From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:21:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <sulkanen.720974900@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>>In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>>1. US News & World Reports notes in "Washington Whispers" that the Hillarator
>>>will be an integral part of the nomination & appointment process. So much for
>>> the campaign's "Donna Reed" transmorgification.

>>Good.  I've been looking forward to Hillary Clinton as First Lady for
>>several months.  Bar and Nancy always had their say; at least Hillary
>>has a first-rate mind.

>It is specious logic to infer this from an Ivy-league law degree.

Yeah, George Bush had an Ivy League degree (undergrad, not law) and look
where it got him. 

Well, one can assume she doesn't consult astrologers to determine when
to hold summits, anyway.  Anyway, she seems intelligent, and I hope she
takes a real role in the administration.  Hillary in 2000?  :)

>>> 2. USNWR suggests that the Clintonistas and Congress will quickly work to
>>> lift the gag rule on abortion counseling and lift the ban on fetal-tissue
>>> research. 

>>Too late -- the courts just lifted it.  And why not?  The Reagan
>>Counter-Revolution is under way.  OF COURSE it's going to be lifted.
>>Next you'll tell us that you suspect Clinton will appoint a pro-choice
>>Supreme Court Justice.

>Oh, he's already announced the litmus test!

I don't really understand the fuss about this.  He obviously is going to
appoint someone who has the same ideology as him; why wouldn't/shouldn't
he?  And to use an extreme example, would you appoint someone to the
court who didn't believe slavery was unconstitutional?  Oh god, a litmus
test!

>>             They also note that the new White House will need to accomodate
>>> Congressional liberals; e.g. John Dingel (D-MI), who states that Clinton's
>>> federally run health care plan needs to "go further".

>>Care to elaborate on this "need?"  What does Clinton need from the
>>Congress?  He saved the Democratic Party.  He's calling the shots.

>Yeah, did you see George Mitchell on C-SPAN last night...he made it clear that
>(i) the Congressional Dems would present their own agenda, thank you very much
>and that (ii) they will resuscitate their vetoed bills to start the term off
>on the right (er..left) foot.

In 1976, Tip O'Neill made it *quite* clear that the Democratic Congress
had its own agenda.  Carter had been bashing Congress as well as the
President, and Congress made it very clear they weren't going to roll
over for him.

But I think Bill Clinton is just a little more politically skilled than
Jimmy Carter was.  Even his enemies will admit that there are few better
than Clinton at working with or around a legislature as needed.  And
there's another big difference -- unlike in 76 with Tip, the Democratic
Congress does NOT have a strong leader or a clear sense of direction.  They
are not likely to get much done without leadership from the White House.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc