From: cogwynn@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Billy and Foreign Policy
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:54:52 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul22.054725.4512@lclark.edu>, larryw@sun.lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl) writes:
> Okay, here is the bottom line that you have all been waiting for.  Bill
> Clinton has said very little about foreign policy.  There is a good reason
> for this: he doesn't want to expose his biggest weakness.  He will spend 
> most of his time talking about domestic programs, wisely avoiding the
> Mondale/Dukakis faux pas of saying how he will fund these policies.  He
> wants us to think he is a watered down version of a Democrat, and like 
> Ross Perot, if he dances around the heart of the matter, he should do fine.

 This is exactly my problem with Clinton and most of the other Democrats. I can
 figure that these guys have either no concern or no clue about the US positions
 and the needs for a strong foreign policy. Certainly America needs some changes
 inside. I never disagreed with that. But, one cannot overllok the fact that
 the US has a very important role in the world community and Slick Willy
 does not have a clue about it. Come on can you see Slick Willy and Boris
 Yeltsin at a summit meting? Slick Willy would say "Do you see how wonderful
 our social programs are, and how many jobs we're creating, and how 
 wonderful the US has become again?" (SNICKER - And how much the budget deficit
 went through the roof) And Yeltsin would say "Gee thanks there Slick Willy,
 we didn't get any support from you and our people went crazy and we had no
 money, so we had another revolution and the Communist Party is back in 
 control and I'm in exile and all our nukes are pointed at you again and it's
 all your fault. Get my picture?

> ANYWAY, here it is:  In the past four years, the world has gone through more
> change than in any other four years in this century.  There have been many
> positive changes, but new problems have been created too.  Now that the
> leadership in Israel has changed, and that country is now faced with an
> uncertain future, the last thing we need in the oval office is an amateur.
> It should also be noted that if we lose George Bush, we lose Jim Baker also,
> and there is no way that Clinton can come up with a better replacement.
> Jim Bakers work has been tireless, and he has been very tough with Isreal.
> Now that the leadership in Israel has changed, it seems that progress is 
> possible.  And since they have few friends in the region, U.S. support and
> leadership is crucial. 

 Ahh, Jim Baker. I think he is a true asset to this country. I thought no one
 would ever fill the shoes of great diplomists such as Kissinger, but Baker is
 on his way. There is no way that Slick Willy could produce a Sec. of State
 like Baker. Sorry. End of discussion.
 
> You have to believe that the domestic situation has been affected by 
> things beyond the Presidents control (for the most part!). For example,
> a hostile Congress and Senate, an unstable Europe, and the natural 
> cycle of the U.S. economy.  It seems that all of the bad press that
> is leveled against Bush is over domestic issues, and it is not entirely
> his fault! 

 Bush has a lot of trouble working with Congress. People say that he doesn't
 do anything, but alot of that is because Congress want let him. He does
 propose alot to Congress that would benifit America, but gets shot down just
 because of the liberal leadership in Congress. You aalso cannot forget the 
 natural cycle that sends the US economy into a tailspin every few years.
 Presidents always get blamed, a good example being Carter, but it not their
 fault. It is just the people looking for an excuse.
 
> Therefore, with the world situation still in the balance,
> don't elect a guy who doesnt know the ropes.  Bush may not be a great 
> president, and he may not be the best person in Washington, but with the
> choices we have, there's no other way to go.
 
 I like Bush. ( no pun intended CHUCKLE ) I know there are better Republicans
 out there though. I wish they could produce someone better, but until then he
 is the only to keep Amereica in a strong world position.

> - Lawrence

 I liked this post.

Chris O'Gwynn
cogwynn@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush