From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton (was: Re: Buchanan's speech)
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 08:56:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.025423.18255@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>
>
>In article <1992Aug23.004337.19230@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.
>EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>>Thank you, William Porter, for digging up the actual text being quoted by
>>so many people to take digs at Hillary  Clinton.  I'm not going to defend what
>>she wrote in 1974.  I don't understand what she was trying to say, either.
>>
>>But let me reiterate after Mr. Porter.   Ms. Clinton was pretty young in 1974,
>>and a student.
>>
>
>Well, gee, I am willing to admit that I wrote some stupid things while in 
>college...  Where is Hillary?  Why can't SHE comment about the things she did 
>when she was young?  Does she have tape over her mouth? :)

Well, that's big of you! ;-)  Really, I don't know why she doesn't talk about
it.  Maybe she feels the focus should be not on her, but on her husband.
>
>>Six years later, in 1980, George Bush was still pro-choice.  Bush made his now
>>famous quip about Reagan's "voodoo economics" also in 1980.  He was not youthf
>>ul nor a student; he was an experienced and accomplished bureaucrat and 
>>politician.
>>We all know how malleable those positions were.  And we haven't yet heard what
>>Bar was thinking in 1974, 1980, or whatever.  (Well, abortion excepted.)
>>
>
>No arguement here, but he's better than the alternative...

"No argument here"?  You're not ranting about what George said in 1980, but
something Hillary wrote in 1974 is really important to determine your vote?
[Actually, by saying "he's better than the alternative" you reveal that you
have made up your mind to vote for Bush without knowledge of Hillary.  So isn't
your interest in this more to create some diversion from Bush/Clinton?  Why
pretend this is anything other than cynical?]

>
>>As for the "I could stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" remark.  Come
>on
>>now.  How many attorneys do you know?  Marilyn Quayle is an attorney, and does
>>not stay home to bake cookies while her children at school.  Phyllis Schafly's
>>children, I understand, live with relatives in another state, so she can pursu
>e
>>her career as a conservative advocate of "family values."  Whatever.
>>
>>Many, many women in this country hold jobs outside the home. (Reality.) Some b
>y
>>preference, more (I assume) by necessity.  Jumping all over Ms.Clinton's remar
>k
>>makes a person seem pretty oblivious to American life in 1992.
>
>The point is not what she or anyone else did, but what she SAID.  She offended 
>all the women who bake cookies and have teas, just like Dan Quale offended all 
>the single mothers. :)

Really?  Were you offended? Is this all just a flap over an insensitive remark?
Are you saying the only difference between Marilyn Quayle and Hillary Clinton
is that--neither one stayed home to bake cookies and have teas--that Hillary
made a dismissive remark about it, and Marilyn did not?  Do you think Marilyn
secretly longs to stay at home and bake cookies?  Can't you see this is silly?

>>
>>Patrick Buchanan isn't running for President.  Neither is Pat Robertson, Jesse
>>Jackson, or Ted Kennedy.  Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore and
>>Marilyn Quayle are married to the various candidates.  What they say and think
>>matters, but they are not, repeat NOT, running for President.  When there are
>>so many many issues of REAL import, and declared positions and governing recor
>ds
>>of the candidates themselves to discuss, why are so many so obsessed with so
>>little?
>>
>
>
>Because neither candidate has any solution.
>-- 
>           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
>     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
>      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
>             Win Twins!

[Warning:  Preachy tirade coming  ;-)  ]

I have a real problem with this last sentence.  (And I mean this nicely :)
Our political process is so very, very cynical.  Candidates hire huge media
staffs to control every image, picture, sound and word that voters receive.
News media alternate between dutifully reporting sludge (stenographers) and
offering tired commentary on the horse race.  We watch the campaign like a
sports event.  Folks at the RNC shout "Hit em again, harder, harder" during
Bush' speech, as if the pleasure of whacking someone else is better than just
having the more persuasive argument.  Rush is a big part of this, because he's
constantly selling politics as entertainment and blood sport.  I know it's a
lot of fun.  I enjoy it too.  But isn't there something else we could wish for
besides the pleasure of beating the other guy?  
	I realize this may sound trite, but I'm serious.  We have *serious*
problems in this country to be dealt with.  (Teen pregnancy, AIDS, poverty,
widening class rifts, upcoming bank bailout, deficit, high taxes, etc.)  I
think if we expected more of our candidates in the way of serious proposals,
and less in the way of entertaining whacks, we'd have better government.
Leadership requires making decisions that are unpopular in the short term, but
beneficial in the long term.  But who's going to seriously say that reducing
our debt will require *both* massive spending cuts and higher taxes?  Nobody.
Because the other side will ridicule and humiliate you with it.
	Who's going to say that we are losing a generation of black men, who
are wasting in prisons or drug houses or caskets in alarming numbers?  It's
not photogenic.  Neither is the bank bailout, which will be announced after
the election.  Who will talk candidly about the 300-billion dollar deficit?
Wanna take a stab at finding a permanent nuclear waste repository, now that
Nevada doesn't want it?  Got a plan for slowing down inner-city violence?
	If you want entertainment, you've got it now.  If you want any of
these situations seriously dealt with, you're going to have to give up the
fun of cartoon politics.  It's a very real choice, and I wish more people
would give this some thought.

David Christensen
chrisda@atlantis.cs.orst.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh