From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Brown crushes Clinton; Bush camp in disarray
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:57:05 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Apr6.232636.20293@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
pjl2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul J Landsberg) writes:
 
>Jim McMaster writes:
>>I agree with a lot that you say.  The Democratic Party is in deep
>>trouble.  I *wish* I had another choice besides Clinton, but the
>>simple fact is that I do not.  The Republicans have been in charge
>>for twelve years now, and have caused severe damage to the economy
>>and the country.
>I could have sworn there were at least a couple of hundred
>representatives, congress-piggies and senators also "in charge."
>Drat, where have they gone.
>
This has been argued to death in other threads.  The President proposes
a budget, and neither Reagan nor Bush have ever proposed one that was
close to being in balance.  The total spending passed by Congress has
been very close to that proposed by the President.  The argument has
not been over how much to spend, only the distribution of the spending.
*Both* parties share the blame.  The Republicans tack just as much pork
onto the budget as the Democrats.  The Republicans talk about reducing
spending, but they don't really do it.
 
>>Look at what Ronnie & George have done to the
>>Supreme Court!  Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and (whatever-his-
>>name-is) Kennedy are disasters to the freedom of all Americans.
>>The "borrow-and-spend" Republicans are even worse than the "tax-and-
>>spend" Democrats against whom they rail.
>
>Ah, the crux of the issue.  Too many pigs at the government trough?
>Hmmmmmmmmmm........now who is using this as a campaign theme?
>
If you read the opening of my original post, I acknowledged that the
Democrats have problems.  In my opinion, though, the Republicans are
worse by far.
>
>>The Democratic Party did not "anoint" Clinton.  He has become the
>>leader of the party's moderate-conservative wing.  He has done a good
>>enough job as Governor of Arkansas to be reelected five times by the
>>people of his state.  There are several people I wish were on the
>>ballot, but the fact is they were too chicken to challenge Bush when
>>they had the chance.  Out of the six who got into the race, Clinton
>>is the best choice.  He beat Tsongas, Kerrey and Harkin fair and square,
>>by the prevailing rules.
>Money talks..........and talks...........and talks........and talks.......
>
I don't see your point.  Money talks, so what?  It takes money to run a
campaign, and all the candidates try to raise as much as they can.
That's the way the game is played.  The other candidates were not able
to raise as much as Clinton, as hard as they tried.  Therefore, they
could not compete as effectively.  Therefore, they lost.
>
>>I seriously question the mental capacity of anyone who really believes
>>Jerry Brown should be President.  If he runs agains Bush, I will cast my
>>first Republican ballot in twenty years.  Brown is a weaselly politician
>>who changes his mind about any issue, depending on the current polls and
>>the current audience.
>So, given a choice between a 'good ole boy' who can play with the rich
>white men on the all-white golf course (BCCI banker giving him $$$$$)
>and a rich Texas oil man you like Sleeeeeepery Bill.  AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHH,
>doesn't this say something to you?  Like in the Louisiana Gubernatorial
>election, given an admitted crook or a racist, are you actually PROUD
>of a party that offers you a crook?  Same goes for the 'duke' party.
>
Yes, I prefer Clinton to Bush.  Bush has had four years in office and
screwed the country over royally.  I disagree with his current
positions on almost everything.  I have problems with Clinton, but I
still prefer him to Bush.  The country club thing is trivia...Clinton
has supported civil rights his whole life.
 
>>After two terms as Governor of California, he had
>>a 60% negative rating from his constituents, and got creamed when he ran
>>for the Senate.  He has latched onto the current discontent in the country,
>>and has come up with his $100 gimmick to get votes.  He cries about corrup-
>>tion in the process, and proposes a flat tax that would increase the
>>deficit by hundreds of billions.  This man would be a disaster as
>>President.
>Gad, another pet peeve.  Read your favorite editorialist.  If he whines
>about a flat tax being unfair, realize what they/he/she are propounding
>as best.  Our 4000 pages of tax code.  WHAT?  How can anyone argue
>for 4000 pages of tax code?  Geez.
>
The tax code is a nightmare, and needs to be reformed.  But Brown's plan
has severe flaws, too.  It may or may not be fair to lower-income people,
but that is not my main concern.  The rates are too low, and the result
would be a huge increase in the deficit.  Brown just says "trust me",
but I do not think he has thought this through.  He left in the
deductions for mortgage interest, and added a new one for rent.  If he
really had any guts, he would have axed those deductions, and gone for
a gross income tax.  This might have been better, but it is political
suicide.  Just because I have qualms about Brown's plan does not mean I
like the current system.
 
>>You like Brown's ideas?  Don't count on his still having the same ones
>>once he gets elected!  He is a world champion at the flip-flop, and
>>has no convictions to back up his ideas.  As soon as a more popular
>>"cause" arises, he will jump on that one too.
>
>I count on Clinton to feed his buddies their standard pork dinners,
>give his mistress a state/federal job or two, maybe throw a few contracts
>Hillary's way........GAD!  Consistency is definitely a goal. Consistently
>corrupt and being proud of it is .............
>
You are simply repeating charges without evidence.  Buddies' pork
dinners?  Give some names, dates and amounts, please.  Mistress on the
payroll?  Name names...Gennifer Flowers had a state job, but Clinton
has denied she was his mistress, and no one has proof, unless you want
to cite a paid story in the National Star as evidence.  Hillary Clinton
gets no income from state business...her law firm does, but she refuses
her share of the fees.
 
If Clinton is so corrupt, or if he is a bad Governor, why has he been
reelected five times?
>
>>As I said, I wish I had better choices available.  Clinton will get the
>>nomination, though.  The harder Brown makes it, the more chance we have
>>at another Bush term.  Bush is the closest thing we have to Brown...no
>>principles, no strong ideas, the ability to change positions on a dime.
>>The difference is I think Bush is essentially a moral person.  Brown is
>>not.
>WRONG!  Bush is the closet thing we have to Clinton.  Both of them are
>career politicians so used to 'hobknobbing with the goobersmoochers' that
>they wouldn't recognize a "middle-class" American.  Meet our American
>aristocracy!
>
Career politicians?  Of course they are...so is Brown or anybody else
who has a chance to be elected President.  I feel Clinton is the best
of a mediocre-to-bad bunch....not that he is another Lincoln.  Bush is
a known disaster, Brown is worse.  Perot has some appealing ideas, but
others scare me.  The Libertarians are even scarier.  Given those
choices, I support Clinton.  I would rather give him a shot than endure
another four years of Bush, and those are the only two choices we have.
 
>Paul Landsberg
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,soc.motss