From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:39:44 GMT

In article <92240.164045DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:

   References: <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com>
   <1992Aug27.212402.10909@s1.gov>

   lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

   >>criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,

   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.

   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.

   >>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 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.

   >>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.

   >
   >>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
   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.
Vulnerable?  Hillary Rodham?  What a laugh.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc