From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Repost from alt.politics.bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:19:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Personal exercise (mental) Re: Positive aspects of Mr. Bush?
Keywords: Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:10:45 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I appreciate the compliments, Lee.

elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:|> hausman@caffeine.cen.uiuc.edu (Kevin Hausman) writes:
:|> :I've been following alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton
:|> :for the past few weeks and it seems to me that there is a trend
:|> :here.  Most posts seem to 
:|> :	1.  Say good things about Clinton
:|> :	2.  Say bad things about Clinton
:|> :	3.  Say bad things about Bush
:|> :I would like to raise the question "What are some POSITIVE reasons
:|> :that I should vote for George Bush in 1992?"  From what I've been
:|> :reading, most of the conservatives who post here seem to only
:|> :site "how bad things would be under Clinton" as a reason to vote 
:|> :for Bush.  How about some positive aspects?
:
:This was an excellent question. Unfortunately, it did not evoke many
:positive comments on Bush. One of the people who tried hard to keep
:the spirit of the question was Emil Chuck; his comments are summarized
:below. As you'll see, although he tried to stick to saying positive
:things about Bush, he was only able to do this on his first point. On
:later points, he resorted to bashing Clinton. Is there so little good
:to be said about Bush?
	As I normally do, I shoot away with my followups without much
time to comtemplate answers. After having to volley shots back
concerning Clinton, it gets pretty difficult to keep my mind straight.

:|> 	Good question, Kevin. [My disclaimer: I'm a registered
:|> independent with a center-right political philosophy. Religion: southern
:|> Baptist (origin: Shreveport LA which is near the borders of both TX and
:|> AR). Currently a student at Duke.]
:|> 	1. Judicial appointments. [rest deleted]
:
:Good work Emil, you found something positive to say about Bush.
:Honest folk may differ about the quality of Bush's appointments,
:but at least you did not have to bash Clinton here.
	Well, Clinton doesn't appoint justices to the Arkansas Supreme
Court; they get voted in -- to the best of my knowledge. I also have no
clue about his state cabinet appointments. So I can't say much negative
things about Clinton here. I will admit this is the primary reason why I
still am leaning towards voting for George.

>|> 	2. Foreign policy. This has become the latest battleground for
>|> the campaign as Democrats are trying to paint Clinton as knowledgable
>|> about foreign policy. I don't think Clinton is quite frankly. He may be
>|> a nice guy and all, but will lifelong officers in the military respect a
>|> man who did not serve his country in a time of conflict by dodging the
>|> military draft? Bush still has an awesome resume on foreign policy
>|> experience (despite all the jokes about his throwing up in Japan or
>|> crying in Panama). In short, who would you feel more comfortable as the
>|> commander-in-chief? (More about leadership below.)
>
>BZZZZ!! Sorry, calling Clinton a "draft-dodger" loses you 1 point.
>you were doing well here; you should have just stuck to positive
>comments about Bush
	Whoa, I didn't know this was a test! (Of course this still comes
before the convention where I hope to review all that he has done.
Engineering and medical research sap a lot out of me.)
	The more positive version. Bush does still have a lot more
foreign policy experience than Clinton. He did hold the line when it
came to getting the Israeli government and all the Arab governments on
the peace table (with special kudos to Jim Baker). Though caught in the
fluidity of the new Russian revolution, Bush has done his best to make
sure as many of the new Eastern European nations have started the
transition away from Communism. (Bosnia-Hercegovina remains a good
question on this, however.) I think he has done an outstanding job in
the midst of the changes in the geopolitical scene from the falling of
the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain to the new horizons in peace in the
Middle East. The only area that remains uncertain is not only the new
civil skirmishes in Eastern Europe, but also in Asia and Africa. I think
he is the better person to be a world leader and diplomat than Clinton.

:|> 	3. Budgetary restraint. If Clinton gets elected, watch the
:|> explosion of pet projects that every irresponsible Democrat and
:|> Republican (there are some after all) is going to pump through, draining
:|> tons of money from the Treasury? Who's going to pay for health care,
:|> AIDS research, education, federal funding for abortions, defense,
:|> infrastructure, student loans, the environment, the space program, and
:|> all the salaries of every person who works for the government? And how
:|> about balancing the budget? At least Bush will hedge some resistance,
:|> though his past actions show he is as stiff on his stance on some
:|> legislative items as a piece of Kleenex.
:
:BZZZ! BZZZZZ!!! All I see here is a sort of partial apology for
:Bush at the end of alot of Clinton bashing. No credit! Remember,
:the original question was " How about some positive aspects?"
:Saying "well, Clinton would be worse" was *explicitly* ruled
:out.
	Well, this is an indictment of the Democratic Congress. As
recently as this week, Democratic Congressional leaders have
specifically passed several bills in Congress with the expectation that
Bush will veto the bills. Examples: family leave and abortion-rights
bills. They are using these bills as the weapons for the campaign over
which they can pommel Bush.
	But okay. Budgetary restraints, positive. Bush has tried to
curtail spending of the federal budget. He did go along with the "Budget
Deal of 1990" because he thought that he had in effect had an agreement
from the Congress to stop their tendencies to go off and spend beaucoup
money on whatever. Unfortunately for him, not only did he have to
concede raising taxes to do it, but the Democrats haven't adhered to the
budget deal since! I think that Bush will not make the same mistake and
be conciliatory to the less fiscally responsible elements in Congress
should he be re-elected. If the gridlock he has with Congress results in
completely shutting down the government, he should let the government
shut itself down (hey, I work for the government, and if it gets me off
my butt to tell Congress to get it's act together, I'll do it)!

>|> 	4. Comic relief. Four more years of Bushisms and Quayle jokes.
>|> You can't really make fun of Gore like you can Quayle. One bright hope
>|> is Hillary Clinton making Nancy Reagan look like Glenda the Good Witch
>|> of the North from the Wizard of Oz, but I wouldn't vote for spouses of
>|> the top of the ticket. Bill Clinton sounds like he has all the answers
>|> on 3x5 index cards while Bush sounds like he's shuffled all his at
>|> times. :)
>
>I'll award you a double smiley for that (-: :-) but I don't think
>we can really honestly consider it positive comment for Bush. Also,
>a warning for mild Hillary bashing. I'm impressed by her. I like
>her. Are you seriously saying you preferred Nancy & her astrologer?
	It's meant for a double smile.
	As for Hillary, I recall quite a few years back that Nancy was
being trashed by the press too. I don't have too much that is personal
hatred of Mrs. Clinton, but I don't know about her views on children and
their relationship with parents, or even why she hasn't been more a part
of the Clinton-Gore campaign if she is such an engaging person. (Yes, I
do cite the law review paper she wrote back in the 70's as the more
publicized example.)
	The views of the future First Lady are important. Look at how
Barbara Bush carries herself on interviews whether solo or with her
husband. As many people do cite, George Bush's best asset is Barbara. It
is somewhat of an unfair thing to do, but the "selection" of one's
spouse tells a lot about the person(s), perhaps as much as the Vice
Presidential selection does for the political game. I know that there
are couples whose politics do differ, but why do they stay together? I
can say love for Bill and Hill :), but I can't say that is the primary
reason they're still together.

:|> :I am personally leaning toward Clinton for one big reason--leadership.
:|> :I see a tremendous lack of it in George Bush.  What I don't understand
:
:[rest deleted]
:
:|> 	Did you ever question Bush's leadership during the Gulf
:|> Conflict? The guy has some leadership qualities. I will admit I hate to
:|> see George be so darn defensive. Likely he won't be after the
:|> convention. But you're right -- well, actually half-right. Bush can do
:|> lots of things, but some of the things he is trying to do requires
:|> Congressional approval. And who controls Congress? There have been a
:|> large number of bills that Congress is getting approved strictly so that
:|> Bush could veto it, hence giving the Dems some campaign ammo. His
:|> inner-city plans, his education plans, his health care plan -- all this
:|> is shelved in Congress' #86 file (trash, or we'll get to it in 2086).
:|> The one thing that Bush hasn't done that often is go to the American
:|> people like Reagan did and electrify his constituency to action.
:
:Yes, Bush provided leadership during the Gulf war. But he has not
:provided leadership about spending and the deficit. We need to cut
:spending. This will require making some *hard* choices. Either the
:congress, the president, or both have to make these hard choices.
:Congress has demonstrated repeatedly its inability to do so. Anyone
:who expects congress to suddenly start spending cuts on its own is
:*dreaming*! Unfortunately, that's just what Bush's fiscal policy
:requires. Bush wants to cut taxes and pass a balanced budget amendment
:(to be effective in 1996. What good will that do us now?). This
:leaves in the hands of congress the job of deciding what spending
:to cut, while Bush can take the credit for tax cuts. Anyone who
:expects this to actually happen, wake up and smell the coffee!
:If we want to cut spending, the President will have to take the lead
:and suggest ways to share the pain. This is called "leadership."
:This is the job we elect presidents for. We elect our congressmen
:to represent our interests and bring bacon into our districts.
:This is their job! Bush is failing to do his job, and expecting
:congress to stop doing theirs! We also expect the president to
:lead by example. Bush is doing miserably here too. He is fighting
:hard to keep the supercollider and the space station; both of which
:benefit his home state of Texas; he is fighting against maglev
:research. He wants to keep his pet projects and cut somebody elses.
:Just like everyone else in congress! This is not leadership!
	I'm not sure what an abortion-rights bill has to do with
bringing the bacon to Congressional districts, but I digress.
	As I mentioned, Bush has tried to do what you're saying. The
only problem is that the suggestions he makes with respect to what
programs to cut is being seriously impeded because whatever cuts he has
to make, people in certain distrcits or states are going to be hurt. I'm
sure defense spending cuts weren't favorites to too many people when
they realized bases in their hometowns/districts were earmarked to be
shut down. But this is the easiest of cases. Cutting welfare programs
has caused an uproar because to the Democrats this shows that the
President "doesn't care." Yet, if the President doesn't extend
unemployment benefits to people who are already on the rolls for 6
months by another 6 months, then the President -- guess what -- "doesn't
care." He can't win if he cuts spending on pet projects or refuses to
executive-order/sign/whatever spending on others.
	What his problem has been is that he prefers to compromise with
Congress instead of being as confrontational as Reagan was. This was
even hinted in his inaugural address back in 1989! In order to get
along, he has to "sleep" with the boys and be one of the guys. Sometimes
compromise is good, but the other side is taking advantage of his
good-natured efforts to compromise to screw Bush politically (which is
perhaps their right as the opposition). Being a leader means someone
must be willing to follow him, and those someones in Congress won't do
it -- even if Bush cuts his own throat.
	What worries me too is that Clinton doesn't seem to be that much
better of an alternative. If he gets in, I fear he'll be Carterized into
the Democratic leaders' whims lest he be dumped off the ticket or
embarrassed by a show of disunity in the Congress. I hear a lot of
populist ideas from Clinton, but I can't see how he can juggle all of
these things for four years, considering the "undiscovered country" in
the geopolitical future.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?