From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Clinton? NOT LIBERAL? was (Re: Prediction: Rush Limbaugh has hit his peak; He will)
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:14:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.010713.18503@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>In article <schlegel.724352440@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>>and stupid.
>>
>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
>> total liberal.
>>
>I would like to see your evidence on this -- direct evidence, policy-wise,
>that he is a Liberal.  I will furnish some evidence he is a centrist.
>1) He supports NAFTA; 2) He did not outright oppose the Gulf War (see below)
>3) supports a capital-gains like tax cut for business under certain
>circumstances 4) supports the death penalty...need I go on?
>Of course, some of his positions are more liberal, but then that is the
>definition of a centrist -- some of his positions are conservative, so
>liberal, some moderate.  As Gary Hart said, "I look neither left nor
>right but forward."



1) He supports NAFTA, but only with environmental restrictions tacked
on.  Without going into details on the foolishness of that, the
addition of enviro-regulation would, without a doubt, qualify him
as a liberal.

2) He didn't really take one side or the other.  He could've been
consistent and opposed it as he did the war in Vietnam, but I believe
he felt it would damage his position with the large percentage of
Americans who were in favor of the war.  In other words, his ambiguous
statement allowed him to take both sides of the issue, thereby not
offending anyone and keeping with as broad a base of support as
possible. This doesn't prove or disprove his liberalism, neither does
it demonstrate moderation.  An unclear stance, in fact, just makes him
look a little shifty.

3)The under certain circumstances part makes me somewhat suspicious.
Data, anyone?  Capital gains reductions is, though, I would agree,
fiscally conservative.

4)Death penalty?  Look, he's from Arkansas: to be Arkansas' governor,
he had to be, and if he changed his mind upon running for
President...to wit, no clear evidence there.

So, yes, I think you need go on, with more definite examples of
Clinton's moderate stance.


>On a related note, why do conservatives insist upon bashing Congressional
>liberals who opposed the Gulf War with the words, "Everybody in the whole
>world supported the USA except the Congressional Democrats"?  The rest
>of the world was not going to bear the *costs* of the Gulf War if things
>got nasty, but the USA was.  The Congress was therefore justified in
>being more critical than everyone else.  Bill Clinton gave a statement
>of tentative support for the war, and did not condemn it by any means.
>This is again my definition of a moderate -- took one side (conservative,
>pro-war) but tempered it with input from the other.

Although this is probably the best reason I've heard for why the
Congressional Dems opposed the war, I must protest.  They've never
been exactly squeamish about spending money, have they?  Remember
spending is somewhat high these days, and that's why plans like
Gramm-Rudman were introduced.  This line of reasoning is not persuasive,
for it lacks historical accord--I would that it didn't..

Most politicians who claim to be moderate are either liberal or
conservative and trying to steal votes from the other side.  I don't
believe there are any true moderates except for those who have no
ideological grounding, like George Bush.  And if they have no
ideological grounding, then we _know_ they'll adopt whatever position
they think we want them to.  And that is certainly the surest way to
lose a lot of your support.  Th proper way is to state your positions
firmly and lucidly, and let the people attach themselves to you in
that way.  They'll know what to expect, and you won't be accused of
being wishy-washy.

David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion