From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:03:48 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.politics.misc, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Incorrect.  If the phrase contains "by the criteria the Bush people
>use" (which, by the way, were actually the Arkansas state
>legislature's because Bush's people just copied their list of tax and
>fee increases) then the claim of 327 is still a lie.  In fact, so is
>the claim of 78 for Bush.  The only truthful claim is 78 for Bush and
>Reagan together.


    False. "...by the criteria the Bush people used (lumping taxes and
fees)," Bush and Reagan raised "taxes" 500+ times. (revised number)
If you just look at tax increases under Bush alone, there were about
78 in his 4 years, compared with Clintons 40 or so in 12 years.
    Of course, this whole argument is stupid. First, who cares how MANY
times taxes and fees are raised, what counts is by how much. Also, why
arn't repeals and temporary taxes expirations factored into the count?
Also, it is hard to compare federal taxation with state taxation.  How
can "My oponent had 128 apples while I had *one* orange" be relevant?
    For me the big issue is why the Republicans are even bringing it
up.  First, they look stupid by asserting that Bush "only raised taxes
once" and that Clinton "enjoyed it."  Right off the bat I could think
of 5 "adjustments" to my income from the Bush years. Also, no politicial 
enjoys raising taxes. Does Bush think we are fools?  That statement
was as stupid as the ones claiming that Bush enjoyed sending U.S. troops
into battle.  Sometimes you have to do what you has to be done, but
you don't have to enjoy it.
    Then, it comes out that Bush has a WORSE record than Clinton on
taxation.  This hits two "stupid" buttons: Didn't the Republican strategists 
worry that reminding the voters about Bush having broken his central 
campaign promise of 1988 would raise doubts about his 1992 promises?
Also, if they had done their homework they would have seen the obvious
counterpunch.  After Clinton's team delivered the obvious counterpunch 
I was left with a general sense of incompetence in the Bush ranks.  
I almost felt pity for the Republicans. They have obviously lost whatever
spark they once had. If they couldn't see this one comming it's no wonder 
they missed the end of the cold war, the invasion of Kuwait, the resession, 
etc.
    Finaly, their issue was generaly stupid. Who cares how many TIMES
someone raises taxes, what counts is by how much. 
    The Bush campaign topics never seem to address the real issues, 
and when they do it's to create a link with someone other than Clinton 
in an era far in the past.  The republicans can't seem to put together 
an issue that involves Bill Clinton in this decade.  Worse, they can't
seem to give a clear picture of what George Bush is going to do for
his second term.  (All I have seen are short-term giveaways, some warmed
over rejects from his first term, and pie-in-the-sky promises that are
even more unrealistic than the "no new taxes" pledge.  Oh, and a few
good ideas borrowed from Clinton.)
    If this is the best the republicans can do they are doomed in the
fall elections.

Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc