Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:09:55 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      George Bush did not lie

        Brenda repeats the common charge that George Bush lied when he
        said, "Read my lips.  No new taxes."  He did not. At least there
        is no evidence that he did.  A lie is a statement that the speak-
        er knows or believes to be contrary to fact.  (If X is true,
        someone who sincerely but mistakenly believes Not-X to be true
        but who says X is true is morally guilty of lying even though his
        statement that X is true is correct.)  There is no evidence that
        George Bush did not mean what he said when he said "No new
        taxes."  He later changed his mind, which is okay.  He also broke
        a promise, which is not okay.  However, he did not lie.

        Virtually every politician has, at one time or another, broken a
        political promise.  (The expressions "Political promise" or
        "election promise" generally mean promises that no one expects to
        be kept.)  President Woodrow Wilson campaigned for re-election on
        the slogan "He kept us out of war," referring to World War I.
        After he was re-elected the United States entered WWI.  President
        Franklin Roosevelt promised that no American soldiers would fight
        in what we now call World War II.  We did fight in WWII.  Circum-
        stances changed.  This does not make what Bush did right, but it
        does set it into context.  I am not familiar with the details of
        why Bush broke his promise.  I think it was part of deal with the
        Democratic Party controlled Congress to get a budget approved.
        Liberal editorialists praised his action.  I wish Bush had not
        given in but had taken his case directly to the American people,
        but I wasn't there.

        Brenda also says: "Still, is it better to trust someone who is
        apparently sincere in holding to values of some kind, as opposed
        to someone who may waffle on holding to whatever values will get
        him elected?"  Who would do that?  Senator Gore for one.  Here is
        a passage from a column by Ray Kerrison in the July 13 New York
        Post:

            The ticket is headed by a Southern governor, Bill Clinton,
            whose credibility hovers near zero, and backed up by a South-
            ern senator, Al Gore, whose ambition exceeds his convictions.
            Consider: in 1987, a Dayton, Tenn. constituent wrote Sen.
            Gore to ask his opinion of new federal legislation prohibit-
            ing federal funding of abortion.

            Al replied, "Its goal, which I share, is to reduce the outra-
            geously large number of abortions.  During my 11 years in
            Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of
            abortions.  In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds
            for what is arguably the taking of a human life.  Let me
            assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life
            must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this
            goal."

            How about that?  Today, Al Gore is one of the fiercest abor-
            tion advocates in the country--he's a co-sponsor of the
            Freedom of Choice Act. He's another in the long line of
            Democrats who sold out to advance their careers.  Gore no
            longer believes innocent human life should be protected.  It
            proves again that the only litmus test for a modern Democrat
            is a commitment to the destruction of life in the womb.  A
            political party dedicated to death has no future.


        Bush also changed his position on abortion, going from pro-
        abortion to pro-life.  Was this a political move?  It may have
        been, but it need not have been.  There are no new facts or
        evidence, apart from the fact the pro-abortion feminists have a
        death grip (le mot juste) on the Democratic Party, to justify
        Gore's change.  On the contrary there is increasing scientific
        evidence that the unborn child is a living human being.  Dr.
        Bernard Nathanson was an abortionist and a founding member of the
        National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws (which changed
        its name to the National Abortion Rights Action League after the
        Supreme Court repealed all abortion laws and decreed abortion on
        demand for the full nine months of pregnancy).  Scientific evi-
        dence from new medical technology convinced him of the humanity
        of the unborn child and he changed from pro-abortion to pro-life.
        Dr. Nathanson had been raised an atheist/agnostic and was still
        an atheist/agnostic when he changed from pro-abortion to pro-life
        so religious motives had nothing to do with it.  It was just the
        scientific evidence.  (He later became converted to
        Christianity.)  Therefore, Bush's change to the pro-life side
        could have been motivated, at least in part, by his becoming
        aware of the same evidence that convinced Dr. Nathanson.  Howev-
        er, I see no basis for thinking that Gore's change was anything
        other than political opportunism when he decided to seek the
        presidency in 1988.  (Incidentally, Gore was the first one to
        raise the Willie Horton issue against Dukakis.  He did so in the
        1988 primaries.)

        Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU