From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:39:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <s3q12INNa28@agate.berkeley.edu> jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>And as for the tax/lips, it is a rather moot point.  The tax issue
>didn't really effect the vote much in '88.  I'll try to uncover the
>NES data on it later this week.

  I don't think NES data will reflect the true effect of the "tax issue".
"Read my lips, No New Taxes" was as much about not being a wimp and
being a tough fighter for a cause he believes in as it was anything else.
  
  To say the least, Bush let many of his supporters down.  Did he think
everyone could forget?

>
>And to the last poster who scorched someone's 6 reasons for Bush,
>BACK OFF!  Just a newsgroup, and while you and I don't see the logic
>as valid, it is his own.  And may the Bush supporters that have been
>emailing, rather than posting, be a little more bold.  You can always
>skip drooling fury like the article before.
>
>jason o'rourke

   Well, as someone else emailed me, anyone spilling forth 
drivel such as that just isn't in the same league as the rest of us.  On the
net, there is always a least common denominator on the prowel, but I
wouldn't let one ranting person disuade consideration of Perot.  Perot
could turn out to be legimate canidate.  I can't see how anyone could
be so for a man we all know so little about, but it's up to any voter
to decide how much information he needs to make up his mind.

  (Actually, I did skip most of that article.  Someone emailed me telling me
its content.)

  For the most part, I'm impressed by the high S/N ratio this newsgroup
has held so far.  It's not at all shabby for the net. 

  Anyway, on to some real content...

  As I said at the beginning of my last article, I can think of more reasons not
to vote for Bush than to vote for Bush.  However, I can think of even fewer
to vote for Clinton.  Basically I dislike both canidates but prefer
Republican ideals to Democrat ideals.

  Just for fun, let's take Bush and Clinton at their word and compare their
stated positions on 8 issues of our time.  I'll rank my favorite on each
of the issues.


Foreign Policy:  You are free to disagree, but Bush's foreign policy seems
likely to me to be better than Clinton's.  Of course, with Clinton as a 
Governor, we have no real way to tell, but foreign policy is not as simple
(IMHO) as it appears in hindsight.  Bush has defintely made mistakes, but I
believe Clinton would make even more.  I'm not sure any president in modern
times has had a foreign policy as respectable as Bush's.
I give foreign policy to Bush.

Health Care:  Neither has a Health Care program I like, but that's OK since
the Health Care lobby has "lobbied" much of our Congress anyway.  Nothing
substantial is likely to get done on this issue.  Neither get's the message
that our current Health Care program is outrageously wasteful, but at least
Clinton's play or pay seems to try to address this large-scale problem more
than Bush's vouchers and tax credits for those earning less than $70,000.
I give this to Clinton.

Economy and Taxes:  Clinton's middle class tax cut with an increase in
high incomes faces Bush's capital gains tax cut, $5,000 credit for first
time home buyers, and increasing by $500 per dependent child.  Clinton also
propose a variety of programs, which aren't bad as far as programs go, but
Bush cuts 246 federal programs to cut spending.   
I like cuts in federal spending.  I give this to Bush.

Crime:  I don't think either canidate is "weak on crime".  Bush actually
has a plan that includes "education and treatment" as well as enforcement.
(I like that).   Clinton favors the Brady Bill and community "beat policing".
(I like that).  Wish we could merge the two.
I call this one a tie.

Education:  Bush supports a voucher-like system and public money for
private shools to cover tuition.  Also supports awarding some scholarships
on the basis of *race* (imagine that?).  I really like this plan.
  Clinton favors head start for everyone, trust fund for higher education,
and a program where we can trade community service for a college or
vocational school education.  
  To me, Clinton falls short in realizing the depth of the problems in
the public school systems.  In fact, I really believe he has to believe in
more than the above. He has a(self-given) reputation for pushing education.
Choice in educational systems is a big plus to me.
I give this to Bush. 

Free Trade: Both are free-traders (at least officially).  Tie.

Environment and Energy:  I'd need to know more to distinguish the
difference between these two on this issue.  Bush seems to be slighlty
more concerned about the economic implications of such issues, while
Clinton supports the same things as Bush without appearing that concerned about
the economic implications.
Slight edge to Bush.

Defense: Bush wants to cut the B-2, MX, and Peace keeping missle.
Keep funding for SDI.  Cut budget by $50 million.
  Clinton wants to cut by 1/3 military budget. Keep R&D on missle defense.
Stop B-2 Bomber.  Research Agency to hire defense contractors losing 
their jobs.
  On paper they both sound pretty reasonable to me.  Since I'm sticking
with the "on paper" viewpoints, I'll discount Bush's experience and
call it a tie.


   So, I guess from this list, I would vote for Bush because of his Foreign
policy, economy and taxes, crime, education, environment and energy, free trade,
and defense.

  I would vote for Clinton because of his Health Care, Crime, free trade,
and Defense.

  On paper I guess I'm more for Bush.  The only thing I gave Clinton
a clear victory on was Health Care, and as I said I don't really like his 
plan and I suspect that our Congress may have already been "lobbied" out
of making substantial changes in this anyway.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us