From: nguyen@turing.scs.carleton.ca (H.H. Nguyen)
Subject: Re: [POL] George Bush, let's look at...
Organization:  Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:55:30 GMT


	Gee, I did not know that G. Bush is this bad !

	I've always thought that Brian Mulroney is bad enough with
his promised "Jobs, jobs, jobs" vs. the actual unemployment rate of
11.4% in Canada. And I've been dreaming of a green card in the "kinder,
gentler American society" with "no more taxes" !

	But then, what else is new ? Politics is politics, regardless 
of national boundaries.  And this is just another election campaign.
Supposedly a democratic one.

	H.H. Nguyen



In article <1992Oct9.135547.6463@news.media.mit.edu> 0005359961@mcimail.com writes:
>
>     What are the three major accomplishments of the Bush
>presidency? George Bush's own answers to David Foster, who asked
>the question, are: education, environment, and anti-crime.
>     Bush the anti-crime president? He gotta be kidding! A
>statistics released this week shows that felony crimes have
>increased since Bush took office in 1988. Rape, murder, and drug
>related offenses all grow in double digit figures. 
>     The environmental president? Bush forgot that it was he who
>embarrassed America by failing to take the lead in the Earth Summit
>earlier this summer! He failed to protect the America's wetland by
>allowing logging activities in the protected areas, only to
>withdraw his proposal after strong public protests.
>     And education? What has he done for American kids? Yes, they
>are in the first place, but from the bottom up, in the industrial
>world! And what about all the run-down colleges and universities?
>They stay, if not decline, at where they were years ago.
>     No wonder why Bush does not have a vision for America. And no
>wonder why he and his companies love to point out to the glorious
>past of Ronald Reagan and to past flaws of his opponent. But what
>is it?
>     During the 60's, as a congressman from Texas, Bush opposed the
>civil rights law. Of course, time has changed, the issue is no
>longer relevant. Besides, Bush had transformed himself and been in
>the mainstream of America's politics. But the point is, if a
>mistake made by an established official thirty years ago doesn't
>truly reflect the man today, how could it be that something a
>college kid did in years past is still a part of his character at
>the moment? And assume that if one is to judge the other guy
>through his college activities, what about Bush's role in Iran-
>contra affair. Was he "out of the loop" as he claimed he was or, as
>former secretaries Shultz and Weinberger indicated, he was in it?
>So, let's forget this thorny issue and look at others.
>     The deregulation of industry, particularly of the airline,
>have weakened, not strengthened, the competition. In some cases, it
>has been a fatal mistake for both consumers and employees. Remember
>Eastern Airline? And Pan Am? As a result, airline is very much a
>monopolistic industry in America, especially true in the hub
>cities. Who chaired the task force to study the deregulation?
>George Bush, of course.
>     Then there's a thing called S&L. Go ask Continental Savings
>depositors! Billions and billions dollars have been wasted in order
>to bail out those collapsed institutions. And all the crooks and
>criminals are still out there, alive and rich. Who chaired the S&L
>deregulation task force? George Bush, of course.
>     No wonder why Bush and his companies erected a thing called
>"traditional family value." What is it? Nobody knows for sure, but
>it might very well be a code word.
>     Remember the '88 campaign? Then, it was an ad, now become very
>infamous, known as the Willie Horton ad. Bush, in retrospect, had
>no vision to run on. It's why he used Willie Horton as a bait in
>his campaign: vote for me, I'll be tough on criminals; vote for the
>other guy he'll let 'em run loose. And "them", in his ad, were
>black Americans!
>     Then, if one has to synthesize the '88 campaign, Pat
>Buchanan's key-note speech at the Republican convention, and Dan
>Quayle's traditional family value, one must see the motive in it
>all: In the grand scheme, or vision, of the Bush presidency the
>picture contains nothing but white. Yes, the good old days were
>those that dads working, moms staying home, no violent crimes, and
>no colored peoples anywhere in the scene! It's scary, isn't it?
>     Don't believe it? Here is the truth: for almost four years
>Bush did appoint only two blacks to the bench, including the most
>familiar name, Clarence Thomas. The majority of his appointed
>judges are white, conservative, and rich. Together with Reagan's
>appointees, they occupied about 75% of the federal bench. While
>conservative, white, and rich are no sins in and of itself, his
>appointees have consistently refused to take in racial
>discrimination, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment cases.
>They have often sided with big business and government. And don't
>forget, EEOC, the enforcer of equal opportunity, has failed to
>investigate over 40% of discrimination complaints filed by
>employees. Go ask Dr. An Nguyen, a Vietnamese scientist at the
>University of Georgia, about his feeling of being fired without any
>reason!
>     Back to the real world and the 1990's, Need not to say, Bush's
>handling of the economy is very terrible. He has denied the R-word
>for so long that one must have wondered in which world he lives in.
>He blames it on everyone, except for his administration, from the
>cyclic nature of capitalism to Saddam Hussein to the gridlock
>congress. So, he asks the American people to replace another
>congress so that he could work with. Yes, it's true that Congress
>doesn't do well in public opinion, but this time is not unique
>either. In deed, "divided we govern" is the norm, not the
>exception, of American politics. Moreover, a leader's job is to
>lead, not to be led. Nixon had to work with the other party's
>congress, and he did just fine in his presidency up to the
>Watergate affair. FDR did the same. So, why not Bush?
>     Bush and his companies love to point out his success in
>foreign policy. But look at what have happened. During the final
>months of the evil empire, ignoring the call for a new policy move,
>he still counted on Gorbachev, believing that M. Gorbachev would be
>able to hold the Soviet Union together. Although things turned out
>fine for Yelsin, Bush's judgement must be called into question. And
>Tiananmen. What has he done for China's democracy? Naught! He still
>counts on personal acquaintances of the Beijing's old guards. He
>has granted MFN to China, not once but thrice, sent secret envoys
>to Beijing. In short, it is safe to reiterate that although Bush
>has tremendous experience in foreign affairs, experience alone
>won't do the job. Or speaking differently, intelligent is not how
>much one knows, it is how well one does when he/she doesn't know.
>Bush failed this test.
>     Lack of judgement can not be a good leader.
>     Lack of compassion can not be a good leader.
>     Lack of leadership can not be a good leader.
>     Bush could not and will not be able to lead the congress. Bush
>failed to recognize the danger of AIDS, the pain of being jobless,
>the desperation of poverty. Bush couldn't formulate a sound post-
>cold war foreign policy; instead, counting on personal diplomacy at
>the expenses of historic developments in recent years. Bush is not
>a good leader!
>     It's time for him go fishing permanently and for good!
>
>
>
>--------------------------
>Tra^`n Y' Va^n
>Copyleft, 1992. (reposted)


From: lpham@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Leslie Pham)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:17:53 GMT
Subject: Gio.t Le^. Cho Anh..
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA