From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:18:16 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


   References: <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com>



>>   refering to, of course, Hillary Clinton.  The GOP should have never
>>   brought this up.  As it happens now it has brought these writings
>>   into the spotlight, and they are being talked about everywhere as
>>   being very well written and highly regarded by members of the law
>>   community conservatives and liberals alike.  They tried to use it
>>
> Being well written does not equal being well thought out or right.
> Actually I have read the article is question and it has a fair share of
> ambiguities.  I was always taught that good writing was clear, concise
> and did not confuse the reader.

You forgot '...and know your audience.'.  I don't know what your credentials
are but maybe you were in over your head trying to understand it.

>
>    to put down the Clinton campaign, but it's turning out to be a real
>    boost as people begin to understand what it's *REALLY* all about.
>    It has really helped bring all of the wonderful work Hillary has
>    done for children all over the country.  Oh, by the way, she has
>    received letters of praise for her work from Barbara Bush.
>
> >>marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
>
>    In her writings she uses this analogy to demonstrate a point about
>    what is *WRONG* about some familys.  In other words, she was describing
>    what a family should *NOT* be like.  Are all the lying right wing
>    radicals staying with me on this or am I using too many negatives?
>
>  You should read the original before you misinterpret it.
>
I heard the article read and interupereted on KNPR.  I am confident of my
interpretation as it is consistant with both conservative and liberal
interpretations that I heard during the show of not only that article
but several others that she has written since.
>
> >>The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
> >>for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
> >>the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?   Sorry, they
> >>opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.
>
>    And after all, with Reagan we did just get one decision maker didn't we??
>
> Anybody who thinks that the wife of a President isn't going to have some
> influence on his thinking is a danger to himself and society as whole.
> Which is my point.
>
(I'm not sure what you mean by 'danger to society' here, but anyway.)
Your point maybe, but it's not the GOP point.  They deliberately spread
vile misinformation that was actually slander because it said that she
had taken a position she hadn't.  It wasn't just partly wrong, it was
completely wrong.
>
> >>I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
>
>    Ahhh, that explains your radical rightwing extremist point of view.
>
> Hardly.  I happen to be pro-choice, an atheist, I believe ALL drugs
> should be legalized and I believe that no one should be discriminated
> against on the basis of something they are born with e.g. race or (gasp)
> homosexuality.  I also believe that as a society we should help our poor
> and downtrodden.  Where I part company with the liberals is in our beliefs
> in the means we should employ to effect the helping.
>
Well, okay, I'm sorry I called you a rightwing extremist.  But with the
way the far right has pushed forth their agenda on the GOP platform it's
hard for me to imagine how anyone can support their platform and still
believe in the things you do.  Good luck with promoting your agenda.

> >>is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
> >>State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
> >>of her legal and political positions is in order.
>
>  Well you know what they say, if you read it in People Magazine, the
>  National Enquirer, or hear it on Rush Limbaugh, then it must be true.
>
>I would be a nice excesize for you to document untruthful statements from
>Rush Limbaugh.  He's quite rigorous in checking his facts.
>
No, it would be very unpleasant.  I followed him for a few months, but
I will no longer.  I perceive him as a hate-monger running shock radio
with a kind of right-wing Geraldo sensationalist twist to it.  He uses
rhetorical tools to twist the 'what I meant' of 'Now, what I said was...',
so that it comes out as '...so that's really what I've been saying all
along!'.  And when he's so blatantly wrong about one of his 'predictions'
that even rhetoric won't cover it up he just avoids discussing it again.
I wouldn't listen to him again for any amount of money under six figures.
>
> >>Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
> >>that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself. If you can't
>
>  (Well, that's not what was said or who said it, but I get your point.)
>
> Oh yes it is, I heard her say it.  Actually the above is a slight
> misquote, what she actually said was, "Remember if you buy one you get
> two."
>
>
>  Hey, why stop with his wife, why not go after their daughter, friends,
>  other relatives and pets too!?  Sounds like a tough decision to make,
>  it depends on who is most vulnerable "...hmmmm, what kind of grades did
>  their daughter get last year? ...has she failed any spelling tests??".
>  Fortunately for the Demos they don't have to go after Barbara or
>  Marilyn because George and Danny boy are vulnerable enough, buffoons
>  that they are.
>
> Quite simply because his wife is a politically active person who,as the
> wife of the president, will excersize an influence far greater than if
> she were just another bright lawyer involved in political causes.

I could understand you argument if the GOP were just going after Hillary
on her views.  My point is that they haven't!  They have made false claims
and tried to misrepresent her.  Now, if they want to address her views
directly, then ya, sure, you're right, she and all other first lady types
are fair game.  But that's not what the GOP are doing, they're deliberately
misrepresenting her in and attempt to discredit her.

> Vulnerable?  Hillary Rodham?  What a laugh.

You know, it's kind of funny.  The GOP had to go back 20 years to find
something on her, and now they can't make it stick.  What a sad and
desparate campaign strategy.  Vulnerable?  I didn't say that she was
vulnerable.  I'm merely taking a stab at what might be the next step
for the GOP.  It's obvious that they've given up on the *REAL* issues
and so they'll probably go for some more name-calling 'this is the type
of person Bill hangs out with...' kind of stuff.  I wouldn't be at all
surprised to see them attacking Bills daughter, or a personal friend
of his.

Marty L. Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh