From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:29:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <BuLG8r.KE8.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.112414.5994@eskimo.celestial.com> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep13.153330.12362@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>>> But most of the draft dodger issue IS about the present (ie, how Clinton
>>> is now dealing with the issue). I personally am interested in how any
>>> future leader deals with controversy and personal attacks, and I am
>>> greatly disimpressed with Clinton's response to this issue.

>>Hmmm. Are you impressed with the way Bush has responded to questions
>>about Jennifer Fitzgerald (I think that's her name)? Seems like he
>>got pretty testy when Mary Tillotson asked the question as tactfully
>>as she could - now I hear that Fitzwater has made the statement that
>>she's more or less personna-non-grata around the White house. In an
>>interview, his response was something like "HOW DARE you ask that
>>question of me in the Oval office?". Pretty impressive!

>Please.  If you can't see the difference...sheesh.  Bush was holding a 
>joint press conference with another head of state (the Prime Minister
>of Israel) on a significant foreign policy matter at the time
>Tillotson asked the question.  For all the civilized world to see.

Honestly, I think the civilized world can see these things anyway.  I
think that Reagan sending the Secretary of State (George Schultz) to 
all the Europeans to tell them not to give in to hostage holders, and 
then sending them weapons ourselves is probably a bit more embarassing.

I think George Bush praising Ferdinand Marcos for his commitment to
democracy is just a little more embarassing.

Basically, George just thinks he's too important to be asked questions
like these.

>Furthermore, calling the evidence in the Fitzgerald case "flimsy" is 
>way too kind.

Oh, and *flimsy* isn't the word to describe the evidence for Genny
Flowers?  We have a woman who hired a lawyer a few years ago to deny the
rumor that she had an affair with Bill Clinton.  Then, after being paid
$25k by a tabloid, she changes her story.  This isn't flimsy?

>With Clinton, on the other hand, we have taped recordings of the governor
>urging Gennifer Flowers to deny any relationship with him and agreeing that

Wait, I'm confused.  Him telling her to deny it is a sign that it
happened?  What should he have told her?  Admit it?  (What they agreed
was that she should deny it rather than just ignore it, if you listen to
the tape in context.)

>a potential choice of his to the Supreme Court is a "mafioso".  Furthermore,

Furthermore, this is an outright lie.  He said no such thing.  Gennifer
Flowers said something like "he's a mafioso," and Clinton said "well, he
acts that way."

What it sounded like to people not predisposed to disliking him was that
(and I *wasn't* a Clinton supporter at the time.  I was a Tsongas
supporter) Gennifer Flowers was trying to get him to say something
incriminating that she could sell to the tabloid for big bucks.  If you
listen, she asks lots of leading questions and makes lots of leading
statements, hoping he'll say something juicy.  She said the mafioso
thing, and Bill Clinton did what many people do when a friend of theirs
says something prejudiced that they disagree with -- they say something
like "Yeah, whatever" and change the subject.

>he has lied about his draft status on several occasions (not receiving 
>an induction notice, not getting any special treatment).  And we know
>from a letter that it wasn't principle that led him to resubmit himself
>to the draft, but protecting his "political viability".  Indeed, given his
>"loathing of the military", he seems to have violated his principles by 
>entering the draft...just to maintain his "political viability". 

He never lied about his draft status.  He said he wasn't aware of any
special treatment.  It seems his uncle lobbied for him, but that he
didn't find out about it until March of 1992.  So?

He got an induction notice after the date he was supposed to report.  Is
it odd that he didn't think about it first thing 20 years later?

>The issue isn't who he is fucking or what war he didn't want to fight
>in.  I, personally, could care less. The issue in both these matters
>is his honesty.  I mean, Bush is a pol too, but Clinton just doesn't
>stop.  He is always "on".  He has not met a constituency who's collective
>ass he hasn't kissed or an issue he hasn't taken both sides on.  It's 

Really?  You mean when he went to the Rainbow Coalition and denounced
them for supporting Sister Souljah?  

>truly sickening.  I can no longer stand the guy.  Give me goofy Tsongas, 
>give me Bush with his mangled grammer, give me that paranoiac Perot (who 
>lies better than Clinton)...Christ, give me boring Dukakis; anyone but 
>slimy Clinton. 

Somehow I don't understand why BilL Clinton lying about his private life
is an issue, but George Herbert Hoover Bush lying about his PUBLIC
record isn't an issue.  Iran-contra.  China.  Taxes.  Voodoo Economics.

>I know it's been beaten to death, but this really goes to the
>heart of Clinton's problem:

>If he smoked some pot, why couldn't he just say he smoked some
>pot and leave it at that.  Other politicians have done it and it
>hasn't hurt them a bit.  We get: "I didn't inhale."  "I didn't break
>the laws of this land."  Clinton's got such a hard-on for this
>idealistic-unspoilt-young-jfk-reborn-with-a-southern-accent
>image he wants everyone to swallow, its clouded his judgement.

But again, "I didn't break the laws of this land" is presumably true.
It's evidence that he *doesn't* lie.  If he wanted to lie, he'd say that
he never smoked it. 

Incidently, what should he have said if he *didn't* inhale?  (As he
himself pointed out, it's evidence that he ISN'T slick.  No politician
trying to make himself look good at all costs would say something that 
stupid, something which would make him the butt of jokes across
late-nite TV.)

>>It seems to me that we can't have it both ways.... If Clinton has
>>to address a non-issue like the draft, Bush should address a non-issue
>>such as a little playing around. 

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china