From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:24:02 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>   In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:

@ >Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
@ >to anyone else on the net?

>	   It sure did to me. It is amazing to see a bunch of fat cats
@ and pampered pets claim that hard work is such a virtue, to see
@ Marilyn Quayle insinuate that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger when her
@ husband was an even bigger one (the worst danger in his National Guard
@ training would have been a hunter mistaking him for a deer), and so
@ forth.

>Oh, a stint at Oxford is less draft dodging than joining the National
>Guard for six years, showing up, marching, saluting, digging foxholes
>etc?  Yup, sitting at Oxford and not inhaling is much more patriotic.

	How was going to Oxford draft dodging?

	Eventually, Clinton signed up for the draft, so how is that
draft dodging? I saw it all on Nightline :-)

	As I commented earlier, was Quayle choosing to put his life on
the line in Vietnam? NO. As I commented earlier, the only people
likely to shoot at him were deer hunters.

>	   And Marilyn Quayle is something else -- if having a career
@ goes against a woman's fundamental nature, then why did she go to law
@ school? Why didn't she just drop out of high school?

>This is another one of those democratic lies I mentioned in another post.
>At no time did anyone criticize Hillary for having a career.  She was

	But Marilyn Quayle was implying _exactly_ that, that a woman
with a career is going against her fundamental nature, and that
includes both Hillary Clinton and herself.

>criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					Quoted out of context, I'm
sure. She was referring to cases of serious abuse.

>marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Prove it. As far as I know she NEVER claimed that _all_
marriage was slavery. She certainly doesn't consider herself Bill
Clinton's slave.

>indeed fair game, with all that implies.

	Well, it's a two-way street :-)

>The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
>for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
>the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
>opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.

	They had fun at the expense of something clearly superstitious
and something that had been carefully covered up for much of Reagan's
term in office. I'm surprised that the Religious Right didn't scream
REALLY loud at this departure from Fundie principles (I guess what
would have been OK with them is for her to open up a Bible at random,
and use the position of the first word she puts her finger on to work
out her husband's schedule with).

>I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
>is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
>State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
>of her legal and political positions is in order.

	I've yet to see that in any mainstream news media. So that's
why they are such big villains :-)

>Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				Where???
>that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself.   If you can't
>stand the heat...

	Then Marilyn Quayle should just shut up, if she doesn't want
to be a target, also.