From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Norman LaFave Was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLA
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 18072@aio.jsc.nasa.gov, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> () writes:
>In article <visser.727642809@convex.convex.com> Lance Visser,
>visser@convex.com writes:
>> 	And perhaps you can tell us the last time a candidate went
>> around promising a "plan" the day after inaguration.  Clinton made
>> all sorts of promises that he had no intention of delivering.  And
>> now, after the election there is no shortage of people willing to 
>> excuse him anything.
>
>Let me let you in on a little secret.... all politicians make lots
>of outrageous promises during a campaign. If you voted based
>on the promises of your candidate you are being naive. We, the
>electorate, are to blame for this phenomenon. Politicians have
>found, for instance, that making promises of tax cuts are
>mandatory to their chances of being elected. Therefore, they
>make such promises knowing full well that the dynamics of the
>economy may make such promises impossible to keep. The same
>could be said for the promise to present the plan to the hill the
>day after inauguration. Given the dynamics of the economy and the
>effort required to erect an administration, it is unreasonable to
>believe he could have presented it, in full detail, on day one.
>However, the promise was good campaign fodder.
>
True, BUT if we want candidates that don't do this we must start
holding their feet to the fire when they don't meet promises.  Then
elect the bum out if he doesn't meet his promises.  This is one 
of the only ways I can see that will start to eliminate this type of 
B.S.  The American people are victims of our own medocraty.

>Fact: Clinton made impossible promises, as did Bush, as did Perot....
>
>At this point some of you may ask, "So, how can you decide who to
>vote for if they are all telling us what we want to hear?". The answer
>is to examine the one piece of information
>which displays the real competancy and heart of the candidate---
>their public record. Voting records, bill signings, program
>implementations
>and results, experience, are all public record.
>These cannot be fudged. 
True.  But reading all of the bills to know TRULY what the candidate
voted for would be a major headache. The only point I want to quibble
about here is the program implementations.  It depends on the
view point from which a program is evaluated to determine success or 
failure. Additionally, all of these evaluations of bills and programs get
tied up in statistics.  AS a great AMERICAN once said, "There are lies,
damned lies and statistics."

>Clinton's
>record as governor is excellent, Bush's record as president is not.

Depends on your values and view point.  Foriegn policy folks give
Bush a big thumbs up, while the jury is still out on Clinton.  Domestic
policy folks give Bush a big thumbs down, while the jury on Clinton
is still out. Norman, you've got to compare apple to apples.  Comparing
a governorship of a small state to the Presidency of the most powerful
government on earth is not a valid test. 
>
>These arguements about "promises" are either mere partisan fru-fru,
>or show a complete lack of understanding of the realities of politics.
>
Ah! but it IS GREAT FUN. :)

>Norman
>
Derek
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton