From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The real Dan Quayle
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:17:04 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Quayle Apologists On Top of Toxic Waste

v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes: >
>
> I recently posted a statement which called for some respect to the Vice Pres-
>ident Dan Quayle, and it was met with a slew of negative comments.  

Um, you *did* read this group's charter before posting here, didn't you?
Oh, you didn't?  Well, then I guess you deserved every comment you got.

By the way, the group's charter is:

    alt.fan.dan-quayle    For fans of Vice-President Dan Quayle...NOT!!

>What I ask
>all those people who are quick to bash Quayle is to take a step back and look
>at the man with an unbiased attitude.  

This, of course, presupposes that those who are "quick to bash Quayle" do
so with a biased attitude.  Would you care to demonstrate that our
attitude is more biased, then, say, oh, yours?  I contend that at least
our "bashes" are fully documented.

>I reaffirm my belief that Quayle was
>victorious in his debate with Al Gore, and not only do I believe he won but I 
>believe he did so convincingly.  

That's nice.  I can reaffirm my belief that you are a pink space alien
who eats toxic waste for dinner, but that doesn't make it true.  Care
to back up that blatant assertion with something resembling a series
of supporting arguments?

Oh, I forgot.  The RNC found that thinking is hazardous to their
Party's health.

>Thus far, I have received only negative re-
>sponses, but I am sure the vast majority of the population will agree with me.

Thus far, I have received only negative responses to my claim that
Dan Quayle is actually a Rhodes Scholar, but I am sure the vast majority
of the population will agree with me, because I believe this in all my
heart, and that counts for more than mere logic or evidence, Praise God!

For extra credit, demonstrate how the two arguments above are logically
equivalent.

>Quayle has embraced the conservative philosophy that will surface in the 1996 
>Presidential election, and this coupled with his ability to overcome the nega-
>tive press he endured in his four years as VP should put him in a commanding 
>position in the 1996 campaign.  

My, for someone with little understanding of how to present a rational
argument, he sure does use a lot of big words.  Dependent clauses and
everything!  I hate to be a spoilsport (oh, who's kidding who; I LOVE
this), but I must bring to light the following information that directly
contradicts your claims above.

   1a. In order to win a Presidential election, a candidate must win
       more votes than his or her opponent(s).

   1b. Exit polls indicated that many Republicans voted for Democrats
       because they did not agree with the current Republican platform.
       IN PARTICULAR they were offended by the anti-woman, anti-gay,
       anti-choice, and moralist tone as epitomized by Mr. Quayle.

   1c. A winning candidate must appeal to the Independent voters, most
       of whom are not "conservative" as defined by Republicans.  (This
       does not mean they are not conservatives in the true sense of
       the word, which means advocating as little change as possible.)

   2.  A majority of people polled believed Dan Quayle was less qualified
       to be President than Al Gore.  This was also true in Indiana. 

   3.  A majority of people polled felt that Dan Quayle hurt the
       Republican Presidential ticket, including in Indiana.  Including
       Republicans.

   4.  Among the candidates discussed for 1996, the names often heard
       are Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, William Weld, and William Bennett.
       Dan Quayle is considered too ridiculous by most Republican
       leaders as a viable candidate.  

>As for the current state of our country, I feel
>Bill Clinton should paraphrase what George Bush has said many times "God Bless 
>America" to "God Help America" because with a man of his ilk, we will certainly 
>need it.

Again, you make an assertion without offering any proof.  Would you care
to comment on why the country will be worse off with Clinton as President
than with Bush/Quayle?  However, you must offer a substantive discussion,
not innuendo and insinuation, such as the "of his ilk" comment, which is
straight out of McCarthyist anti-Communist pronouncements.

It is my belief that you are incapable of doing so, and as evidence I
offer your two postings.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle