From: clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush  
Summary: agreed          
Keywords: just side commentary 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:24:10 GMT

Note that alt.news-media has been removed from the follow-up.
If anyone's dying to reply to this, please use E-mail.
(I can't keep up with the traffic on alt.politics.*)

>vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:

>>    Well, if you are not satisfied with my previous answer, let me make it
>> easier for you and maybe some others, 
>>  
>>    Realisticly, we have to choose eith Bush or Clinton. 
>>    
>>    Bush is already proven not up to the job.

Absolutely.  To give the devil his due, he has done very well with foreign
policy.  On the other hand, he hasn't <had> a domestic policy.  
That's the problem.  I think we can suffer some foreign policy lapses
without much damage; we can't suffer through another four years of neglect
on domestic issues.

Everything in Bush's background indicates his preference for dealing with
foreign policy.  That's his baby, and I reluctantly admit that he (and his
staff) do a good job.  If he's reelected, he'll go back to what's most
comfortable for him.  If we could get him in as SecState, I'd be happy. 

>Well, yes and no. If you are arguing reasonable doubt, then you are missing
>elements to your case. The republicans claim that Bush has had an argumentitive
>Congress, that has not even tried to do what the president has proposed. True?
>Well, all we have to do is check Congressional records. We find that there is
>some credence to Bush's plight, though that is not the issue at hand. So, using
>your logic, we have two "maybe no's".

The President doesn't have nearly as much power as people think.  However,
one of the things a President <can> do is call upon the public for support.
This strategy, "going public," can be used to force Congress to do what the
President wants.  Reagan was a master at it.  Bush wasn't.  The only reason
he hasn't faced massive veto overrides (which can be prevented by party
maneuvering) is because he gives in if he's going to be overridden.  Look
at the civil rights bill for a fine example. 

>>    Clinton is an unknown as you feared. Since Bush is a no, Clinton is a 
>>    maybe no, only logical answer is for Clinton.
>
>See above. But now we can cast considerable doubt on Clinton's past. Look at
>Arkansas. Clinton has raised taxes and fees 128 times-something that the
>Democrats now acknowledge. 

As I recall, one of the famous 128 was a decision to extend the Arkansas
(horse?) lottery two weeks, a net revenue gain.  Many of the 128 were bogus;
some were genuine increases.  However, most neutral observers concluded that
tax increases were balanced by tax cuts.  I'd rather have a policy of
sensible, necessary taxation than a (breakable) pledge of NO NEW REVENUE
ADJUSTMENTS.

>Arkansas has unemployment rates higher than the
>national average. Growth in manufactoring was cut in half by Clinton (Source US
>bureau of the Census) Arkansas ranks 47th in per capita personal income.
>Arkansas raks dead last in the South in manufac. wages for durable goods. There
>is a lot more, but I think you get the point. Considering his past performance,
>much longer than that of Bush's, do we really want this time-bomb in office
>during a fargile economy? Clinton a "logical" answer? I'm not so sure.

Ah, but was Arkansas worse off before Clinton?  That's the statistic the
Republicans omit from their advertisements.  I'm not going to defend Clinton's
record, but it seems to me that he did better with Arkansas domestic policy
than Bush did with USA domestic policy.

I'm voting Clinton in '92, for the simple reason that I've seen four years
of Bush and I don't like what I've seen.  If I truly believed that Clinton
was worse, I wouldn't.  Fact is, Clinton's secrets are all out in the open.
We know that he didn't inhale, that he draft-dodged during Vietnam, and
that he may have had an affair.  No worse than many Presidents we've had. 

>Here endith the Lesson

Sorry, the lessons don't end until death.  (And after, if you're a 
reincarnationist.)

>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Oh.  Why?  (Please respond by E-mail.  I'm curious.)  
-- 
clarka@netcom.com     Andrew Clark     My ignorance is my own fault.
"We have virtual reality today: George Bush lives in it." | Bad cop! 
"Macs are to computing what television is to journalism." | No donut! 
Secondary account at aclark@UCSD.EDU -- prefer mail at netcom site.   
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton