From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RNC musing
Date: 21 Aug 1992 17:54:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <37104@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> o The LATimes printed a list of the GOP positions on various issues,
|>   and the status of those positions. My problem, I agree
|> with many of those [less regulation, less spending], but have
|> serious reservations on some positions [foreign policy, social
|> agenda] and the GOP tactics. 

I don't have a problem with people in the far-right of the GOP using
their religiosity, piety, etc. as EXAMPLE of how other people should
be -- I just don't want them trying to legislate those positions into
law. The Wall Street Journal had a piece yesterday on the almost kooky
nature of some of the positions espoused by the Washington GOP which is
pretty much owned and managed by the evangelicals. Among other things,
they are against something called "channeling" being taught in public
schools (maybe I have this wrong), against Yoga, for teaching Creationism,
against the UN and foreign aid. I half-expected to also see some swipes
at the Rockefellers & the Rothschilds, the Council on Foreign Relations
and the Trilateral Commission and of how they are conspiring to take over
the world (maybe they left that out since Bush was a member of both of
the last two mentioned bodies).

|> o Outright misleading lies from Bond, Quayle, and co; I expect that
|>   from them. But when Bush mentioned the 1 tax-hike vs. 128
|> tax&fee-hikes, I almost puked. Raising some obscure criminal fee by
|> $1 is counted as one of those 128, raising alcohol tax on beer,
|> wines, coolers are considered as 3 different hikes. gimme a break..
|> Using the same rules, how many times did Bush raise taxes?

Reagan-Bush raised taxes 320 times under the same system of counting. They
would be better off pointing out the fact that Arkansas is the only state
in the Union to have a tax on food. And that Bill Clinton, when faced with
having to fight for a tax increase to fund education, opted to raise taxes
on food (the easy way) rather than fight for other taxes, which were tougher
to raise. 

|>  
|> o "Family values.. see how many children/grandchildren I have.. ain't
|>   I great.." All that proves is that Bush and children were good
|> baby-producers. It doesn't produce jobs, doesn't help the economy, 
|> or solve anything. Its a *personal* issue that nobody holds a high
|> moral ground on, nor should the govt poke their noses into. As one
|> ex-Perot worker put it, "it's a fluff issue".

But it works, like -ve advertising, and people will use it. Like Al Gore,
who (shamelessly) exploited his son's having had an accident to blather
ad infinitum on the gloom and doom that faces us if we do not start wearing
tiger skins, live in caves and eat grass. Or like Dan Quayle (anyone who thinks
that BOTH Veep candidates gave MUCH better speeches than Pres. candidates?)
who talked of his m-in-law dying of breast cancer to show how human a guy
he is. Both parties use such tactics. The Democrats because they have realized
that it works for the GOP, the GOP because it has worked for them.


|> o Which brings us to why some americans ever buy into these 
|>   fluff-issues; flag-wrapping, i-american-u-!american, pledge-of-
|> allegience, prayer, etc.. or dont they? I hope not..

I tend to believe that when things are going dandy on the economy, attention
automatically focusses on things like moral values, character etc. That's
probably why it worked in 1988, and I don't believe that it is an in appropriate
thing to be discussed. No one wants a slimeball for President. It is just
unfortunate that plenty of guys with sterling "character" can be hopelessly
inept on economic issues. When the economy starts going into the sewer, it rises
to the top in the roster of issues that get discussed. Explains why Bush is
getting hammered by a guy like Clinton, whom no one would have given a chance
of winning had the economy been vigorous.

|> | Prashanth                    |                         |


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------