From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:38:39 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep14.221314.17457@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
]The Democratic party's platform?  I don't think so.  We wouldn't be
]pouring billions of dollars down the War on Civil Liberties rathole if a
]Democrat was in charge.  (While few Democrats have the political courage
]to oppose the WoD directly, they at least question the focus on law
]enforcement and want to divert that money to treatment, the only
]possibly effective approach.)

Give me a break! Who do you think votes the appropriations bills that
pay for the WOD enforcement? With regard to WOD, it makes NO difference 
whether we have a Republican or Democrat president. The American people
support (sigh) the enforcement side of WOD. I see no reason to believe
that Democrats are more pro-civil liberties than republicans, although
each have somewhat different choices (Republicans are more interested
in prosecuting criminals, the democrats are more interested in
confiscating property from those who earn it).

The WOD is counterproductive and dangerous, but it is believed in
by a vast majority of the well meaning people of this country.

]>But it is very clear that US policy, particularly in Afghanistan, resulted
]>in increased setbacks to the USSR's foreign adventurism during the 80s. This
]>helped destabilize the regime.
]
]Sort of like Vietnam, right?

A good argument can be made that US intervention in VietNam stopped
the domino effect. At the time of that war, communist insurgencies were
active in many SE asian countries. The insurgencies failed in all
of those countries  except Cambodia (Laos and South Vietnam were
won by direct invasion, not insurgency).

]>Continued nonsense. There was no "massive military buildup". Spending was
]>only 0.6% more in the 80s than in the 70s, and it was 2.2% less than in
]>the 60s. Insignificant. All the significant growth in spending was in
]>social spending, government administration, entitlement payments and the
]>like which certainly do *not* fuel growth.
] 
]In the 1960's and early 1970's, we were at war.  Or didn't you notice?
]Comparing peacetime levels of spending to wartime, and then concluding
]that we spent less while we were at peace, doesn't prove much.

We were also at war in the 1980's - the cold war. However, if I should
point out that once Carter "grew in office" - he was the one who started
the military buildup of the '80s. So there was at least one Democrat
president who agreed with Reagan on that. Also, 1980's defense spending
as a percentage of GNP was far smaller than it was in 1960.... under
JFK.... with no war in progress. How do you explain that?

]Furthermore, it was *Carter* who reacted decisively to the Afghanistan
]invasion by immediately imposing a grain embargo on the USSR, and Reagan
]who decided to prop up the Soviet Union by selling them the grain they needed. 

Oh yeah, that grain embargo was REALLY effective. Far more effective was 
the support that Reagan gave to the Afghan rebels. Furthermore, it was
Carter's naive belief that Breshnev wouldn't engage in adventurism that
allowed Breshnev to believe he could get away with it in Afghanistan
(and Angola, and Ethiopia, and Nicaragua, and ...)
] 
]>See? They're already preparing the excuses. One reason the Democrats were
]>so stunned to lose in '84 was that they didn't think Reagan could turn the
]>economy around in only two years. Surprise.

Actually, the economy will turn around regardless of who is president.
The president can alter the slope a little bit, but in general the
economy is bigger than the president. Now, the president plus congress
do have the capability to wreck the economy, but if they don't take it,
it will recover... probably slightly more slowly under Clinton (if Gore's
environmental policies are legislated).
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections