From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Subject: Re: New Quayle Quote (NY Times, 10/7/92)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:48:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.165855.17821@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, leo@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (leonard.oppenheimer) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct09.155707.22922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct9.151104.14375@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> leo@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (leonard.oppenheimer) writes:
|> >
|> >    "Correct and proper", huh?  According to whom?  *You*?  Your use of
|> >catchphrases like "looney left" and "family values" identifies you as
|> >another republiclone non-entity, IMNSHO.
|> >
|> 
|> I guess, then, that Clinton & Gore and all the others at the Democratic
|> Convention who kept invoking family values are "republican non-entities" as
|> well, IYNSHO.

Read it again. Pay special attention to the word "catchphrases". He was 
referring to your use, and the use of those at the Republican Convention,
of those phrases in a content-free, value-laden manner. Or, to quote
Dear Dan on a somewhat different subject (but the same topic), "I know
who they are and the American people know who they are." All they talked
about was the *phrase* "family values". Clinton et al actually discussed
the values that make a family.

Next question.
 
|> Perhaps "loony left" was a mistake on my part.  However, What I was saying,
|> and now re-iterate, is that Quayle has stood up for the types of values that
|> mainstream America has always, and continues to stand for,

Like golf, and gutting environmental regulations, and discriminating against
other religions by trying to impose the views of your own on them as law, and
lying about your opponents' backgrounds, and gay-bashing, and tolerating - 
even encouraging - racism (since it brings a certain block of votes with it)...

Sure, pal, *all* Americans hold those values dear to their hearts! Don't you?

You'd do yourself a favor if you were less selective about what you accept and
believe about politicians.

|> while his critics

Here in this group??? Perish the thought! :^)

|> are busy using invective, cheap-shot sarcasm, and misquotation to obfuscate
|> the issues.

A) Ah, but we *never* misquote him. Whenever anyone falsely attributes some
verbal hamburger to Our Boy (like the apocryphal speaking Latin in Latin 
America "quote"), we are the first to point it out. However, the vast array
of *genuine* foot-swallowing that he indulges in, some small portion of which
is catalogued in the often-posted Quayle Quotes file, makes it abundantly
clear that we need not make anything up; in fact, we *couldn't* make up
things as amusing as the pearls that issue forth from the Mouth Of Quayle.
(If you don't have a copy of this, it's Required Reading on this newsgroup,
and the latest copy was posted just a couple days ago.)

B) Few of us ever use invective (Dhanesh's "Impeach the bastards. Now." being
a rare exception). Name-calling, however, is another topic entirely...:^)

C) Cheap-shot sarcasm is the lifeblood of this newsgroup. How dare you
criticize our charter!!! 

D) Obfuscating the issues seems to be the lifeblood of the Bush/Quayle
campaign. Where's your objection to that?

|> >>b) The media (and this newsgroup) are extremely unfair to him.  As has been
|> >>stated many times, Murphy Brown is a perfect example.  The issue was so
|> >>twisted and convoluted, and so different from the thrust of what was an
|> >>excellent speech with an important message, that it was truly deplorable to
|> >>anyone with a sense of fair play.
|> >
|> >    Amazing!  These JDQ-defenders tend to come around just often enough to
|> >keep things lively.  Do you guys communicate with each other and take turns
|> >coming to Our Boye's rescue?
|> >
|> 
|> An excellent retort.  Well reasoned, cogent and to the point.

Pots and kettles...:^)

I'll leave comment on the astonishing "excellent speech" and 
"important message" to somebody with a copy of that speech online.
Sufficient to say that for me to agree with those characterizations, 
I'd have had to have given up thinking sometime in the third grade.
It was rife with contradictions, sloppy logic, innuendo, and the 
most tenuous grasp of reality I've ever heard come from any public
figure, with the possible exception of Lyndon LaRouche.

- Don Coolidge  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle