From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bruce Herschensohn (Was: Re: Casey 1996! (Was Re: It's just a TV SHOW!))
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:30:46 GMT
 <mykes.0e5d@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <1992Sep28.202630.25008@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
 <mykes.0eai@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <qoj0d8c@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

>In article <mykes.0eai@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep28.202630.25008@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>|> > Mike Swartz says:
>|> >
>|> > >There are actually a few governors I like.  Tommy Thompson is one.  There
>|> > >was a lot of talk about Ex-Governor Jim Thompson of Illinois becoming a
>|> > >VP candidate, but I haven't heard much about him in the last 8 years or
>|> > >so...  California is not known for having very good politicians.  Reagan
>|> > >was a rare GREAT one.  But there isn't a single candidate for any office
>|> > >in this whole state that is worth a damn.
>|> >
>|> > Wait a second, what about Bruce Hirschinshorn?  I don't know a great deal
>|> > about the fellow, but I saw his debate with B.Boxer on C-Span and wow was he
>|> > impressive.  He demands such respect when he speaks.	Mature, Candid, deep
>|> > voice, seems to be sharply sincere, and his flat tax rate is a bag of gold.
>|> >
>|> 
>|> I saw his debate with Barbara Bouncer, too.  But he is running 20 points
>|> down in the polls.

>"Debate" is hardly an adequate description. "Tirade" would be more accurate.
>Bruce Herschensohn has an even more cavalier attitude towards facts than
>Our Man Dan, or even the august Retch Limpbone. Not to mention even his 
>o'erweening compassion...:^)

May add another voice to the too many already here? I wish you could do better
than simple name-calling in voicing your objections to Rush. Anyway,
didn't it used to be just "Rush Slimeball", or do you all just hold a
name-calling contest every so often?

>I will give him credit for one thing, though, and that is that on two occasions
>during the debate he was asked questions for which he had no pat answers, and 
>he had at least enough integrity to say "I don't know."  That's something very
>rare among politicians in general, but especially among those of the rightwing
>persuasion.

>Not that that could possibly influence my vote, though - his policies and 
>ideas suck ducks.

>|> > >So WHO would I like to be voting for for president?	Believe it or not,
>|> > >.....vote for Jack Kemp, first and foremost.  If not Kemp, I'd want to vote
>|> > >for Phil Gramm.  Then James Baker would be a good vote, too.  Kemp and
>|> > >Gramm are the top two economic minds in government today.  Kemp is the
>|> > >best problem solver we have, also.
>|> >
>|> > Kemp would take Clinton with no problem.  Unfortunately, he's not running. I
>|> > certainly hope Gramm is not in the running in 96.  I plan to begin work on
>|> > Kemp's campaign right after the election in november.  Hopefully I can
>|> > finish my Doctorate by the spring of 96 to jump along for the ride.
>|> >
>|> 
>|> What do you have against Gramm?  He may not be perceived as a great speaker,
>|> but he is brilliant, especially at economics where are biggest problems,
>|> according to the polls, are.

>Brilliant??!!?? This of the co-author of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction 
>Act??? Gimme a break! This "brilliant" economic mind still believes that 
>mandating huge reductions in government services will help the economy. 
>And of course the last twelve years' evidence to the contrary is blithely
>dismissed as irrelevant, since it isn't congruent with his preconcieved
>notions.

As you may recall, one of the biggest reasons Gramm-Rudman didn't work is
that certain liberal congressmen found loopholes. Nay, SUED so as to have
those loopholes created for them via creative court interpretation. By the
way, in the Reagan years, the deficit shrank as a % of GNP, while the
economy experienced 84 straight months of robust growth. Then Bush, who
ABANDONED good conservative economic principles, caved in under pressure
and signed into law a massive tax increase and reams of overregulation.
The deficit ballooned as a % of GNP (and since taxes were increased,
government "services" had to be increasing even faster. Pardon me, but if
I wish to be so "serviced" I can find better sources than Uncle Sam) and
the recession hit harder than a Roger Ailes campaign ad.

>He's a much better speaker than economist. He's an excellent example of the
>hissing viper school of oratory. Not to mention that he likes to take credit
>for things he's opposed, if they finally go through and succeed. I suppose
>that makes him suitable Presidential timber, given King George's propensity
>to do the same...

You're slightly off on that point. George's major sin is, after he opposes
what should be opposed, he betrays us by allowing it to "succeed" in its
metamorhpisis from bad bill to bad law.

>- Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle