From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:07:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.111506.1536@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Anwar Mohammed writes:
>>The point isn't so much that he [Clinton, not Quayle now] dodged the draft.
>>It is that he has lied about it.  Repeatedly.  
>>
>Blather. In a world of sound bites politicians have a right of survival.
>Jeez. Who in the hell is fooled by his statements?
> ....
>Jeez louise. Clinton's statements are pro forma.
>He is no saint.

"Clinton's statements are pro forma." Right.  Clinton is a repeated liar,
evader, panderer, and vote-getting trickster.
The issue is less what Clinton did in '68 to avoid Vietnam,
but rather what he has done continually in this year, and this and just
about about every other issue he speaks on.

He lied on repeated occasions about the draft issue, he evaded
questions about his pot smoking, about his adultery.

He told lies about Tsongas, and then when pressed he lied about his
campaign tactics.

He pandered to Connecticutt voters and when pressed, he lied about it ...
he said he supported the seawolf sub in his Georgetown address, but it
wasn't true. (source: TAS)

He is lying about his economic policy:
His plan will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, will do nothing to
solve the deficit, will increase taxes on most workers, and yet
he claims his put Government first program will "Put People
first". He lies about the needed spending cuts (his cuts are a collection
of gimmicks, by and large), he evades the true cost of his health care
proposal, and to support his own position he repeatedly cites bogus
and misleading statistics (there was a CNN analysis of his stump
speech that went into this last point).

In front of one audience he speaks glowingly of the Brady Bill and
"getting semi-automic weapons off the streets" blah, blah,
blah, and then later the same day, in front of a group of hunters, he speaks
about how a 7-day waiting period is unnecessary, how "it could be under
an hour". Uh Huh. (source:WSJ)

He is for CAFE standards of 40 mpg .... except when he speaks in front of
the Automobile people in Detroit, where he isn't.

He is for NAFTA .... except when he is in a union hall, so he isn't for
free trade.

He is lying about his foreign policy. He says now that he supported the
Gulf War, but this is a waffler's 20/20 hindsight:
" ... I agree with the arguments of the minority."

As for Bush's economic plan that was presented in Detroit, BC says:
"It's the same old stuff" AND "why did it take him this long to do it?".
Well Clinton, which is it? If it is the same-old-stuff Bush *hasn't*
taken this long to get it out. It just hasn't been tried (thanks to Mitchell,
Foley et. al.) I mention this only because most politicians would think
a single line of attack would suffice.  For Clinton, there seems
to be safety in numbers, even if they are contradictory.

"pro forma"? CLINTON IS "pro forma" ... there is nothing
desirable to him at all to the voters, except that he is not-Bush.
(And is suppose, to the Reagan-haters and GOP-haters, that he is not 
that either.) And there is nothing in him as a leader, except a lust for
the Presidency.

So while Clinton whines about the negative attacks, his blame-bush
bush-bashing caravan rolls on. It is a smart strategy of course, to make
the election a referendum on Bush's domestic policy and the economy.
Bush and Clinton are tacticians.  So far, Clinton has shown himself
to be a better tactician - better at attack, better at the pander,
better at buying votes and kissing babies.

I suspect that there is enough cynicism out there, that people
will say "okay, so Clinton lies, big deal", and partisans for
Clinton will chant the "read my lips" mantra, as proof that
honesty is lost in the world of politics, so honesty doesn't matter.
But it does matter. Somehow the larger task of Governance for the next
four years has gotten lost in the heat of electoral battle.
If Clinton is to be our next President (as is likely), we need
to know who he is and what he stands for.... Clinton seems intent on not
letting us know the truth.

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc