Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:55:41 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer

In article <01GQTSGLKG44005H2U@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>, DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The
Integral Differential) says:
>
>>andy says:
>>In article <POLITICS%92110414191503@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
>>U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET (Carl A. Lahetta) says:
>>>
>>>   Slick Willie has won, what a blow to the Republicans!  Of course to many

And Chicken George lost!

>>>it was no surprise, but to actually witness the event unfold on television
>>>was astonishing.  In the electoral college it was a landslide, in the
>popular
>>>vote it was damn close.  Most of all I think that the majority of people
>were
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Often is, Bush only won by 6% in '88, Reagan's 1980 'landslide' was a
>>percentile lead of only 9%
>
>        Most pundits consider 10% difference and at least 400 electoral votes
>a
>"landslide".  In that vein 1980 certainly comes close, but 1992 does not.
>        5% difference against a sitting president indicates dissatifaction
>with
>the current president rather than a ringing endorsement of the challanger.
>Clinton won by less than 3% in Ohio, NJ, and some other states, and actually
>came in third in Utah.  (Almost third in Idaho.)

The reason pundits say this is because the distortive effect of the Electoral
College means a lead of only 10% = a massive win in the electoral college.
In terms of real votes, 10% is just 10%, not a landslide, just a narrow lead
that could easily evaporate in a week.

>
>>>glad that Perot kept the race focused on issues, especially the deficit.  He
>>
>>not to mention his daughter's wedding. Both Clinton and Tsongas ran on highly
>>comprehensive programmes in the primaries, it was Bush who relied on smears
>
>        Don't forget Clinton's last minute smear of Tsongas in Florida that
>knocked Tsongas out of the race.  (And killed any chance of Tsongas being
>Clinton's running mate.)

Comparing Clinton's remarks on Tsongas with the very personal
ad hominem attacks on Clinton's character clearly puts them in different
categories. Clinton's remarks were politics, the Bush teams (and their
surrogates) attacks on Clinton were desperate smears.

>>>was able to capture an astonishing percentage of the popular vote, a result
>>>of people's dissatisfaction with both the Republicans and the Democrats.
>>>   The issue of trust, character, and forthrightness did not seem to matter o
>t
>>>most voters.  As one tv commentor said "Clinton is the first draft dodger
>>>elected to the high office."  A person can, and often does, have            s
>indiscretion
>>
>>Actually, the first draft-dodger elected to high office is J. Danforth
>Quayle,
>>Ronald Reagan, despite being of age did not join the forces in WW2 but
>whether
>>this is a 'dodge' can be debated
>
>        Many post-civil war presidents were draft dodgers.  It was legal back
>then to pay someone else to go in your place.
>
Actually, I heard FDR also avoided service, of course this was a time when it
was relatively easy for the rich to do so, though as Quayle proves it wasn't
that much more difficult in the 60s. At least Clinton opposed the draft and the
war. Quayle supported the draft and the war while dodging both. And you guys
were attacking Clinton on the character issue?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU