From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<9SEP199212023919@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> <BuD8z9.AJ9.2@cs.cmu.edu>
	<18nrmrINN5es@armory.centerline.com>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:17:20 GMT

In article <18nrmrINN5es@armory.centerline.com> thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:

   In article <BuD8z9.AJ9.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
   >In article <9SEP199212023919@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:
   >>
   >>As a vet in Vietnam, I saw that plane and it was reported on our TV and
   >>in our local paper.  I am incensed that these STUPID diversionary tactics
   >>are again being used in the political campaign.
   >
   >The point isn't so much that he dodged the draft.  It is that he has lied 
   >about it.  Repeatedly.  
   >
   >-- 
   >Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
   >anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
   >Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
   >Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890

   The point isn't that Bush was involved in the in the Iran-Contra affair,
   but that he has lied about it.  The fact is, he was not out of the
   loop.

The point is that you can't prove that Bush lied about Iran-Contra but
you can prove that Clintone lied about his draft shenanigans.

   This nonsense about Clinton "lying" about something that happened 
   twenty years ago when he was a young man being a "character issue" is
   absurd when our president has lied to us about what he did as
   Vice President of our country.

Again, prove it.  The fact that the lie was twent years ago or twenty
minutes ago is not relevant.  Just PROVE it was a lie.


   This is just a bit of nonsense to keep the draft-dodging issue
   out there and avoiding:

	   1) Offending people who think draft-dodging
	   is a non-issue

	   2) Being accused of hipocracy.  Didn't Dick Cheney
	   avoid service?

Cheney did.

Dan Quayle?

But he didn't.

   If the Bush people want to call Clinton a draft dodger, that's fine
   with me.  Whatever the sequence of events, Clinton did try hard
   to avoid the draft, if only for a while.

Yeah, the rest of his life.

   There is another reason for using this as a "trust" issue; it
   works well with other issues about Clinton's character.  Like
   his problems from the Flowers story.

Again, it's not an issue if he boffed Flowers (sorta souncs like a bee
doesn't it) or not, it's how he handled it.  He should have said it's
nobody's business.  Instead, just like Hart, he weasles and wiggles and
waffles and tries to have it both ways.  With the result that he gets in
no way.

   The fact is, George Bush as a politician has shown no more
   honesty.  At one point he claimed he never called Reagan's
   policies "voodoo economics."  He has consistently mis-represented
   his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair.

Proof please.

  He "bravely"
   promised to not raise taxes, then not-so-bravely raised
   them.  George Bush has shown that he will abandon principle
   at every turn.  Who do you trust?

Glad you brought this up.  It raises a very important point the Bush
campaign is missing.  The fact is that Bush did indeed say "Read my lips"
and then went back on that.  The other disturbing fact is that he struck
an agreement with the ever so honorable dems to cut spending.  As soon as
they had his John Hancock they backed off the deal.  They are at least as
big a bunch if liars as he is.

   I will tend to trust the man who lies about what he did 20+ years ago
   rather than the guy who lies about what happened 1-2 years before.
   I will tend to trust the guy who has shown an interest in discussing
   the issues rather than demonizing his opponent.

Har de har har.

   The Bush people hear polls that say, "voters think Clinton has a
   better plan for the economy" and their response is not to explain
   their plan, but to attack Clinton's character.  I believe it was
   Dan Quayle who accused the Democrats of talking down to the
   American people, but it is really the Republicans who are saying:

	   Hey, we know what is right for the American public,
	   but we can't explain it in small words, so we will
	   try instead to divert these stupid voters from the
	   issues at hand.

This is essentially correct.  If the Republican campaign could get its
act together and really enunciate goals and differences with the liberal
left there wouldn't be any contest.

   This may work - I have no illusions about the intelligence of
   Americans.

Gee, you sound almost as smart as Doktor LaFaive.  (I no eye speld it
rong)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5560 alt.politics.bush:5229 soc.rights.human:3489 alt.society.civil-liberties:688