From: st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.180923.29615@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes...
>In article <barrett.713634045@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>>It's like Bush's answer on Dateline NBC last night, where he reiterated
>>Quayle's opinion that an abortion should be the choice of the woman, as
>>long as it's a relative of his.  Bush has shown again and again that he
>>thinks he's above the law.
> 
>We know that Bush lies.  If that's such a horrible thing, why do the
>Clinton supporters insist on doing so as well.  If you can't make your
>argument without distorting Bush's positions ....
> 
>I watched the interview.  Bush said only that if one of his relatives
>exercised a legal choice, he wouldn't abandon them afterwards.  He said
>nothing suggesting that he'd approve of that choice or support it.
> 
>If Clinton's children did something legal that he disapproved of, do
>you think he should abandon them?  No?  Then why is Bush wrong for
>doing the exact same thing?
> 

Now, why this ended up in rec.humor, I don't know.  But the primary difference
here is that Bush wants to make something illegal, thereby condemning everyone
who commits the act, but will not hesitiate to countenance the same activity on
the part of people in his own sphere.  In other words, simply because HE wouldn't
want to do it (as if he had the choice!) it should be illegal for anyone else to
do it either.  But if someone he trusts does it, then it must be OK.  On the other
hand, the great unwashed has no business making such decisions for themselves,
so we can't let them have the same freedom.  Let's face it, George Bush is a
politician who made the mistake of signing on for the long haul with a bunch of
powerful extremists and now can't escape from the commitments he has made.  The 
rest of the Republican power structure (as it currently exists) bought in or was
co-opted in the process.  As long as the Supreme Court was there to prevent any
of them from being able to make good on their threats to outlaw choice (a statement
which fits more than just the abortion issue, really), the presence of a good many
other attractive qualities in the overall Republican position made it possible for
voters to ignore the abortion stand and vote for Reagan (and later for Bush) and
not agree with them on that issue.  After all, as long as they couldn't DO anything 
to mess with the situation, what they said didn't matter.  And the Democrats were
spending their time and energy courting every fringe group in sight instead of 
establishing a solid middle-ground stance that could have provided them with the
votes they were losing by being extremists in another manner.  Having learned the
lesson that the Republicans are about to be taught, this year the Democrats took
a centrist stance and luckily found a candidate with a centrist-appearing image
to go with it.  Absent a tremendous scandal in the Democratic ranks, I look for
Bush to lose in all but perhaps a half dozen states.  I do not think that Perot 
will allow his name to remain on the ballot in any state where he might cause
Bush to pull a plurality as a result.  While he has not yet officially removed his
name from the ballot in Texas, I expect that to happen in the next couple of weeks.

I hope that followups to this WON'T hit rec.humor

<flame off>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory