From: pkchung@stokes.Princeton.EDU (Phil Chung)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: Bush vs. Clinton
Keywords: bush, clinton, evil
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:54:20 GMT
Followup-To: '92 President Vote
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

bush is evil.  that of course is no reason not to vote for him, but
you must at least take into consideration that he (really) only
represents a small fraction of this country, i.e. rich people,
powerful people, etc.  don't be fooled by the "family values"
rhetoric.  it seems like they just use that crap to fool some people
who are susceptible in believing that stuff, e.g. people who tend to
use the same silly rhetoric themselves.  furthermore, concerning race
relations in this country (especially in the inner cities), i don't
really see bush giving a damn about that, except of course to make
cameo appearances after certain riots.  granted koreans are better off
in this country on the whole than blacks, if people like bush stay in
office i don't ever see race relations between blacks and koreans ever
getting much better (note: obviously, i don't really think that bush
is the only reason that there is tension between blacks and koreans).
economic despair and frustration never creates much of a forum for
anything productive, especially between different races and cultures.

clinton, on the other hand, _seems_ to represent the something quite
different from what bush stands for.  the run-down on clinton:

	- well educated
	- experienced in government
	- pro-choice
	- seems to want equality for women
	- even seems somewhat religious
	- wants to "re-invest" in america
	- wants to tax the rich more
	- does not have quayle as running mate

on the surface, it would seem that clinton is in fact what this
country needs -- someone to revitalize this country -- economically,
politically, socially, and maybe even morally.  well, clinton is
definitely not openly as evil as bush, but i don't exactly think that
he will be able to accomplish all that he has promised to do.  still
tho' that does not bother me too much.  what really makes me wary is
that clinton still does not seem sincere to me.  i am sorry, but
anyone could have gone up on that convention platform (if allowed of
course) and said the "correct" things.  does he really believe all
this stuff?  better yet, does he really believe he can really do
anything about it?  and if he does, does he have a clue about how to
get things done?  what i basically expect from clinton is that if he
does make it into office, he will probably be no different than bush
except that he has a donkey on his pin instead of an elephant.

so what am i going to do come november '92?  well if clinton does not
somehow show me something in the next few months that makes me feel
that he really will turn washington upside-down, i will vote for
neither bush nor clinton.  instead:

	vote Jerry Brown for President in '92

he showed me at the convention that he is willing to stand by his
principles even though doing so may jeopardize his standing in the
party.  he is the only one who is ran that openly discussed the
corruptness and backasswardness of the government in washington.
admittedly his policies were probably a bit too simplistic, but that
is what a cabinet is for.  anyways, congress passes laws, not the
president.  hopefully what jerry brown was saying will eventually be
heard by the democratic party.  (i doubt it though) it is quite true
that the two party system here has become so mired in political
corruption that you really can't tell the two parties apart.  the only
way i would vote democratic in this election is if the democratic
party showed me that they were truly "revitalized", and frankly i
don't see that happening.

oh by the way, i might also vote Libertarian.  who knows?  and at this
point, who really cares?!?

phil chung


-- 
typical disclaimer: blah! blah! blah!

pkchung@acm.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean