From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:24:00 GMT

In article <7204@news.duke.edu> 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.

That's kind of cute.  I like it.  I still think compromise is better than 
stagnation.

>=>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.

Thanks for supporting EXACTLY what I said.  Line-item vetos was BUSH's 
campaign promise.  I find it refreshing that a Democratic president 
would put partisan politics aside and NOW show (partial) support for an 
idea highly touted by the "opposition".  It looks like Republicans 
and Democrats actually might work together on some issues in the next 
four years.  What a refreshing change!

>=>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.

(1) Clinton might send troops, if needed, but I strongly doubt that he 
will pamper the dictator first.

(2) The Army boot camp has proven quite successful at taking black and 
white civilians who (sometimes) have been taught racial intolerance 
since an early age and retrained their thinking.  They are taught that 
since they both wear the same uniform and are willing to fight for 
the same country, that race doesn't matter, and they LEARN that they 
CAN and WILL fight together.

Are you saying that Army boot camp is incapable of doing the same for 
heteros and gays?  I think the Army is more capable (if they put their 
minds to it) than you give them credit.

>=>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.

Well, if Clinton continues to encourage Republicans and Democrats to 
work together, then the age of finger-pointing may have passed.
But if you must point your finger, by all means, do so.  :-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*