From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:36:57 GMT

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.194337.15005@wixer.cactus.org>, reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>> Don't bet on it... Bush just imposed a 200% tarriff on French Wine.
>> This is just one the first action he will be taking from now until
>> January to be sure that the Clinton administration is the last
>> Democratic administration in a very long time.  Bush is attempting to
>> start a trade war.  Clear and simple.  This could be something that
>> Clinton will have a tough time dealing with given Democratic tendencies
>> toward protectionism -- any moves Cinton makes to head off the trade
>> hostilities will undoubtedly hurt American companies and/or workers.
>> 
>> I don't know what Bush's motives are for this -- he could seriously think
>> that this is the "tough medicine" America needs so it will see the folly
>> of electing Democrats.  Either way, it stinks.

>Just to play devils advocate... lets assume that Bush IS imposing tarriffs for
>the sole sake of hindering the Clinton Administration and so that this
>administration "is the last Democratic administration in a very long time."
>Could you then explain how this would be anymore dispicable than the Democrats
>tainting bills that put Bush into a catch 22.(the bills would either raise taxes
>with all the excess pork if he signed it, or he would go back on political
>promises if he vetoed it) Now, in order to remain consistant, if we assume that
>Bush is screwing Clinton with bad politics, then we must also assume that the
>Democrats screwed Bush, so that he would lose the presidency. Pray tell, how
>is it wrong for Bush to do this sort of "legislative skullduggery" whereas the
>when the Democrats do it, it's good politics, and blame is pinned on the
>president? Seems to be YALI (Yet Another Liberal Inconsistancy)

I also believe that the Democrates put Bush in a no win situation to make him
look bad. But even if that were true, it does not give him the right to try
and make Clinton look bad. Two wrongs do not make a right (although two
Wrights did make an airplain...sorry old joke). I must say that I for one
do not believe for a second that he is doing this just to make Clinton look
bad. First of all, this has been going on for something like 5 years, so
this would be by far the longest joke on record. I'm sure the two reasons
it is happening now is 1) the Prez. race is over, and 2) he wants to see
this done, right or wrong, while he is Prez. If anyone will look bad from
this, it will be Bush, so how can anyone say he is doing this to make Clinton
look bad? Even as the lights are being turned off, he is still willing to
do the hard task, even if it makes him look bad. I only hope that Clinton
will be able to do the same. I hope he does, and I hope he's right. Only
time will tell.

>Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
>---------
>Do you hear the people sing?
> Singing the song of Angry men?
>It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
>----------
>		Possible Republican Creed.
>		Vince Goddard
>		Jack Kemp in '96
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush