From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 12:20:58 PST

In <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com>, Steve Novak writes:

>> = (John Townsend) writes:
>
>>The more interesting question right now is that since Clinton was fully aware
>>of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
>>nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
>>the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
>>and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"

>No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
>ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
>less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
>century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
>defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>will of the people and acted immediately.

Two points here, if I may:

First, the "Republican whiners" are doing exactly what the Democratic whiners
did with respect to Reagan/Bush--no more, no less.  But suddenly, since it's
a *Democrat* being called into question, it's suddenly unacceptable.

Second of all, "John Tower the drunk" (you're really showing your objectivity
and open-mindedness here, Steve) didn't withdraw his name.  You defend Clinton
for *merely accepting Ms. Baird's withdrawal from consideration*.  Clinton
didn't can her, just like Bush didn't can Tower--the difference is that Tower
let himself get Borked (tm), while Baird was wise enough to withdraw herself.
Clinton did nothing but accept the withdrawal (and the responsibility for
making a bad call, for which I'll give him credit).  I'm sure Bush would have
accepted Tower's withdrawal.  If Clinton "acted immediately," as you claim,
then he would have canned her nomination before she could withdraw herself
from consideration.

>Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
>Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.

No proof of that.  Yes, I think Bush lied when he claimed to be "out of the
loop."  However, I'm not sure that Bush broke any laws himself--and even if he
did, I think they were bad laws, because the laws were passed only to politi-
cize foreign policy.  They were only intended to strip the enemy president and
his men of as much power as they could.  It was a power grab--plain and simple.
So yes, Bush knew and Reagan knew--I'm quite certain of that--but the attempt
to criminalize foreign policy is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

>Whaddya think of that, John?

I can't speak for John, but I think you're a partisan ideologue who refuses to
even consider that a liberal might actually be wrong or crooked once in a
while.  I think that you refuse to consider that maybe--just maybe--there has
been a few non-corrupt Republicans in office.

I also think that you're probably one of those guys who blasted and taunted
Bush for breaking his "no new taxes," just as you'll ignore Slick Willie's
"I won't raise taxes on the middle class."

In short, I think that you are a hypocrite.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Government out of the womb!
Government out of the bedroom!
Government out of my wallet!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh