From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:18:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
!eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
!>mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
!>:hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
!>:> Right now we are in a face off,  Bush doesn't want to attack first,
!>:> Clinton has no reason to risk an attack.  Bush is trying to draw Clinton
!>:> into a negative battle but it is not working.  Time is on CLinton's side in
!>:> this game so Bush has to attack sooner or later.
!>:Bush/Quayle have been under merciless attack since a few weeks before the
!>:dem. convention...
!>:> An attack will put Bush at risk,  if Clinton can position right the press
!>:> won't stop talking about it for a week,  that is 1/8 of the time left till
!>:> the election.
!>:The biased media calls any kind of Bush attack sleaze politics and praises
!>:the Clinton campaign.  That's not going to stop Bush.
!>	The media are covering every COUNTERATTACK by Clinton more than
!>the attacks by Bush lately. Although this does show that Clinton won't
!>make the mistakes of waiting too long to be defined by his opposition,
!>this coverage is stifling Bush from making any substantive criticisms of
!>Clinton.
!>	Example: re: Baker leaving his Secretary of State position to be
!>the Chief of Staff. I have heard so much about "how Baker is the
!>Republican's knight in shining armor" (which may be true) to "how
!>desperate the Republicans are to see Baker back" (which may be partially
!>true) to "how disappointed it was to see Baker go" (by the Democrats,
!>specifically paraphrased from Sen. George Mitchell).
!>
!>:> Looks bad for Bush.
!>:Bush is just starting.  After the convention next week, expect a big rise in
!>:his poll status and approval rating.
!>	Well, I don't know how large this rise will be, but the gap will
!>close. The latest polls (which I never look at often) are 60-35 Clinton
!>as opposed to 60-30 last week according to ABC/Washington Post.
!>	The problem is that Bush will NEVER get the positive coverage
!>that the Clinton-Gore camp is receiving. The Washington Post itself
!>described the Clinton-Gore tandem as the "heartthrobs of the heartland"
!>while blasting Bush and Quayle for being dufuses in spelling, in
!>geography, and in domestic policy. These latest bits about the supposed
!>flip-flop on abortion and the Fitzgerald thing are being presented as
!>negatives that the Bush camp must overcome. Do you remember Clinton
!>having this negative coverage immediately before the Democratic
!>Convention? << I don't think so. >>
!
!How about during the primary season -- Clinton was lambasted on all
!sides (NY POst and marijuana smoking, for example).
	Who remembers now? Anyone in the press remind us all about that?
No, since it's "negative campaigning."
	Besides, back in the primaries, the media were paying a good
amount of attention at Pat Buchanan's efforts to duel with Bush to
become the nominee. (Granted Buchanan wasn't being treated that nicely
like a knight in shining armor either, but how many times early on did
you hear about the "protest vote" of about 33-40% going to Buchanan, and
how well he was doing with that high percentage?)

>Since you cant remember that far back and seem to miss the articles
>about concers still on CLinton's character, perhaps you are
>illustrative of why Bush's poll ratings could go up -- people
>have such short memories they can't remeber how bad Bush has been
>throughout his term.  Remember, that this net couldnt come up
>with any real conclusive 3 things that Bush has accomplished that
>were any good.
	The polls sure have gone up for Clinton.
	I had just posted an article in alt.politics.bush about positive
things Bush had done. (My original post was a lot of Clinton-bashing
included, but I sent another one just a few seconds ago.) There are
three things that mention why one should vote for George. There are
probably others, but I do work for a living. :) I'll repost both when
they're up.


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh