From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:55:43 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

nfs@tyrolia (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

> In article <FiFqqB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> >> I would like to hear three opinions
> >> Clinton holds that are in the minority view in this country.  He seems lik
> >> the ultimate poll watcher to me.
>
> >Ok, how about these.
> >
> >1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand.  While
> >a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
>
> Not so.  Clinton said he would sign the FOCA, before Congress approved
> amendments allowing states to set restrictions like parental
> notification; i.e. he was willing to sign a bill outlawing all state
> restrictions on abortion.  I would argue from that position that he
> favors abortion on demand.  The only question then is whether his is a
> majority view (which I believe it to be).

The 'damage' to abortion on demand has already been done.  Whether or not
Clinton signs FOCA or not.  Besides, FOCA won't get through Congress *without*
the restrictions.  As to whether or not a majority of people favor abortion on
demand, this is another one of those issues that depends on who's taking the
poll and how the questions are asked.

>
> >2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
>
> Clinton isn't going to raise YOUR taxes, he's going to raise RICH
> people's taxes.  That is pretty clearly a majority view.  The catch
> is, of course, that everyone is going to be rich when Clinton is in
> office, at least for tax purposes.

There are many people who oppose *any* tax increase, even if it only affects
the wealthy.

>
> >3.  He wants to reduce defense spending more than Bush.  Not popular among
> >both the 'strong national defense' crowd and among all of those General
> >Dynamics and Lockheed workers in critical states like CA and TX.
>
> I strongly doubt that a majority of the electorate believes in "strong
> national defense" when that means keeping a large standing army to
> deter a defunct rival.  The majority thinks it's time that the peace
> dividend gets paid out; there are certainly no lack of domestic
> problems at which money can be thrown, and at which people expect it
> to be thrown.

Hmmm...it took half a million men to defeat the Iraqi forces, and Saddam is far
from defunct.  As to the peace dividend, that's one of the biggest myths of the
'90s.  You forget that most of the defense budget is a giant jobs program.
Lockheed and Northrup in California, General Dynamics in Texas,
McDonnel-Douglas in St. Louis.  Cut defense and you put people out on the
street in a big way.  Look at how Bush was able to pander to the Texas voters
by allowing General Dynamics to sell F16s to Taiwan.  That keeps those plants
in Fort Worth open at a time when the Air Force really isn't buying many
planes.

> >The point to this is really not whether or not Clinton holds unpopular or
> >minority views, but do his majority views constitute pandering? ...
>
> You haven't come up with any minority views yet.  Keep trying.
>

You haven't come up with much on your own, either, as I've pointed out.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush