From: TELANG@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:20:20 GMT
 <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Apr9.130641.25637@chinet.chi.il.us>
 <1992Apr17.080617.19856@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr17.080617.19856@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr9.130641.25637@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us
>(Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>>In <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu> jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason         :
>O'Rourke)
>
>>>So, let the GOP speak, and give us rationale, hopefully other than just
>>>party ID.  And let everyone post to "why not vote Bush"
>
>>  Actually, I can think of many reasons not to vote for Bush, but since
>>I probably will in the end, I'll give those reasons.  (Although I could
>>probably talk a lot of people out of voting for Bush if I gave my reasons
>>not to do so.)
>
>>Six reasons why You should vote for Bush:
>>1) Presuming Perot can't win, you really should only bote Republican or
>>Democrat (let's not get into this again, I understand the argument against
>>this. I think the LP goes too far anyway.)
>
>Huh?  This isn't a pro-Bush argument, just an anti-Lib one.
>
>>2)  Bush at least pays lip service to "no new taxes".  Even his current
>>Budget doesn't hold up to that, but the Democrats recent proposed
>
>"Bush is a liar, but he says the things we want to hear when he lies"?????
>That's what these two sentences say.
>
>>budget would raise taxes for more than just the wealthy (as advertised)
>>and I suspect that any Democratic presidency would result in higher taxes
>>for all but the very poor. (You have to look beyond those percent brackets.)
>>Bush's friends, the Republicans, are much less likely to raise taxes
>>than the Democrats, so he at least has to somewhat ride the brake on taxes
>>(and hopefully, therefore, government spending which is the real issue.)
>>  Besides, I think any kind of tax increase, even on "just the wealthy" is
>>stupid.   The government has enough of our money.  Let them start
>>spending it wisely.
>
>If you think Democrats are going to raise taxes on the middle class,
>you're crazy.  Ever since Mondale lost, Democrats are scared silly of
>raising taxes.  And in the current economic climate, middle class is
>anyone between $20k and $200k.
>
>Tsongas got all this press for not being Santa Claus.  Why?  Because he
>wanted to raise taxes?  No!  It was simply because he DIDN'T favor
>LOWERING taxes.
>
>(Yes, he did favor raising the gas tax, but that's a minor issue
>compared to income taxes.)
>
>>3)  Bush is as good on foreign policy as we are likely to see. (Except for
>>China :-) ).  This is still very important in our World and for a President.
>>It is the one area that a President is actually in control over.  Everything
>>else can and will be manipulated by congress (which has a known talent
>>for screwing things up.)
>
>Why?  He is not.  *What* has Bush done right?  Assuming that you agree
>with the premise of the Gulf War, he *STILL* failed.  We accomplished
>virtually nothing; dictatorships STILL exist in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
>and Iraq.
>
>China is violating human rights while Bush does nothing, as you noted.
>
>The lack of a Bush response to the coup in Haiti has now lead to a coup
>in Peru which Bush also quickly and decisively didn't respond to. Which
>democracy will be next to fall?
>
>Operation Approval Rating (I mean, Just Cause) was a total fiasco;
>Panama has gone from a minor drug smuggling country to a major one, 200
>Americans and thousands of Panamanian citizens died for that; we also
>convicted Noriega for bunches of minor crimes which will be overturned
>anyway, in exchange for plea bargains which let tens of major drug
>dealers out of jail.
>
>>4)  Bush is for NAFTA, and free trade in general.  I think his trip to
>>Japan was a poorly chosen political stunt.  I don't believe he learned
>>his lesson or even understands why that was so stupid, but at least
>>he is for free trade.
>
>True.  But so is Bill Clinton.
>
>>5)  Bush doesn't want to reduce our military to nothing.  It is still and
>>probably always will be a dangerous world and we are more a part
>>of it more than ever (and should be.)  With our geographic isolation, we tend
>>to forget that wars pop up every so often, usually when countries aren't
>>quite ready for them and don't quite expect them.  We should maintain
>>a strong military presence.  Other countries are likely to start building
>>up stronger militaries, we shouldn't cut ours too low.
>
>True.  However, your first sentence should read, "Bush doesn't want to
>reduce our military."  While a strong military IS important, it's plain
>stupidity to claim we need to spend at cold war levels.
>
>>6)  According to Quayle, Bush actually can itemize the major problems
>
>Wow.  Can he form committees, too?  (From a real reliable source, too.)
>
>>facing our country and economy (Health Care, Our Legal system, the
>>Budget deficit, education, investment, etc.) This at least tells me he
>
>These aren't problems.  These are campaign slogans.
>
>>knows what the problems are.  He's the only one so far that mentioned
>
>Oh, boy.  So, what you're saying is that Bush is literate.  How could he
>NOT *know* that these are problems?
>
>>our legal system and regulatory requirements as a major problem.
>
>What's wrong with our legal system?  I mean, I know Ed Meese thinks
>anyone who's arrested must be guilty, or he wouldn't be arrested, but
>most of the rest of us LIKE having to have a trial first.
>
>>                                                                  I don't
>>know if he'll actually do anything on any of these.  Considering his
>
>Gee, then that doesn't help much, does it?
>
>>chief health care advisor is a registered lobbiest for the Health Care
>>Industry, I tend to doubt that issue will be satisfactorily resolved.
>>(I believe my source was a PBS show outlining "What Went Wrong With
>America.")
>
>>  Basically my opinion sums up to, Bush is good at international affairs and
>>at least pays lip service to the right things domestically.  Clinton
>>may actally be a better Domestic leader, but his pary has shown its
>>ability to screw up Domestic issues time and time again by getting the
>>government too involved.  I worry that the Clinton that governed in
>>Arkansas and worked to improve education, business, and create workfare
>rather
>>than welfare may dissapear in the White House just as he has on this
>>campaign trail.
>
>The funny thing is, economically Bush and Clinton just aren't that
>different.  Except at least Clinton pays lip service to civil rights and
>race relations and AIDS and education and other domestic problems,
>whereas Bush either ignores them or demagogues them.
>
>>I don't trust either Clinton or Bush to stick to what they say, but
>>at least Bush has proven international ability and belongs to the "right"
>>party.
>
>How about: I don't trust either Clinton or Bush to stick to what they say,
>but at least Bush has proven NO international ability and belongs to the wrong

GOD BLESS AMERICA..WE ARE REALLY GOING TO NEED IF BUSH IS REELECTED
>party.
>
>>pat@chinet.chi.il.us
>
>--
>David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
>niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
>"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:473 alt.sex:13633