From: lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Keywords: class envy Clinton Bush poverty "in touch"
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:22:46 GMT

In article <5911@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>Deleted comments by:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
>jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske)
>
>=Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
>=He seems very in touch with the average person to me. He has been
>=poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
>=school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
>=instead of Wall St. 
>
>Boy, this didn't explain Ross Perot's popularity back in the early
>summer. 
>
>=George and Babbs moved to texas and lived
>=there until G Bush Sr. dropped by with a 300,000 gift so sonny boy 
>=could start his own business. 
>=
>=Who is more in touch with the common person, you tell me....
>
>I don't mean to flame you personally, but frankly I am sick and tired of
>this class warfare. Bush isn't in touch with the American people because
>he hasn't experienced poverty??? Does that mean that Clinton doesn't
>understand foreign policy because he never served in the military???
>I guess Bill wouldn't be qualified in understanding how the system of
>American free enterprise works since he's never been financially
>successful in maintaining a corporate business, right?
>Does this mean I am not qualified to understand women's issues because I
>am not a woman, or understand the problems of the inner city because I
>never lived in a one-bedroom with 5 kids and a single parent??? Come
>on.
>
>Frankly, I commend Bill Clinton for his success in politics. I commend
>George Bush for succeeding in his business and making a profit rather
>than going bankrupt. I appreciate everyone who succeeds in whatever
>endeavors they have, but I don't think that because someone hasn't
>experienced "poverty" means he/she is unqualified to solve the problems
>of poverty. I don't think that because since someone is not infected
>with HIV that he/she won't understand the problems AIDS patients have. I
>don't think that just because another student here at Duke has his/her
>education funded completely by his/her parents without any financial aid
>whatsoever means he/she is "out of touch" [I certainly do not qualify in
>this description].
>
>Compassion is not measured by the amount of grief one experiences.
>No one has more compassion because he/she has more guilt or more
>experiences of hardship. Compassion is pure community love.
>Compassion is apolitical because we all have a heart and concern for our
>fellow man. However the calling of class envy and hatred is no way to
>determine that one man is more "fit" to be President just because he
>was poorer or a minority or disadvantaged. You are describing your
>support for a proverbial "underdog" (which Clinton is not according to
>polls), not for a President.

Being rich doesn't necessarily make you callous, but when you look
at how Bush has given us his left hand these past few years, and you
ask why, his priveledged, sheltered background looks like a fair
hypothesis. 

>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
>I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
>good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections