From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:24:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) says:

>In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes...
>> 
>>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>>education vouchers?
>> 
>
>Ok, everyone that has a brain think about this for a minute.  Clinton
>sent his daughter to public school his whole time as Governer of Arkansas.
>So, he comes to Washington as the President of the United States, and he
>decides not to send his daughter to a public school. WHY? 
>NOT, because he couldn't find a decent enough public school around Washington
>and it's suburbs (or at least not any worse than the ones in Little Rock).
>As he stated before he made the decision, he wanted to "make sure that this
>new life as President will be as less disruptive of his daughter's life as
>possible".  Obviously, sending his daughter to a private school makes it 
>possible to control her environment much more so than if she went to a public 
>school.  The last child of a president in modern times that went to public
>school was Amy Carter, and it was pretty uncomfortable for her, after 3
>years she ended up going to a private school in the last year of Carter's 
>presidency.  
>
>This decision was a tough one for Clinton to make, he dissapointed his 
>supporters and gave his detractors something to point and bitch about.
>Being a supporter of Clinton, I'm a little dissapointed, but I can see
>why he made the decision, and at least I can respect him for his guts.
>He put his daughter's welfare above politics.  All you Clinton bashers
>who claim that he always does things just to "get votes" or "please
>everyone" should at least admit that this was gutsy thing to do.
>But that would be too much to ask, I know.
>
>
Well, why is it that when CLinton does it he is being "gutsy" and thinking
only of the best interests of his daughter, but when some poor working
class family wants to do it they are charged with racism and abandoning
the public school system to its fate?
>
>On, a semi-related note, I was flipping through channels tonight and ran
>across Limbaugh's infomercial, he was saying some pretty nasty things
>about Carol Mosley Braun (sp?) for abotu 20 minutes straight.  Very NASTY
>things. Prediction (I'm serious): Sen. Braun will sue Limbaugh for slander.
>
>-Chris
>
>
>
Only if Braun wants to have whatever Limbaugh said printed on every front
page in America and face the very real possibility that she will lose.
Suing someone like Limbaugh for libel is usually playing right into their
hands, because it gives them more publicity than they otherwise would
have had, and it is very hard for someone in Braun's position (a US 
Senator) to win a libel suit.

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc