From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Quayle, and the draft (Was Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!)
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:49:27 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.003037.14137@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>|> Actually, that wasn't the issue.  You've conveniently redirected it.
>|> The issue was: if it was OK for Clinton to do *anything legal* to get out
>|> of going to Vietnam, why was that not OK for Quayle?  (You can talk about
>|> how you scorn people with connections in some other post.)

>	Actually, I think that your the one doing the redirecting, chip.
>Lots of people talk about Dans war record, but what really makes it 
>interesting is his insistance that Clinto is a draft dodger. If Dan
>wasn't so self ritious about it, I don't think that it would be the
>issue that it is. I haven't heard Clinton calling Dan a draft dodger,
>for instance.

The post that I was responding to was in response to my question about
the fairness of saying, "he didn't do anything illegal" about Clinton,
but nailing Quayle to a cross for doing the same thing.  (I'm going to
have to start merging all these posts--I'm getting the distinct feeling
that I'm repeating myself...)

This may not be what *you* want to discuss, but it was the question I
asked, and in changing the subject, the poster did indeed redirect the
topic.

As for Quayle calling Clinton a draft dodger (another topic), I conceed
that if he wanted the issue to die, he shouldn't have brought it up.
I think, however, that in doing so, he is pointing up an incredible
hypocrisy on the part of those who've accused him of draft dodging and are
unable to see Clinton in the same light. 

>	Dans record is an issue because Dan made it an issue. If the GOP
>stoppes talking about Clintons draft experiance, then I expect that the
>Dems will also drop the subject. After all, there are so many other, more
>substancial issues to use on Dan Quayle.

No, Quayle didn't make it an issue.  He may have brought it up again,
but he certainly did not *make* it an issue.  And how decent of you to
let it go now that you aren't so morally justified in your attacks...

>|> Get real.  He may have had friends in the right places, but he certainly was
>|> not brought up in a rich, powerful family.  You've been reading too many
>|> newspapers.  But I digress.  This wasn't the original subject... 

>	Well, he father is a millionare several times over. Thats rich
>and powerful in my book, I don't know about yours. Dan is only worth
>about a mil, because his dad put most of the estate in a trust fund for
>the grandchildren, presumably to avoid a conflict of interest with Dans
>deregulatory efforts.

So how much money did he have when Quayle was growing up?  It makes no
difference how much he, or Quayle, has now.  I've seen the house he grew
up in--it's no mansion.  Even if he had a million back then, it certainly
wouldn't have made him "rich and powerful".
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire