From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD:  ATTORNEY GEN.
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:32:53 GMT

In article <2128@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
 [---]
%What is it about liberals in general, and Clinton supports specificly, that
%requires them to compare their people to someone else rather than answer
%the charges or questions directed to the weasels that now occupy the
%White House.  Why do you foolishly assume that anyone who doesn't like
%Clinton or is unhappy with his picks or policies, must be a Reagan 
%supporter.  Is it not possible to believe (and even likely considering the
%number of people that voted for him) that his critics just don't like
%him (them) because of who and what they are?
%
 Zoe is confronting her charges, paying her fines, and answering to Congress.
 That's a whole lot more than Ed Meese ever subjected himself to, without 
 whining like a paranoic pig that had a poker up his butt about how people
 were out to get him.

%Is it that the short comings of the Clinton people are so obvious to even
%Clinton backers that they dare not try to defend the Clinton team on its
%own merit and find it easier to give the pat - yeah but he/she's better 
%than so and so.  I think it is.

 These are some of the best educated people in the US, and they have agreed
 (by and large) to avoid the "revolving door" of PAC appointments for five 
 years. You haven't given one name, or a specific focus on an individual
 that you feel is "unmerited" - You obviously seem to have some other 
 bias against the administration.

%
%So what if Ed Meese was lousy AG or if James Watts was a dope, what possible
%bearing does it have on the fact that today we have to deal with Zoe Baird
%or Ron Brown's unehtical or illegal actions?  I suppose that because one
%person in a position of power did wrong it gives carte-blanche to Clinton
%to appoint law breakers, incompetents and unethical people to his cabinet
%and we should just ignore it, huh?  

 HA! DON'T BE AN IDIOT!
 You are comparing the act of a woman giving an un-documented alien a job
 to that of James Watt unilaterally handing over 12 Million acres of land
 for environmental raping by Oil and strip-mining without and public
 hearing!!!!  It's EXACTLY those kinds of idiotic "character-comparison's" 
 that got the Republicans VOTED OUT!!!!    AND GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!!!

 Please cut out the following sign and tape it to your terminal:

           +---------------------------------------------+
           |      T H E   I S S U E S ,   S T U P I D    |
           +---------------------------------------------+

%
%Just once I'd like to see a Clinton supporter answer the questions with
%out digging up the past, I bet you can't do it.
%
%With that in mind tell us now, why is a person who broke the law, a lawyer
%who's best excuse is "I didn't know the law", why is that person about 
%to be confirmed by the Senate as AG without so much as hiccup at her 
%confirmation hearing? 

 There's PLENTY going on at her confirmation hearing. If she makes it through
 (and there's no guarantee she will), it will be on the basis of her
 qualifications. Bush was an established President flexing a LOT of 
 muscle when he got his appointments through (federal/supreme court
 judges, etc).

--
Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc