From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:48:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>Ordinarily I'd let this go, but I just love the way the asterisks
>are used here, as if to make the arguments seem more valid or important.
>Here we go...

>In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:

>Quite frankly, a lot of people (not just crazed right wing Republicans) 
>don't think that the economy is really all that bad in every way.  Low
>interest rates make home buying more affordable, low inflation softens

More affordable for who?  Have the low interest rates spark a surge of
home buying?  No.  Why?  Because people aren't making enough money
to buy houses.  

>the blow of other economic problems, etc.  One might argue that Bill
>Clinton's attacks on the economy are a pathetic attempt to divert the
>American people from focusing on Bill Clinton's character.

If one were a narrowminded fool who lived in an ivory tower, on might
make just such an argument.  I don't need Bush or Clinton to tell me
that the economy is a mess.  I live with it every day.  I do think
the economy is really that bad in every way and so does every person
I interact with.  

I am interested in Bill Clinton's character and I don't mind focusing
on it.  I am not, however, interested in small-minded, unsubstantiated,
rumors that do nothing but waste time.  Quite frankly, the guy doesn't 
have to be a saint to be president.  He is allowed human errors.  He
is not allowed criminal errors however, like we have seen from our good
friend Georgie.  Considering all alleged criminal activity that Georgie
allegedly was part of, which has yet to be considered, its going to take
a hell of a lot more than Clinton not being able to remember what he
did on his vacation 23 years ago to make me think that Bush would be
a better choice.

The Republican party is somehow under the impression that Georgie is
this sparkling, squeeky clean, example of purity and that anyone with
the slightest flaw is automatically not fit to challenge him for office.
But thats not the way it is.  Although I personally think that Clinton
will do wonderful things for this country, if I didn't, I would still
vote for him because he's not a lying, thieving, bastard.

>Bill Clinton and his Democrat buddies have been smearing the president
>for nearly a year now.

Exuse me?  When?  I don't think you understand the definition of
"smear".  Clinton is pointing out the flaws in Bush's plans and he
bases all his conclusions on facts.  Do you ever hear Bush say that
Clinton's opinion of Bush's plans are innacurate because he got the
facts wrong?  No.  But its okay for Bush to pull numbers out of thin
air and shove them down our throats and when Clinton calls him on it,
he's *smearing* him?

Typical Clinton/Bush exchange:

Bush:  Clinton's plan will result in this, that, and the other thing.

Clinton:  Bush has read things into my program that are not there
          and therefore misinterpreted it.

Clinton:  Bush's plan will result in this, that, and the other thing.

Bush:  Clinton is a liar, a fornicator, and a communist.

Now, whose smearing who.  Clinton addresses the point at hand, he doesn't
change the subject.  He answers what he is asked.  He doesn't deflect.

Sure, Bush never actually *said* out loud that Bush is a liar, a
fornicator, and a communist.  That would be stupid.  Instead he
pays people to pay other people to dig up these stories, leak
them to the press, and let them run with it for them.  You don't
need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out.

>I love this.  As if the writer could presume to know what the American
>people want or don't want to hear about.  As far as Clinton's "glorious"
>plan goes, the emperor has no clothes.  He can't pay for it without  
>boosting either the deficit or taxes to new highs. 

How do you know?  Because the Bush campaign told you?  For every economist
that Bush comes up with who says it won't work, Clinton has one who
says it will.  We know damn well that what is happening now isn't working.

>To say that the Republicans use "hand grenades" concedes that they have
>good ammunition.  Much better than that expressed by this cheap attempt
>to take a quote out of context.

Exuse me?  I think you are putting words in someone's mouth.  Using
the analogy of "hand grenades" doesn't concede anything just because
you decide that it does.

>Speculation is not necessarily a bad thing.  I don't know what Clinton

It is when you pretend that you are stating facts and don't admit that
you are speculating until pressed for proof.  It also is when such
speculation is potentially damaging.  It also is when you allow such
speculation to be entered into the Congressional Record.

>did or who he met with in Moscow, and at this point I don't claim that
>he did anything wrong.  I would like him to address this point and 
>there's nothing wrong with raising the issue, especially since I've
>heard that the Soviets often attempted to use visiting Oxford students
>for political purposes.  
>I'm old enough to remember 1969 -- people were
>not flocking to see the sights of Moscow.

Do you remember what you did in December and January of 1969-1970?
I want to know who you spent each day with and what you discussed with
each person you encountered.

And to quote what you just said earlier,

>I love this.  As if the writer could presume to know what the American
>people want or don't want to hear about.  As far as Clinton's "glorious"

As if an individual could presume to know what "people" were doing in 1969.
What people?  How many Oxford students did you know in 1969.  Just because
a place isn't a popular vacation land doesn't mean that there is anything
suspicious about going there.  I think its a perfectly reasonable thing
for an intelligent graduate student to do on a vacation.

>If Clinton opposed the war, no problem.  If he tried to avoid the draft,
>no _big_ problem.  But if he lies about what he did, or if he doesn't
>come completely clean about it, I'd say that's a real problem.

Has he done these things?  Has he said that Father McSorley is wrong?
Has he insisted that he remembers every detail of the time?  No, No,
and No.

>> *    There's a name for Bush's attack -- red-baiting.  Bush might
>> have been a good candidate during the Cold War, he's not a candidate
>> for the future.  With this latest slur, he sounds like Joe McCarthy.
>> Next thing he'll be calling for the revival for the House UnAmerican
>> Activities Committee and blacklisting.

>There's a name for this sort of attack -- name calling.  Notice how

Sorry, its not simply name-calling.  It is label which accurately
describes Bush's pathetic behavior.  

>the writer tries to shift attention away from Clinton's qualifications
>to be commander in chief ("...he's not a candidate for the future." as

Wrong again.  There is no problem addressing Clinton's qualifications to 
be commander in chief.  However, discussing what he did on a trip 23
years ago has nothing to do with determining those qualifications.
The original writer is trying to shift attention away from irrelevant
rumors that waste time.  

>if we now live in a warm fuzzy world with no enemies to prepare for.  
>Remember--if Clinton had been president when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it
>would be the 18th state of Iraq today.

No, because Iraq wouldn't have gotten the military support from us to
invade Kuwait in the first place.  He wouldn't have poured all our
money into beefing up Iraqi forces and he wouldn't have led them
to belief that we would support their attack just so he could 
slam them later and show the US how well he can flex his muscles.

>If I visited Moscow 30 years ago you can bet I'd generally remember what I did

There's no point in betting because you can't prove it.  Suffice to say
I don't believe you.


>He can travel wherever he wants.  Just be up front about it.  Travel to
>the USSR was unusual for Americans in 1969.  Ross Perot couldn't get

It wasn't unusual for Oxford students, apparently.

>permission from the Soviet government to travel there, but I'll bet 
>they loved to get young, anti-war students to go there.

Students in general have an easier time traveling abroad, getting work
permits, etc, because they are not an economic threat.  

>How nice for him!

>demonstrations overseas.  I'd find it hard to distinguish such events from
>"anti-American demonstrations."

Well, then that's your shortcoming isn't it?

>One other note of interest.  Do you get the feeling from reading the 
>original post that whoever wrote it was _extremely outraged_!!!???
>I love that attitude.  It suggests that Bush's supporters have really
>hit a soft sensitive spot!  Why can't the Dems just talk about it
>without the obnoxious pretense?

We are outraged because the Republicans insist that we keep addressing
issues that they decide are important, but see no reason to address
issues that are important to the Democrats.  We'll discuss anything
you want, as long as Georgie tolerates the same microscopic investigation
of everything he's ever done also - which he won't

The soft sensitive spot they've hit, is the "We are so sick of this
game of issue dodging" spot.

Just get over it.  Georgie is history.  If you want to help him, why
don't you help him get his resume together.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8655 alt.politics.clinton:9748 alt.politics.elections:16130