From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:37:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.172046.26326@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Matthew.B.Berry@dartmouth.edu (Matthew B. Berry) writes:

>As a Republican who voted for Pat Buchanan as a protest in the New
>Hampshire primary, I intend on voting for President Bush in the fall. 
>Why, some may ask?
>
>1.  Bush will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices.
>2.  Bush is pro-life, Clinton and Perot are pro-choice

To me, these are reasons to vote against Bush.

>3.  While I disagree with some of Bush's foreign policy, I feel that at
>least
>he will safeguard our national security interests.  Clinton wavered on
>the Gulf War, and Perot opposed it.

The Gulf War had nothing to do with our national interests. During the
Reagan years, the US built up Saddam because he was an enemy of Iran.
The US gave every indication we were a staunch ally and we "had no
position on Arab-Arab conflicts", ie we would not intervene. Then 
Iraq invades and Bush cries "violation in international law". Of
course, a few months back when he invaded Panama captured its leader
and refused him POW status, where was his respect for international law?
Despite what many people keep insisting, Bush is not all that great in
foreign affairs. The major things that happened in the world, such
as the breakup of the Soviet Union, Bush had nothing to do with. He
just happened to be President at the right time.

>4.  Bush is less pro-quota than the others in the race.

I don't know of any pro-quota people in the race. Civil rights does
not equal quotas. This is just race politics, one of the more despicable
things Bush has done in his four years.

>5.  Bush's economic program is the best of a field of bad proposals. 
>Bush is at least interested in creating wealth, while Clinton's main
>proposal for economic growth is a redistributionist tax plan which will
>do nothing to stimulate the economy.

While I'm not a fan of Clinton, he has more of an economic program
than you state here. Bush's economic program has been sucessful, if
the goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

>6.  Bill Clinton does not have the honesty and integrity to serve as
>President.  While George Bush is unprincipled, Clinton is unethical.  

I think Bush is unprincipled and unethical. 

>7.  I like Barbara Bush a lot more than Hillary Clinton.  Hillary's
>comment about homemakers was genuinely offensive to millions of women.

This has nothing to do with voting for the President. And if you had
heard all of Hillary's comment, and not based your statement on a 30
second sound bite, you'd have realized that it was taken out of context,
and in no way denigrates homemakers. About 10 seconds after what you heard
in the sound bite she said, "I've always fought for the rights of women
to chose to be in the workplace, at home, or a combination."

>8.  If the Democrats controlled the Congress and the Presidency,
>government spending would be even more out of control that it is at
>present.

First, this is not true. Democrats like to tax and spend, Republicans
like to borrow and spend. Both like to spend, either we'll pay for it
or our children will. Second, at least something would get done. A
divided government makes no progress, as we found out in the last four
years. 

>9.  Bush has the most experience.

So what. He's also been in Washington so long that he's lost touch with
the American people. He didn't even know what a bar scanner is for God's
sake! We need new blood, and this goes for Congress as well. Vote out
people like Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond that have been there too long.

>10.  I HATE BILL CLINTON!

I don't particularly like him either, but I like him more than George Bush.


Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu