From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:15:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
|eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
|>=joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
|>=>In addition:
|>=
|>=>Bill Clinton said ("Putting People First"):
|>=> "I will take the following steps:
|>=> * Staff reductions. I will reduce the White House staff by 25 percent and
|>=>   challenge Congress to do the same.
|>=
|>=>But Monday 11/16/92, Bill backed off on the promise of asking Congress
|>=>to cut their staff 25%. He now says Congress should just lower their staffs
|>=>over time. [He still plans to pare back the White House staff].
|>=
|>=One reason is that they took staff cuts last year, UNLIKE the White House.
|>=He's still challenged them by doing his own cuts -- they just wimped out.
|>=Sounds like Clinton is willing to compromise -- much better than GRIDLOCK.
|>
|>More like he's kissing ass. Pardon the pun.
|>
|Your negative attitude is showing.  Compromise is the key to ending the
|gridlock, a concept Bush was never able grasp.

Geez. Another attempt at humor goes by the wayside again.

Didn't Bush compromise on his 1990 Budget Deal (remember the "Budget
Summits")? Wasn't there a compromise when Bush signed the Civil Rights
Bill of 1991, one in which Bush clearly said he would oppose because it
would result in quotas? But again, my response was more intended for
humor rather than for discussion. (Much good that did.)

|>=>He also said:
|>=>    * Line item veto. To eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government
|>=>      waste, I will ask Congress to give me the line item veto.
|>=
|>=>Bill has now backed off on that by changing the rules for Congressional
|>=>overrides of this line item veto fromt he normal 2/3 to a simple majority.
|>=
|>=Well, I thought the line-item veto was Bush's campaign promise!  It's nice
|>=to see that Clinton is partially approving an idea strongly supported by
|>=Republicans.  Sounds like a non-partisan president to me.
|>
|>Oh really? Why didn't Clinton say he supported a line-item veto, too,
|>during the debates? Why was it that Bush kept saying he was calling for
|>a line-item veto when Clinton was practically silent on the whole thing?
|>Remember the PPF plan was printed up in JUNE.
|>
|Clinton did support the line-item veto.  It just was not one of his
|campaign issues.  That fact disturbed me, because I was not in favor of
|the version pushed by Bush.  Now, Clinton is supporting the form I
|favored all along.

Okay. What's the difference between Bush supporting a line-item veto,
and Clinton supporting a line-item veto. (This is regarding the "form"
Clinton favored. I never saw any major papers regarding the differences
in Bush's and Clinton's line-item veto.)

|>=>The Democratic Platform says:
|>=>  We don't have an American to waste.  Democrats will continue to
|>=>  lead the fight to ensure that no Americans suffer discrimination or
|>=>  deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, language, national
|>=>  origin, religion, age, disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or other
|>=>  characteristics irrelevant to ability.
|>=
|>=>Bill now says he he no longer has a timetable or structure to
|>=>follow regarding relaxing the ban on homosexuals in the military.
|>=
|>=He's still going to do it, but he will bring it in slowly so the bigots
|>=won't howl so loud.  Sounds like a decent compromise -- much better than
|>=GRIDLOCK.
|>
|>Well, I hope we won't need to see how prudent the change in policy is
|>the next time we have to send troops to a conflict overseas. Oh, I'm
|>sorry, Clinton wouldn't do that.
|>
|Does anybody remember the arguments against integrating Blacks into the
|military in the 1940s?  They were identical to the ones the anti-gay
|bigots are using now. Truman stood up to the anti-Black bigots then,
|and proved there was no lasting harm to the military.  Keep in mind,
|too, that there are already at least 100,000 gays in the military.
|Clinton's action would not change anything, except it would free those
|people from lying to keep their jobs.

Fine with me. I hope Clinton's proven right. But don't let him hedge the
issue. He himself brought it up, and he shouldn't back down without good
reason.

|>=>Before the election, I stated that I liked Bill Clinton but wouldn't vote
|>=>for him because of all the Democrats that would come hands outstrectched to
|>=>Clinton. I was concerned they would get him to back off his pledges after
|>=>the election. Granted, most of his pledges are still there to be fulfilled
|>=>but it is starting to look like politics and spending as usual and he is not
|>=>even President yet...
|>=
|>=Look at all the Defense contractors that came to Reagan with
|>=their outstretched hands when he was elected.  Didn't that bother you?
|>=I'd rather that our government sponsor social and economical reforms rather
|>=than death.
|>=
|>=Sounds like Clinton knows the "art of the deal", which is how things
|>=get done in business and government.  Looks like we get to kiss GRIDLOCK
|>=good-bye and see our government in motion again.  I'm looking forward
|>=to it.
|>
|>So am I. If things get screwed up, there will be no doubt as to who is
|>responsible.
| 
|Oh.....the way there was no doubt that Bush was responsible for
|everything that is wrong now?  He blamed Congress, Carter, world-wide
|conditions, the media, ad nauseum.  Now that the shoe is on the other
|foot, you are coming around to the position the anti-Bush people held
|throughout the campaign.  Now Bush is not even willing to accept blame
|for his own defeat.  He is blaming the people who ran his campaign.  Of
|course....who chose those people?

There are quite a few things that I can place on Bush, including the
people he chose to run his campaign. My point was that with a Congress
and an Executive of the same political party, we will no longer have to
debate whether something was the fault of a recalcitrant Congress or a
combattive President since the "GRIDLOCK" should be minimal. I am still
very skeptical of the "new" Democratic party, and I will be watchful of
what the new Democrats stand for and believe.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Hope you have a very good "Native American Exploitation" Day.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics