From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:56:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.090439.17022@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.142931.16131@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In article <16Nis*yz1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>>> them about it.  I don't criticize them based on ideological fantasies,
>>>> the way you do.
>>>
>>>Fred, YOU are the one FULL of ideological fantasies.  
>> 
>> Really, Jim?  Gee, I don't suppose you'd care to explain to me just
>> what that ideology you think I have *IS*, would you?
>
>	Hey Fred, didn't you crucify Bush because he broke the "no taxes"
>promise while in office?  

Well, actually, no.  I did, however, pillory Bush for making the
promise, breaking it (due to changing circumstances, apparently) and
then whining about how "Congress made me do it".

>Slick wasn't even in office yet, and has already
>stated that he intends to break/reduce at least 6-7 of his promises.  Well,
>starting today, we can hold him accountable I guess.

Yep.  Wanna make a list of which ones he has said that about?

>
>	I just hope that you use that same critical eye on Slick as you did
>on Bush.

I am and will.  Pity you don't seem to be able to manage the same
apologist and uncritical support.

>
>>       HE CAN'T BREAK ANY 'PROMISES' UNTIL HE IS IN A POSITION TO DO
>> SO.
>
>	Sure he can.  He said vote for me, since I will do these things when
>I get in office.  We voted for him.  Now, not even in office yet, he is
>saying he is *NOT* keeping certain promises, since we had to "revisit" some
>of the issues.  He has already said that he will not be able to reduce the
>deficit by 50%.  

Yes, and it helps that the Bush Administration 'discovered' tens of
billions of dollars that they somehow managed to 'miss' mentioning
before, too.

>He is already talking about middle-class tax increases.  

He is, or other people are?

>He
>has the "common man" image, but if the common man lies that much, then I
>guess our country is doomed whoever gets in office...

You know, I keep looking at all these examples various conservatives
hunt up about Bill Clinton's 'lies' and 'waffling', and you know what
I find?  I find that they either weren't listening the first time
around or are misinterpreting now.

>
>> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done
>> it, Jim.  It's called 'reality', as opposed to seeing things based on
>> rhetoric the way you do.
>
>	Hey Fred, you voted for him based on "rhetoric", and now the same
>rhetoric (that Clinton himself provides) isn't good enough?

No, I voted for him based on RECORD.  I will judge his performance
using that same criterion.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics