From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:38:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.185610.21631@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

> Yep.  Wanna make a list of which ones he has said that about?

How about his promise to introduce certain legislation on his first day as
president?  That promise is already broken.


> Yes, and it helps that the Bush Administration 'discovered' tens of
> billions of dollars that they somehow managed to 'miss' mentioning
> before, too.

tens of billions turns out to be a small percentage of what the "known"
numbers were.

> >He is already talking about middle-class tax increases.  
> 
> He is, or other people are?

His cabinet is.  If they are so inclined to change his promises, he either
showed bad judgement in picking them or he directed them to say these
things so he wouldn't have to.  The "Captain" is responsible for the
actions of his subordinates.

> You know, I keep looking at all these examples various conservatives
> hunt up about Bill Clinton's 'lies' and 'waffling', and you know what
> I find?  I find that they either weren't listening the first time
> around or are misinterpreting now.

Actually, I think the term "Slick Willie" comes from his ability to talk
without actually making promises, though they sound like promises, and
later do what the people thought he said he wouldn't do.  He technically
hasn't broken a promise, because he never promised.  Yet people elect him
on these "promises."  Either he should be held accountable for these
"promises" or the people should not be so stupid as to take them as
promises.

> >> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done
> >> it, Jim.  It's called 'reality', as opposed to seeing things based on
> >> rhetoric the way you do.
> >
> >	Hey Fred, you voted for him based on "rhetoric", and now the same
> >rhetoric (that Clinton himself provides) isn't good enough?
> 
> No, I voted for him based on RECORD.  I will judge his performance
> using that same criterion.

And I voted against him based on his record of making what the people take
as promises, and doing what he says he won't do, or not doing what he said
he will do because "He never actually promised it."  For example, the last
election in Arkansas, the newcasters interviewed him asking why the people
should vote for him when he lies.  He responded with "I never actually
promised those things."  When they asked if he would promise NOT to ever
run for president if they re-elected him, he said something to the effect:
"I do not want to run for President.  All I have ever wanted to do is serve
the people of Arkansas."  Less than one year after being re-elected for
Governor of Arkansas, he announced his bid for President.  He lies!!!  Now
he will claim that he didn't actually promise not to run for president, but
he effectively did promise not to.

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------