From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Serious question for Clinton bashers
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:58:59 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <71538@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.175830.13536@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>>I've been thinking for a while about the large unfavorable rating for
>>Clinton.  I had a pretty unfavorable idea of him also, until I realized
>>that much of this information was coming from biased sources.
>                                               ^^^^^^
>Unfortunately, during an election year, the ONLY sources are BIASED sources.
>I've seen the most scientific looking facts twisted and turned by both
>parties.

A neat thing you can do if you have time is to read from both sides,
and decide which argument is more persuasive.  Ignoring the media is,
well, cutting yourself off from sources if information.  That
information may be biased, but as said, you can consider other bits of
data.  Come to your own conclusions.  Yes, this is the jigsaw-puzzle
version of navigating the media.

>  One simple way to cast a vote, is to ignore the media, ignore
>the platforms, and ignore their theatrical debate performances.  Simply look
>at the type of people who support Clinton and the type of people who support
>Bush.  Which group do you most closely identify with, or which group would
>you MOST LIKE to identify with?

Consider the Republican National Convention, and the people who showed
up for that, the people who were in the spotlight, the prime-time spots.
I suppose I must be biased for pointing this out....

>
>>I am leaning towards voting for Clinton at this time.  I'd like to know
>>why I shouldn't...
>
>I don't claim to be unbiased, but IMHO, Clinton CANNOT be trusted.  Rush
>is probably more biased than all the liberal media put together, but one
>thing he does very clearly is to show Clinton making statements that are
>clearly contradictory or flat out lies.  He recently showed consecutive
>pictures of Clinton's hair going from gray to brown to gray over a sequence
>of days, depending on whether Clinton was addressing a group of young 
>students or a group of senior citizens.  I clearly remember during the
>Democratic primaries, how Clinton would adopt the accent of whoever he
>happened to be addressing.  Most recently, I heard a (supposedly unbiased)
>newsman report that Clinton mentioned that he would consider legalizing
>drug use during an interview in Rolling Stone magazine.  Did you hear him
>during the debate?  Did you read the article?  I guess Clinton could
>say, "I did 'consider' drug legalization, and decided I was dead-set
>against it!"  He always leaves himself a backdoor; hence, the name "Slick
>Willie".  Now the fact that Clinton dyes his hair in no way disqualifies
>him from the presidency.  It does, however, point out how desperate he
>is to be everything to everybody.  The only fact I know about Clinton
>is that I don't know what he looks like, I don't know what he sounds like,
>and NOBODY knows what he REALLY thinks about any issue.  Note: just about
>everything I pointed out is verifiable by watching Clinton's speeches, and
>nowhere did I say that the Democrats have a monopoly on such tactics.

I think the funniest/ironic statement during this campaign season is
"We want a President we can trust" from Quayle, et al.  Consider the
lies Bush has strewn in the past decade or so.  Iran-contra;
Iraq-gate; what Michael Kinsley calls an explicit lie in the "128 tax
increases to 1" statement by Bush; the campaign promises in '88 having
to do with lips and taxes, and {education|environment|...} presidency;
the never never never never tax pledge Bush made in the last month or
so (which he's already broken), and so on.  Yes, I'm biased.

There was an interesting interview/article on Clinton in the present
issue of The Atlantic (the one with Black vs. Brown on the cover).
They note that Clinton seems to have two facets to his personality:
the pol, who tries to please everyone; and the A-student, who actually
knows a fair amount about policy (Clinton has been called a policy
wonk since he first opened his mouth in the primaries).  What we see
is a combination of these two aspects.  Clinton does have core
beliefs.  For instance, he's a free trader/global economy person.
Consider that he has Robert Reich as an economics advisor, who talks a
great deal about the world economy, and how the US can prosper in such
an environment (he makes provisions for infrastructure improvement,
and investment in human capital: such things will help to attract
foreign and American corporations to build factories and create jobs
on American soil.)  Clinton's statements towards a more restrictive
trade environment is an appeasement towards unions, etc.  You'll have
to judge for yourself whether or not he'll bend towards pressure from
the unions after he wins, whether the pol or the policy wonk will
win out.  But note that he's a consumate politician; arguably, you
have to straddle the fence to a certain degree to win, so you'll have
a chance to enact your policy ideas.  We'll see what happens.

Oh, you really believe Reagan's hair was black?

>
>-- 
>Sean P. Ormond
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Clinton '92 - "Read my lips: NEW TAXES"

And Bush mumbles.  Hard to read now.

	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50486 sci.environment:11816 talk.environment:4141