From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.130641.25637@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>In <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu> jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke):

>>So, let the GOP speak, and give us rationale, hopefully other than just 
>>party ID.  And let everyone post to "why not vote Bush"

>  Actually, I can think of many reasons not to vote for Bush, but since
>I probably will in the end, I'll give those reasons.  (Although I could
>probably talk a lot of people out of voting for Bush if I gave my reasons 
>not to do so.)

>Six reasons why You should vote for Bush:
>1) Presuming Perot can't win, you really should only bote Republican or 
>Democrat (let's not get into this again, I understand the argument against
>this. I think the LP goes too far anyway.)

Huh?  This isn't a pro-Bush argument, just an anti-Lib one.

>2)  Bush at least pays lip service to "no new taxes".  Even his current
>Budget doesn't hold up to that, but the Democrats recent proposed

"Bush is a liar, but he says the things we want to hear when he lies"?????
That's what these two sentences say.

>budget would raise taxes for more than just the wealthy (as advertised)
>and I suspect that any Democratic presidency would result in higher taxes
>for all but the very poor. (You have to look beyond those percent brackets.)
>Bush's friends, the Republicans, are much less likely to raise taxes
>than the Democrats, so he at least has to somewhat ride the brake on taxes
>(and hopefully, therefore, government spending which is the real issue.)
>  Besides, I think any kind of tax increase, even on "just the wealthy" is
>stupid.   The government has enough of our money.  Let them start
>spending it wisely.

If you think Democrats are going to raise taxes on the middle class,
you're crazy.  Ever since Mondale lost, Democrats are scared silly of
raising taxes.  And in the current economic climate, middle class is
anyone between $20k and $200k.

Tsongas got all this press for not being Santa Claus.  Why?  Because he
wanted to raise taxes?  No!  It was simply because he DIDN'T favor
LOWERING taxes.

(Yes, he did favor raising the gas tax, but that's a minor issue
compared to income taxes.)

>3)  Bush is as good on foreign policy as we are likely to see. (Except for 
>China :-) ).  This is still very important in our World and for a President.
>It is the one area that a President is actually in control over.  Everything
>else can and will be manipulated by congress (which has a known talent
>for screwing things up.)

Why?  He is not.  *What* has Bush done right?  Assuming that you agree
with the premise of the Gulf War, he *STILL* failed.  We accomplished
virtually nothing; dictatorships STILL exist in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
and Iraq.

China is violating human rights while Bush does nothing, as you noted.

The lack of a Bush response to the coup in Haiti has now lead to a coup
in Peru which Bush also quickly and decisively didn't respond to. Which
democracy will be next to fall?

Operation Approval Rating (I mean, Just Cause) was a total fiasco;
Panama has gone from a minor drug smuggling country to a major one, 200
Americans and thousands of Panamanian citizens died for that; we also
convicted Noriega for bunches of minor crimes which will be overturned
anyway, in exchange for plea bargains which let tens of major drug
dealers out of jail.

>4)  Bush is for NAFTA, and free trade in general.  I think his trip to
>Japan was a poorly chosen political stunt.  I don't believe he learned
>his lesson or even understands why that was so stupid, but at least
>he is for free trade. 

True.  But so is Bill Clinton.

>5)  Bush doesn't want to reduce our military to nothing.  It is still and
>probably always will be a dangerous world and we are more a part
>of it more than ever (and should be.)  With our geographic isolation, we tend
>to forget that wars pop up every so often, usually when countries aren't
>quite ready for them and don't quite expect them.  We should maintain
>a strong military presence.  Other countries are likely to start building
>up stronger militaries, we shouldn't cut ours too low.

True.  However, your first sentence should read, "Bush doesn't want to
reduce our military."  While a strong military IS important, it's plain
stupidity to claim we need to spend at cold war levels.

>6)  According to Quayle, Bush actually can itemize the major problems
     
Wow.  Can he form committees, too?  (From a real reliable source, too.)

>facing our country and economy (Health Care, Our Legal system, the
>Budget deficit, education, investment, etc.) This at least tells me he

These aren't problems.  These are campaign slogans.

>knows what the problems are.  He's the only one so far that mentioned

Oh, boy.  So, what you're saying is that Bush is literate.  How could he
NOT *know* that these are problems?

>our legal system and regulatory requirements as a major problem.

What's wrong with our legal system?  I mean, I know Ed Meese thinks
anyone who's arrested must be guilty, or he wouldn't be arrested, but
most of the rest of us LIKE having to have a trial first.

>                                                                  I don't
>know if he'll actually do anything on any of these.  Considering his

Gee, then that doesn't help much, does it?

>chief health care advisor is a registered lobbiest for the Health Care
>Industry, I tend to doubt that issue will be satisfactorily resolved.
>(I believe my source was a PBS show outlining "What Went Wrong With America.")

>  Basically my opinion sums up to, Bush is good at international affairs and
>at least pays lip service to the right things domestically.  Clinton
>may actally be a better Domestic leader, but his pary has shown its 
>ability to screw up Domestic issues time and time again by getting the
>government too involved.  I worry that the Clinton that governed in
>Arkansas and worked to improve education, business, and create workfare rather
>than welfare may dissapear in the White House just as he has on this
>campaign trail.  

The funny thing is, economically Bush and Clinton just aren't that
different.  Except at least Clinton pays lip service to civil rights and
race relations and AIDS and education and other domestic problems,
whereas Bush either ignores them or demagogues them.

>I don't trust either Clinton or Bush to stick to what they say, but
>at least Bush has proven international ability and belongs to the "right"
>party.

How about: I don't trust either Clinton or Bush to stick to what they say, 
but at least Bush has proven NO international ability and belongs to the wrong 
party.

>pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA