From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:52:20 GMT


In a previous article, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) says:

>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>>bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>>No, Clinton did not dodge the draft as nothing he did could remotely be
>>considered as deceit or trickery. "Uncivic"? Give me a break! He opposed
>>the war in Vietnam. How does that make him any less of an American? How
>>does than make him any less patriotic? The whole draft dodging issue is
>>merely another smokescreen invoked because the re-election campaign has
>>no positive issues of any accomplishements by Bush that they can run on.
>>That is why they attack Clinton's "war record".
>
>>If you want a real example of deceit and trickery, you needn't look any
>>further than Danny Boy, who is but one heartbeat from the Commander in
>>Cheif job. How did he avoid the draft? There are certain types of National
>>Guard Units, by their very nature, which are virtually guarenteed to never
>>have to serve overseas. The unit Quayle wanted to enlist was one such unit,
>>but the young men of Indiana aren't all stupid, the waiting list in that
>>particular unit was so long, that if Quayle waited it out, he would have
>>been drafted first. What did he do? He had his family assert pressure at
>>the right places and voila! His name went to the front of the list!!
>
>I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>have on these two.  It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to 
>avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?
>

The point here is that the Republican Party has repeatedly slammed Clinton
for "dodging" the draft, yet have not acknoweledged that Quayle did exactly
the same thing.

>It is also interesting to note that four years ago this was a hot topic
>for a very long time and the Republicans were the ones accused of 
>negative campaigning.  This year the subject was quickly talked about
>in the media and dismissed as not an issue.  
>

Have you concidered that the media has realized that negative campaigning
is a foregone conclusion, and has decided to ignore it as such?
Remember, the republican do not have a record to run on this year, nor can
they look at the record of Clinton and belittle him on it.  The only
recourse they have, then, is characture assassination, and the "mistakes"
of youth are fair game, reguardless of the fact that Clinton has grown 
beyond those "mistakes" and become an effective and respected chief
executive.
The only chance the republicans have to win is by negative assertions, 
hoping they will convince the electorate that they are right by repeating
little things enough times in enough different ways that people will
accept them as fact.  (rather like some folks here do...)  
And even when presented with facts (the recent assertion, for example, of
Clinton's tax record, and 128 tax raises in 12 years, the enormous per
capita tax burdon on Arkansawers (49th in the country), still asserted
even after the GAO reports showing that the assertion is patently untrue),
they continue...

>Break out of your campaign fog for a minute and look at the facts.  Do
>you think this is right?
>-- 

Are you sure _you're_ looking at the facts?

>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh