From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:53:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <27669@life.ai.mit.edu>, elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.090031.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> - In article <27591@life.ai.mit.edu>, elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
> - > In article <1992Sep4.184224.18782@cognet.ucla.edu>, tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark) writes:
> - >> In article <1992Sep4.101956.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> - >> >
> - >> >   I watched Clinton's speech to the American Legion live on C-SPAN,
> - >> > and was outraged at the time at what I perceived he was saying (regarding
> - >> > Lincoln having no military experience).  But, after looking at the 
> - >> > text of his speech, I can see that he never claimed Lincoln had 
> - >> > no military experience.  However, this is just another example of
> - >> > his unprecedented political acumen (i.e. his slickness).  Let me show
> - >> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> - >> [stuff deleted] > 
>   [more stuff deleted]
> - >> > I suppose if Quayle made this same speech, the headline on the NY Times
> - >> > would read "QUAYLE MISREPRESENTS LINCOLN'S MILITARY RECORD TO GET
> - >> > AMERICAN LEGION VOTE."
> - >> > 
> - >> >     C. Perttunen
> - >> 
> - >> Yes, and Democrats who would now argue that this point is irrelevant (along
> - >> with the draft thing, the pot thing, and the (admittedly alleged) infidelity
> - >> thing) would descend upon it like a swarm of hungry flies to a pile of
> - >> steaming elephant dung. Of course this group would include the media.
> - > 
> - > 
> - > Here is an excerpt from the speech in question; it was posted
> - > to the net a few days ago. It sounds to me like Clinton's
> - > summary about Lincoln is accurate. Decide for yourselves:
> 
> [Clinton speech quote deleted]
>  
> -      If you would have spent the time looking at my original post,
> - you would have seen that I included this already.  And I gave
> - a full analysis of it also.
> - 
> -      C. Perttunen
> 
> The question I was addressing was your question of Clinton's factual
> errors vs Quayl's factual errors. You are objecting to Clinton's
> interpretation of those facts. When Quayl gets called to task by the
> press, it is because he gets his facts wrong. I re-posted the quote
> of Clinton to show that (1) Clinton got the facts right, and (2) he
> didn't omit any key facts. Contrast this with a classic Quayl quote
> like "there are canals on Mars." Clearly Quayl's level of ignorance
> puts him in a league of his own.
> 					- Lee Campbell

     If this was your intent, then why didn't you just post this 
paragraph?  There was no reason to re-post the speech.  If you would
have read my analysis, you would have seen that I agreed on (1)
and (2) that you present.  But, it was the organization of the 
speech that was confusing (it confused the Wall Street Journal,
USA Today, etc.).  This is what I wrote about.
     Maybe Clinton is now in Quayle's league with his comments
on the Patriot missiles going through chimneys. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
(And this could be our future commander-in-chief?)

     Cary Perttunen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality