From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:07:43 GMT

Ordinarily I'd let this go, but I just love the way the asterisks
are used here, as if to make the arguments seem more valid or important.
Here we go...

In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>
>                GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
>
> *    Bush's latest attack on Bill Clinton for a trip he took 23 years
> ago is a pathetic attempt to divert the American people from the
> worst economic record in 50 years.  It is a sign of pure
> desperation.
>

Quite frankly, a lot of people (not just crazed right wing Republicans) 
don't think that the economy is really all that bad in every way.  Low
interest rates make home buying more affordable, low inflation softens
the blow of other economic problems, etc.  One might argue that Bill
Clinton's attacks on the economy are a pathetic attempt to divert the
American people from focusing on Bill Clinton's character.

> *    Bush said last night it's been an ugly political year.  He's
> right -- and he's responsible for it.  It's smear campaigns like he's
> running that have turned off the American people.
>

Bill Clinton and his Democrat buddies have been smearing the president
for nearly a year now.


> *    The American people don't want to hear about Bill Clinton's 1969
> itinerary, they want to hear about the course America is going to
> take.  Bill Clinton has a plan to create millions of new jobs,
> provide every American with affordable health care, and improve our
> schools.  George Bush can only offer more of the same.
>

I love this.  As if the writer could presume to know what the American
people want or don't want to hear about.  As far as Clinton's "glorious"
plan goes, the emperor has no clothes.  He can't pay for it without  
boosting either the deficit or taxes to new highs. 

> *    Because the Republicans have such a miserable economic record,
> they've resorted to lobbing hand grenade after hand grenade, hoping
> that one will explode.  Even as he was attacking Clinton, Bush told
> Larry King, "I don't have the facts."
>

To say that the Republicans use "hand grenades" concedes that they have
good ammunition.  Much better than that expressed by this cheap attempt
to take a quote out of context.

> *    Consider the source: these scurrilous charges were started by
> Bob Dornan ranting on the House floor, who admits he has no evidence
> and was "speculating."  They were picked up by the Washington Times,
> and fanned by Bush deputy campaign director Mary Matalin and press
> secretary Torie Clarke.  And we all know who gives them directions:
> James Baker, the former Secretary of State.
>

Speculation is not necessarily a bad thing.  I don't know what Clinton
did or who he met with in Moscow, and at this point I don't claim that
he did anything wrong.  I would like him to address this point and 
there's nothing wrong with raising the issue, especially since I've
heard that the Soviets often attempted to use visiting Oxford students
for political purposes.  I'm old enough to remember 1969 -- people were
not flocking to see the sights of Moscow.

> *    One sign of Bush's desperation is his moving to a direct attack
> on Clinton's opposition to the Vietnam war.  Recall Bush's 1989
> Inaugural Speech when he pledged to the American people to end
> divisions over the war:
>
>      "[The Vietnam War] cleaves us still.  But friends, that war
> began in earnest a quarter of a century ago; and surely the statute
> of limitation has been reached.  This is a fact: the final lesson of
> Vietnam is that no great nation can long afford to be sundered by a
> memory."  1/20/89
 
If Clinton opposed the war, no problem.  If he tried to avoid the draft,
no _big_ problem.  But if he lies about what he did, or if he doesn't
come completely clean about it, I'd say that's a real problem.
>

> *    There's a name for Bush's attack -- red-baiting.  Bush might
> have been a good candidate during the Cold War, he's not a candidate
> for the future.  With this latest slur, he sounds like Joe McCarthy.
> Next thing he'll be calling for the revival for the House UnAmerican
> Activities Committee and blacklisting.

There's a name for this sort of attack -- name calling.  Notice how
the writer tries to shift attention away from Clinton's qualifications
to be commander in chief ("...he's not a candidate for the future." as
if we now live in a warm fuzzy world with no enemies to prepare for.  
Remember--if Clinton had been president when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it
would be the 18th state of Iraq today.


>
> *    George Bush is nothing if not inconsistent.  He attacks Clinton
> for not remembering who he met in Moscow 23 years ago, but Bush can't
> remember who he met with during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986.  He
> attacks Clinton for going to Moscow one year after the Soviets
> crushed the Czech reformers in Prague, but as President of the United
> States, Bush sent his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft to
> China within weeks after the Chinese brutally crushed the democratic
> student protest in Tianamen Square.
>

If I visited Moscow 30 years ago you can bet I'd generally remember what I did
and who I met.  And I suppose had Clinton been president he'd "never ever talk
to those nasty Chinese again!"  Cutting off China could have had disasterous
effects around the world and would probably not have helped the democracy
movement in any way.

> *    As all Rhodes Scholars are encouraged to do, Bill Clinton
> traveled as a tourist during his 40 day winter break in 1969.  He
> visited several countries in Northern Europe during December 1969 and
> early January 1970.
>
> *    Moscow was just one of many places Clinton visited as a tourist
> during his Northern European vacation.  He traveled alone, without a
> sponsor, and he paid his own way.
>
> *    At least eight of the 32 Rhodes scholars in Clinton's class also
> traveled to Moscow on their own or in small groups.  There were no
> restrictions on traveling to Moscow. It was very inexpensive.
>

He can travel wherever he wants.  Just be up front about it.  Travel to
the USSR was unusual for Americans in 1969.  Ross Perot couldn't get
permission from the Soviet government to travel there, but I'll bet 
they loved to get young, anti-war students to go there.

> *    Clinton's travels took him to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
> Russia, and Prague, Czechoslovakia before returning to England.
> Clinton traveled Europe as a tourist -- not to attend any meeting or
> demonstration.  While in Norway, he visited a friend from Hot Springs
> who was attending Oslo University.  He met Father McSorley
> coincidentally at the Oslo train station, they traveled to the
> University where Clinton was introduced to McSorley's friends, and
> then Clinton went to visit his friend.
  
> *    Clinton spent Christmas in Finland with the family of a college
> friend before heading to Moscow where he spent five or six days
> touring.

How nice for him!

>
> *    Clinton has repeatedly said that he opposed the war in Vietnam
> and that he attended several anti-war marches.  He participated in no
> anti-American demonstrations.
>
>                            -30-30-
>

"-30-30-" ????  How impressive.  Gives it a real ring of authority!
Seriously, I'd like to know if Clinton participated in anti-war 
demonstrations overseas.  I'd find it hard to distinguish such events from
"anti-American demonstrations."


One other note of interest.  Do you get the feeling from reading the 
original post that whoever wrote it was _extremely outraged_!!!???
I love that attitude.  It suggests that Bush's supporters have really
hit a soft sensitive spot!  Why can't the Dems just talk about it
without the obnoxious pretense?


Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago
>
>
>Distribution:
>  Org >internet:Clinton-Org@ai.mit.edu
>  Jock Gill [70670,2477]
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections