spelling tests??".
   >  Fortunately for the Demos they don't have to go after Barbara or
   >  Marilyn because George and Danny boy are vulnerable enough, buffoons
   >  that they are.
   >
   > Quite simply because his wife is a politically active person who,as the
   > wife of the president, will excersize an influence far greater than if
   > she were just another bright lawyer involved in political causes.

   I could understand you argument if the GOP were just going after Hillary
   on her views.  My point is that they haven't!  They have made false claims
   and tried to misrepresent her.  Now, if they want to address her views
   directly, then ya, sure, you're right, she and all other first lady types
   are fair game.  But that's not what the GOP are doing, they're deliberately
   misrepresenting her in and attempt to discredit her.

Which false claims?  Clearly she made the statements in question.  If she
had not made those statements that would be one thing, but she did indeed
make them and has not retracted.

   > Vulnerable?  Hillary Rodham?  What a laugh.

   You know, it's kind of funny.  The GOP had to go back 20 years to find
   something on her, and now they can't make it stick.

As long as she holds to those positions its fair game to go back fifty
years.  Now, if she came out and said, "I didn't really mean those things
the way they sounded, I was a young sprout with more verve than wisdom."
then I'd say ok, she's matured and that's not the way she really feels.

  What a sad and
   desparate campaign strategy.

Actually there is much in Hillary's record to use against her.  Such as
her fat fees for sitting on boards of directors, her pushing of an illegal
agenda at the Legal Defense fund and having clients who do business with
the state.  Yes, I think the GOP should change its strategy and hammer
away at these things.  And they should hammer away at the theme that
says, "What will Hillary Rodham do when she gets her hands on real power?
Look at how she lined her pockets in Arkansas; look at how she pushed the
far left agenda of the the Legal Defense Fund etc."

  Vulnerable?  I didn't say that she was
   vulnerable.

Yes you did, go have another look at the paragraph in question.

  I'm merely taking a stab at what might be the next step
   for the GOP.  It's obvious that they've given up on the *REAL* issues
   and so they'll probably go for some more name-calling 'this is the type
   of person Bill hangs out with...' kind of stuff.  I wouldn't be at all
   surprised to see them attacking Bills daughter, or a personal friend
   of his.

It is too bad the campaign is working this way.  There are real and
substantive differences between the parties and I wish the Republicans
would focus on these.  For example yesterday James J. Kilpatrick, in his
syndicated column, detailed several of Bush's education initiatives, each
of which was turned down by the Congress.  If I were Bush's campaign
manager I'd print up 250 million copies and send one to everybody in the
whole country.