From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Clinton's broken promise
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:28:53 GMT

In article <37136@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>In article <v9_n4c.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>Clinton wanted to be President and he changed his mind. As a die-hard 
>>Bush supporter, I'd love to whack Clinton over the head with this, but 
>>I think it falls into the category of "well, yeah, but you knew he was
>>lying anyway." 
>
>But after being successful to balance a budget in Arkansas for the
>last 12 years, isn't Clinton going to do much more good if he gets
>the chance to do the same for the whole country. Even Arkansas will
>benefit from this.

Jeepers!  Arkansas must balance it's budget _by law_  So what is the
big deal about Clinton balancing a budget that is mandated to be thus?

>What do you think the chances are that a republican president will
>be willing to fight congress... I don't mean ronnie, I mean Georgie.

Good question, try the opposite: What is the likely outcome for the 
US of A if Clinton is elected and goes along with the agenda of the
Democratic Congress? 

>Isn't it ultimately better for the country to have a decisive policy
>towards the deficit than a political fight in which the president
>will veto everything congress passes and congress will block
>anything the president wants. And hey if they mess up they will be
>held responsible for it the next elections. No cheap accusations of
>"but I tried, but congress was not willing.". Meaning he proposed
>soemthing but was too busy with international politics to actually
>fight for his believes. A whimp indeed and a failure as a leader.

You should say, a failure as a domestic leader.  But hey, what about
the Congress?  Are there no statesmen left in the noble House?  You
betray your prejudice by not including the Congress as the majority
partner in the deadlock.  The President is but 1/6th the legislative
power.  The vote for the President is the closest thing to a consensus
there is in this nation.  When the President asks Congress to pass
his proposals and they refused (as they have done with Bush) they are
flouting the will of the people to some very real extent.

>Ask anyone if he/she feels that he/she is worse of than 4 years ago
>and many will say so, except for the few proviliged. Now if people
>have to vote, who will vote for a president under whose command the
>deficit increased to 4.3 trillion dollars. Only the people who wnat
>to limit a woman's choice, who will benefit from a capital gains tax
>cut (guess who ???), people who are presently trashing the
>environment and don't want to pay up for it, people who believe that
>prayer in schools should be supported... That would leave a nice
>majority who can vote out of conviction that a democratic president
>can be much more decisive in fighting the slacking economy, the ever
>increasing deficit and the unequalities in the american society.
>
I feel better than 4 years ago (personally).  I am mad that the deficit
increased too, but I recognize that it is the Congress which disabled
the veto by lumping every appropriation into one bill - you cannot seem
to grasp that this creates a take it or leave it proposition thus 
blackmailing the Executive into signing the bill or shutting down the
Big G.  

Limit women's choice?  Nobody has ultimate freedom of choice - this is
a euphamism used to soften the nature of the subject.   Did Pee Wee
have freedom of choice?

Sure, the environment is threatened, but why do you begin and end with
the USA?  What of the former Soviet satellites or third world nations?
Is it easier to trash the US system in spite of the fact that we are
more environmentally conscious than most?  Perhaps it's because there
is money to be taken from deep pockets here, and a culture to be changed.

Prayer in schools should be optional, not prohibited.  Those of your
"mind"set fanatically think that a prayer group meeting after school
hours, like the chess club, constitutes the official establishment of
a state religion.  

This last one is a beauty, the "unequalities of American society".
You don't understand a thing about this country if you actually
believe that this country stands for pure equality.  The only real
equality that applies is the equal treatment under the law.  This
country was never meant to be an equal society, it was meant to 
be an impartial one.  Can you see the difference?

PS.  How does the pollution off San Diego compare to that off the coast
     of Mexico just to your South?  Take into account the population 
     differences please.

Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh