From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 22:55:17 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

> >1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand.  While
> >a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
>
>    Pro-choice with restrictions is a view held by the majority of people in
> this country.

Really?  I've already read someone claim that abortion on demand is what people
want.  As I said, it's all in who takes the poll.  It's a chancy position in
any case, because it definitely alienates the pro-life side, and risks turning
off those looking for abortion on demand.

>
> >2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
>
>    Again, a majority of eligible voters are in favor of raising taxes on
> upper income folks.

Look at the GOP spin on the Clinton tax plan.  They claim that it'll go down to
people with incomes in the $70K range and how it's really a middle-class tax
increase.  Which is it?


>
> >3.  He wants to reduce defense spending more than Bush.  Not popular among
> >both the 'strong national defense' crowd and among all of those General
> >Dynamics and Lockheed workers in critical states like CA and TX.
>
>   A majority of voters are willing to cut defense more if it means more in
> their pocket through either some other government program or lower taxes.

The problem is that the Defense Department's budget is a jobs program larger in
scope than the WPA was back in the depression.  Everyone wants to see cuts in
defense, but not in their backyards.  Large cuts in defense add up to lots of
unhappy folks when the weapons system their town builds is cancelled, the base
in their city is shut down, etc.

>
> >The point to this is really not whether or not Clinton holds unpopular or
> >minority views, but do his majority views constitute pandering?
>
>   I think Clinton is one of the biggest panderers to come around in years.
> A real leader would espouse the twin unpopular views that the rich should
> pay more for and the rest of us should get less from government.
>

[Apologies to those who read this in an earlier article, but it's worth asking
the questions again.]

Please explain how Bush's flip-flop on the following are not examples of
pandering:

1.  Abortion in 1980
2.  'Read My Lips...' from 1988
4.  Promising across the board tax cuts at the RNC
5.  Promising to rebuild Homestead AFB last week, even though it was slated to
be closed.
6.  Promising to cover 100% of South FL and LA's expenses related to hurricane
damage, even though this will increase federal spending. (last week)
7.  Agreeing to sell F-16s to Taiwan after opposing the same sale for the last
three years.

Given these, where does GHWB fit in your definition of a 'real leader?'



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|