From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:45:24 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:49:00 GMT

In article <782@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.173637.23056@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov 
>(Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>
>>Have you watched any of the conference Paul or read any of the
>>transcripts?
>
>I've not had the chance to see or hear it first hand but I've been 
>watching the analysis of it at night and reading about it in the WSJ 
>and the consesus opinion I hear is that this is a grand farce designed
>only to create an illusion of interest in different ideas and gain
>support for his own.  I've yet to hear one serious journalist, economist
>or political analyst express an opion to the contrary.

You are the only person I know who believes this to be a "consensus
opinion". I suggest you either a.) Read a wider variety of analyses, or
b.) Stop reading only those which support your delusion.

I challenge you to state the sources of this "overwelming" consensus
opinion and to state any substantive proof to your assertion that this
is just a media show.

>
>>how ridiculous you sound. There have been many people at this conference
>>with ideas which differ drastically from Clinton's and they are stating
>>their concerns openly. 
>
>No doubt, but so what?  Is any of what he's hearing going to get used?

Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows that at this time. To state
that you know otherwise requires you to prove it. So prove it.

>The answer to that question is the ONLY one that matters.  So what if he 
>listens to all these opinion and then does what ever wants anyway, in
that
>case what value does this conference?  i
>
>The simple fact is that this conference and the media show surrounding it
>can lead to only one of two conclusions.  
>
>a. either he had no plan during the campaign, as Susan Estrich (sp?)
says,
>   in which case he lied to the American public when he said he did and
>   now he needs to come up with one.
>
>or
>
>b. he has a plan, like he said he did, and now he is just putting on a 
>   show so he can come back later and say - well we listened and we
decided
>   go this way - when in fact he he had decide long ago.

OR.... c.) He is smart enough to understand the realities
and comlexities of macroeconomics and has assembled the nations greatest
minds 
to help him work out the details of the program and adjust it to the
present
macroeconomic dynamics. A much more likely senario. A REAL leader
understands
that he can't possibly know every aspect of a problem as complex as this
and seeks out advice from sources that do. It is especially heartening
that he has sought the advice of people who disagree with his plan as
well as those who agree. This is something we haven't seen in 12 years.

>
>
>Pick one, I'll accept either answer as truth.

The fact that these are the only two possibilities you can envision proves
you have no clue.

>No matter what the case though
>it still means he's intentionally lied to the American public, the only 
>question is when and how.  Or perhaps there's another option I've not
>yet considered??

Only you would think this faulty logic constitutes proof that he lied.

>
>>this partisan belly-aching is giving me gas. Maybe you would like to
>>at least give him a chance to submit something BEFORE you squeal
>>like a pig?
>
>Gee Norman it wasn't me doing all the screaming in Washington when he 
>announced his intentions on lifting the ban on Gays in the military,
>I wonder who it was.

OK. Who was it?

>You're right he's not President yet nad he's already
>managed to polarize opinion on several matters, quite a go there Bill.

Don't be naive. It is the nature of being a leader that your
decisions are going to polarize opinion no matter what you decide.
This is especially true of emotional issues like this.

>And you know since that day that he made his announcement, of the 8
people
>I know for certain that voted for him (actual people not net friends) 
>7 have already said they regret having voting for him.  In part because
>of that position (and to so degree the way he handled it) and in part
>because of his cabinet appointments.

Still trying to make general arguements using extremely limited data.
You are in dire need of a course on scientific method.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton