From: 0005359961@mcimail.com (Van Tran)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: [POL] Bush Presidency Hits A New Low
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:12:45 GMT
Reply-To: 0005359961@mcimail.com
Organization: SCV Relay
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu


     A cheap political shot was fired in Wednesday night on the
Larry King show.
     Most of major newspapers ran big headlines the day after.
Political analysts, commentaries, and newsmen were "shocked". But
is it really new in Bush's political campaign?
     In 1988, without a clear vision to run on, Bush had fervently
attacked Gov. Michael Dukakis of being unpatriotic - sort of, to be
fair. The story began with a veto by Gov. Dukakis of a proposed
legislation that allowed the reading of the pledge of allegiance in
public schools. Despite the fact that Dukakis had consulted with
the high court in MA about the legislation's legal ground, Dukakis
was beaten badly by Bush and his surrogates on the subject. Bush
then went on to a flag factory, literally wrapped himself with the
Stars and Spangle banner, and lectured on patriotism. And every now
and then after that incident until the first 1988 presidential
debate Bush constantly reminded voters of his favorite subject. He
would open his speech by saying something like... while I
understand his pride of the Greek original and I don't question his
patriotism, his veto of the bill... Even casual observers would
recognize what he wanted to say: Be ware, the guy is the son of
immigrants, he might very well be different from us all. Sadly,
that tactics worked. Bush won by "landslide."
     1992 comes. Bush must have felt terrible that this time around
he does not have a son of immigrant parents to run for president.
So he decided to manufacture one. In a speech given in Edmond,
Oklahoma, he criticized the Clinton economic plan as something
foreign - un-American to be exact. Where did Clinton learn all
these ideas, Bush moaned, from? Oxford! He said it in his deep,
deep voice of strong conviction as though a year of study in
England had transformed an all American boy into some sort of an
allen from other planet. Bush then went on to call Clinton and his
supporters the elites, and pointed out the best and the brightest
is among the ordinary Americans, not among those of the elite
class. What? Bush and Quayle are not the elite? Give us a break,
will ya? But the story escaped most of the press attention.
     Here's the Cheap Shot. On Larry King show Bush had questioned
the Clinton's trip to Moscow in 1969, a year after the Soviets
invaded Czechoslovakia, and a year before Clinton participated in
some of the anti-war activities. In effect, Bush implied that
Clinton had come to Moscow despite what the evil empire had done to
the Czech earlier and might have met some of the KGB officers or
its sympathizers for the following anti-war activities. 
     Up to this point in American presidential politics those
direct, unsubstantiated charges were made only by the candidate's
surrogates, not the candidate, much less the President, himself.
So, why did Bush throw the dirty mud? Was it his spontaneous moment
or a calculated move? 
     Of course, it was a very calculated move, not a spontaneous
moment as the Bush camp claimed. He had a meeting with Baker and
four other Republican Congressmen in Monday this week on the
subject. Then, there he went again. And the motive is clear: in the
desperation of losing his job, he had to use all the dirty tricks
in the world, regardless of truth and honor.
     His aides later pointed out that what the President meant was
the continual pattern of inconsistency on Clinton's part. They also
confirmed that there were no evidence of wrong-doing by the
Arkansas governor. At the same time, Bush promised more to come
when responding to a reporter's question. Is it consistent, or
what?
     Is it consistent or what that, in his acceptance speech in
1988, he called for a "kinder, gentler nation", only to break it
weeks later with the Pledge of Allegiance charge and the infamous
Willie Horton ad in order to create the mentality of us vs. them in
that presidential campaign?
     Is it consistent or what that, in the same speech, he promised
"no new taxes", only to break it later?
     Is it consistent or what that, having pledged himself to cut
the federal deficit, he presides over the largest deficit increase
in American history?
     Is it consistent or what that, despite the universal
condemnation of the Chines government following the Tiananmen
incident in 1989, Bush had sent his secret envoys to Beijing and
repeatedly granted the MFN status to China regardless of her
records in human rights violation?
     Is it consistent or what that, in view of recent revelation by
Shults's and Weinberger's memo, Bush was in the loop of Iran-Contra
affair and he still refuses to answer questions relative to those
evidences?
     Is it consistent or what that, after a long denial of the
economic recession in this country Bush had to acknowledge it under
pressure, and now claim that he was right technically?
     Is it consistent or what that, in the 1992 Republican
convention Bush called for a campaign-on-issue, and now break it,
and throwing mud after he's sinking in the poll?
     The list will go on and on. There is no consistency of what
Bush has said and done, accepted and denied, proposed and
withdrawn. 
     What we need in this campaign is the discussion of issues, not
mud throwing. America is facing an enormous economic crisis and
global change. We need someone who has a constructive, competitive
plan for the economy. Else, soon Europe will be one economic
entity, far more powerful than the American's, and we will find out
what competition and economic depression means to us all. The real
question is: Does Bush have such a vision? 

-------------------
Tra^`n Y' Va^n
Copyleft, 1992.