From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:36:01
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: ne
	<GORDON.92Apr15145005@lugh.think.com> <2256@transfer.stratus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com
In-reply-to: tarl@sw.stratus.com's message of 16 Apr 92 04:01:50 GMT

In article <2256@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

	. . .

   In article <GORDON.92Apr15145005@lugh.think.com>, gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:
   me> [Bush and Clinton are sleazy but not corrupt]

As for Bush's residency in Texas, he hasn't paid rent or
owned property there for years.  The hotel were he claimed
residence, but only paid for when he was in town, went
bankrupt.  This and other issues aren't that relevant.  I
and other people have sufficient reason to believe that Bush
has been dishonest, but I won't stop you from defending him.


   > These are two examples of corruption, if not outright breaking the law.

   Neither is illegal, neither is corrupt. I suggest you stop posturing
   and start thinking. Perhaps a dictionary will help.

corrupt (cor rupt; k <x2> <en> rupt ) adj. 
1 adj.
	guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity;
	crooked: a corrupt judge. 

I consider both practices I mentioned to be corrupt.

   me> [Bush & Clinton are sleazy]
   >
   > So you agree?  Why would you limit your choice to a "sleaze"
   > and a liar?

   Rather than include someone who is, at a minimum, a loose cannon. Yes.
   Certainly rather than simply abdicating my decision and leaving it to
   someone else.

I sense rather that you fear that he would take votes from
Bush.  Despite Bush's unpopularity, I think that Clinton is
more unpopular among Democrats so it's a toss-up as to which
candidate Perot would take more votes from, if any.  People
supporting Perot might not vote for either Bush or Clinton.
Remember, a majority of adult Americans don't both to vote
for president (barely half of the registered voters even
bother to vote).

Why are you so concerned about Perot?  A loose cannon in
what sense?

	. . .
	Stuff about Peru deleted

   me> Don't put someone on the ballot just because you think it will shake up
   me> the other campaigners.
   > 
   > Why not?

   Didn't you read my post? Because he might win. Or he might cause someone
   otherwise unelectable to win by default (witness Edwin Edwards!).

Horrors!  A candidate with majority support in a democratic
election might win.  Your arguments convince me more that
the two parties are not addressing the desires of Americans.
The run-off in Louisiana is a ridiculous example, and you
should know that.  Edwards won both the primary and the
general election, the first by a plurality, the second by a
majority.  It is pure speculation that Roemers had majority
support (especially since Duke won a majority of white
votes).

	. . .
	Discussion about constitution removed

   me> [by now you should know a lot about the candidates]
   >
   > I know allegations about who Clinton and Bush sleep with.  I
   > know the customers of Hillary Clinton's law firm.  I know
   > about evading the Vietnam war draft.  I know that Saddam is
   > still in power.

   You should stop reading the headlines and start reading the articles.

I would hope you could make your points without ad hominum
attacks.

   And by the way, we are prevented by law from running an operation to
   remove Saddam from power by force. Even during wartime.

Bush created Saddam and tried to destroy him.  Bush failed.

	. . .
	Summaries of supposed positions deleted.

   At least the above is what they say. As far as Bush is concerned, it is
   somewhat backed up by his years as president. Clinton seems to have more
   discrepancies between what he says and what he preaches - but I stopped
   paying attention to what he said back when I tallied up my disagreements
   with him vs. those with Mr. Bush.

I agree with you on Clinton, which is the origin of my
disgust in this election.  Clinton's speach is very far from
his record.  As a pro-choice advocate, he signed legislation
requiring parental consent.  As a "liberal," he rushes back
to Arkansas to apply the death penalty to a mentally
deficient black man.  As a populist, he raises taxes and the
most regressive taxes: sales taxes on food stuffs.  As an
environmentalist, he sides with business.  Arkansas is one
of two states without state-wide civil rights protections
for blacks.  Clinton hasn't spent a dime specifically on
AIDS -- education, awareness, prevention, or care..


   If Tsongas were still in the campaign, I'd be more interested - Since
   Clinton doesn't interest me, my decision is made and I've been ignoring
   the campaign. But the desire for an entertaining campaign that lasts all
   the way to november, doesn't justify the application of loose cannons.

The campaign is going to be quite entertaining.  I would
like some substance instead.  All we are going to get is
accusations thrown back and forth.


   > A campaign is where politicians "sell" issues and where the
   > american electorate "buys" solutions.

   Do you want a sales job or do you want to make an informed decision?

How do you think people make informed decisions without facts?

   We already know that campaign promises are akin to computer vaporware.

Perhaps you do.  Vote the incumbents out if you don't like
them and run for office.

   Try finding out what a politician has been and is, and vote on that basis.
   Don't vote on the basis of what promises you can get him to make. Because
   he won't keep them.

Just because your president consistently breaks every
campaign promise he ever made does not mean that all
politicians are of the same ilk.  You acknowledge that
politicians lie and yet you continue voting for one without
hardly a second thought.  This is sad.


   > Experience has shown to me that you are not familiar with
   > American politics. 

   Fascinating. I disagree with you on a number of issues. I certainly 
   disagree with you on what the important issues are. (I would have listed:
   civil rights, abortion rights, foreign policy, economic policy, ect.).

I would say the economy and concern for individual liberty.
And then how to prevent concern about the economy from
turning into civil rights violations, protectionism, wars,
etc.


   There is a big difference between disagreeing with you and being
   unfamiliar with american politics.

No, but I have more knowledge of Weld, in particular.

	. . .

   > More locally, Weld's support on gay issues arose during his campaign.

   I smell some revisionism here. Perhaps a public stance of support for
   gay issues arose during the campaign, but his support of them today
   happens to fit within his general libertarian philosophy. If his stance
   is only a result of a campaign promise, it's a refreshing change.

I smell revisionism on your part.  Weld opposed extending
civil rights protections to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
before he was approached by gay activists (myself included)
looking to support him.  If Silber hadn't run, Weld would
have run on Cellucci's gay rights record and made no new
promises.  Weld, incidently, reversed Cellucci's position
which opposed allowing unmarried people and gay people from
becoming foster parents.

	. . .

   > I want the existing candidates to have enough stature to be
   > able to deal with issues.  A race between Bush and Clinton
   > is inviting a dirty, personal smear campaign because neither
   > can rise above that.

   The fact that the campaign isn't going to be fun for you doesn't justify
   doing something stupid. Presumably, you supported someone in the democratic
   campaign who has since left the race. The campaign is a process of pretty
   much continuous winnowing of unacceptable candidates; your candidate was
   unacceptable in some way. Adding in random candidates late in the game
   does not result in a better end result.

I haven't supported anyone in the race yet including Perot.
I voted for a minor candidate in the primary.  I'm not
looking for "entertainment" or "fun."  I would like to see
candidates deal with real issues.  I especially see both
parties contributing to the demise of our political system
by controlling which candidates are eligible for office.
Since when does the DLC have a constitutional right to
choose one of the two candidates for president?


   If you couldn't get your candidate to win your own party, what makes you
   think you can pick another candidate later on to win the entire election?

In all of this, I've never even stated that I support Perot
-- a fact you conveniently ignore.  From what he's said so
far, I believe he will stick to issues and that he is
unapproachable on character issues.  Two areas where Bush
and Clinton are sorely lacking.  I think he would be a
welcome relief from what promises otherwise to be a dirty,
useless, negative campaign.

--gordon


   -- 
	    Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
	    Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
   Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.