From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Family Values" in Hollywood
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:20:43 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <LARRY.92Jul23095928@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> Good points, Tim.
>
> I am probably a little too hard on Quayle. I watched a few of his
> appearances lately, and the man is not a buffoon. He has, unfortunately
> been saddled with a reputation of being a dim bulb. He isn't brilliant and
> charismatic, but neither is he some sort of idiot.
>

It is really hard to judge a person until you get to know him.  I do not
know Quayle, so I find it hard to understand why others who don't know
him have so much hate for him.  From the several famous people I have met
in the past, they are real people, just like you and I and are generally
good people all the way around.

> Now, without wanting to make anyone mad here, let me state that I view
> Quayle's shortcoming somewhat like Carter's - lack of leadership
> potential. Both men seem honorable, and well meaning. They just lack
> the strength of leadership. My opinion, again. [You will concede that Carter
> lacked leadership abilities as president?]
>

There's nobody I know of who has espoused any sort of hatred for Carter.
Reagan and Bush get lots of hate - as does Rush :)  But I do hear plenty
of people who remember the times when Carter was president and do not
want current or future times to be anything like those times.  Also,
calling someone incompetent as president, which Carter have been,
isn't hating the man - it's hating the job he did.

FWIW, Carter was the best candidate the Dems could offer us in 1984,
1988, or 1992.  He at least has leadership experience (maybe not
ability), foreign policy experience, and knows what the job involves.
These were key factors in my decision to vote for Bush in 1988.

> If you want to know what was in my mind during the original post, I was
> recalling a couple of spots I saw on CNN which had "man on the street"
> type interviews where some of the people seemed genuinely concerned at the
> prospect of Quayle taking over as president. Naturally, there were no high
> ranking Republicans around saying anything of the kind.
>

There are plenty of ranking Republicans around saying exactly the same
thing.  They have been quoted daily on Rush' show for the last three
days, at least.  I believe Quayle acts as a form of insurance for
Bush - remember that Reagan was shot (remember what I said about hate).
Who would shoot Bush knowing Quayle would take over? :)

> I also seem to remember a column in our local newspaper about it. But
> again, no high ranking Republicans expressed any concern. I wouldn't
> expect any high ranking Republican to publicly state such fears, would
> you?
>

High ranking Republicans are publicly stating their opposition to
Bush and Quayle.  Even I have done that.  I blame him for undoing
much of the good that Reagan did, pandering to the left, and not
keeping his campaign promise of no new taxes.

> I'm not sure we can easily sit down and equate performance of the vice
> presidency as some indicator of competency for the presidency. The two
> jobs are so entirely different most of the time. For example, I have a
> hard time remembering anything that Bush did as VP that would indicate his
> potential as president. (Of course, Bush's other extensive experience in
> government service, including the CIA is another matter.)
>

I am sure that Bush was able to equate the performance of the vice presidency
in relation to the government in general.  After all, Bush was VP for 8
years.

As for what Bush did as VP, there are a lot of people chasing the wild
goose trying to prove that Bush did many evil things as VP.

> So, maybe I've been shooting from the hip on the Quayle issue. I'll try to
> keep an open mind about him as November approaches.
>

I try to listen to any politician who gets on C-SPAN, or is otherwise allowed
to speak for himself.  I am often surprised by the quality of human being
that some are - on both sides.  But there are also plenty of politicians who
get most of the air time that are so annoying I have to turn the TV off after
just a few minutes of crap (Pat Schroeder and George Mitchell are two that
jump to mind).  Tom Foley is almost funny to watch - his ears remind me of
Dumbo the elephant (this is not a reflection of the man, just his appearance).
He also clearly struggles with his urges to do the right thing and his urges
to do the democratic thing.

> L.
> "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
>  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
>  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\
>  (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
> Straw? No, too stupid a fad. I put soot on warts.

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh