From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:43:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan12.010841.11899@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
>That's funny---seeing as how Clinton hasn't yet taken office I don't beleive
>that even a single appointment has been approved as of yet.

I'm sure you must have had your tounge planted firmly in your cheek when you 
made this statement.

>Now listen closely while I explain to you how our gov. works. First the people
>vote on who they want to represent them. Seeing as how the demmies have 
>controlled Congress for most of the last 3 decades that pretty much proves
>that the people have wanted the demmies in congress. 

Oh really does it, again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of 
what's really going on.   It only proves that the corrupt members of Congress
have endowed themselves with so many perks and powers that it is nearly 
impossible to for anyone to unseat an incummbent representative.  The
fact that they can out spend, out campaign, out mail and out pork barrel
the best of the outsiders, while at the same time throw up every imaginable
roadblock to hinder term limitation legislation, is the proof that sleaze 
politics and outright corruption keeps the Democrats in control, nothing more!

If my assesment is incorrect and yours is not, perhaps you'd like to 
tell us how many of the term limitation laws, that were on state ballots,
this November, managed to pass?  Then explain the implication of their passage
and tell me what it proves.

>Oh so you're saying that since the people want a Democratic controlled congress
>the only way to really get the best of either party is to vote for a Democrat
>for President. Thanks for pointing out yet another reason why the Rep. party 
>is currently failing.

Failing?  Explain to me how a party that has never had a chance to institute
it's policies can be determined to have failed anything?  Until the day that 
a Republican sits in the White House AND has plans implimented by a Republican
controlled Congress, a luxury that every failed Democratic President has had,
then you have nothing on which to base your opinions as to the relative 
success or failure of the party.

>a whole party look bad in the eyes of the public. And you all wonder why your 
>party's political power is dwindling.

Dwindling power huh, well lets see ten new conservative Republican seats in 
the Congress this year, six out of ten people voted against the Democratic
candidate and before Clinton even takes office many people consider a 
Republican (Jack Kemp) to be the favorite to win the White House in 1996
and you call that dwindling power.  

You and all the party hacks can continue to fool yourselves into believing
you've actually accomplished something this past year, if you'd like, but
the reality is that all that happened is that the media managed to convince
enough people that George Bush was not a great President and you know what,
it still took a third man to draw enough conservative support away from him
to allow Bill and Al the chance to sneak in the back door.  Before you and 
your party buddies get to enjoying your "success" I'd heartily suggest you
take a long look at the gains made in the Congress and in the many state races
and learn to distinguish between the short comings of a single man (a man
who btw has always been accused of not representing true Republican conservative
values - aka the country club liberal) and the supposed failings of the 
conservative ideology. 

But please don't let me shake you from your dream, your illusions only
further insures the imminent failure of Bill Clinton and the re-election of
a Republican in 1996.  In case you haven't heard Bill has already broken just
about every promise he made (yesterday's admission that he can't really
"halve the deficit" nearly made me pee my pants with laughter) and every
publication that supported him in November, from the latest issue of
Time to The New York Times, have begun attacking him before he's blinked.
Your boy's been found out and the media is having a field day.

Bill Clinton is D.O.A!


PSG

-- 
Industrial Policy: Phrase suggesting a Soviet style of		| Time magazine 
		   selective tax breaks and trade protection    |  Jan 18 1993
		   Seldom used by the Clinton team.              ---------------
Sector-Specific Strategies: Term used by the Clinton team.  Indsutrial Policy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc