Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: my thoughts on clinto
Date: 24 Jul 92  11:23:00 EST

-> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
-> >
-> > I've been thinking about the "character issue," which will
-> ultimately > decide this election as it always does.  Here are 5
-> reasons why > ordinary, non-policy-oriented American voters don't
-> care for Clinton, > and my reponse to them:
-> >
-> > 1) He's Slick.  Well, welcome to reality, folks: you have to be
-> slick > to win.  Hmmm, let me think of some politicians who aren't
-> slick: > McGovern Ford Carter Mondale Dukakis.  "Teflon-head" Ronald
-> Reagan is > the King of Slick, isn't he?  By slick I mean someone
-> whose every word > is calculated for maximum vote-getting capability.
-> Clinton does this, > and needs to in order to win.  The reason he's
-> ahead in the polls > right now is that Bush is more un-slick than
-> he's ever been before! > The reason that Bush will probably win in
-> November is that the > Republican campaign people will find a way to
-> make Bush look slick > after all.
->
-> Even so, one thing about being slick - it works well as long as
-> people believe it.  Once Joe Sixpack realizes he's bought a pig in a
-> poke, not only will he drop Clinton, but will refuse to look at
-> anything, even valid, he might have to say.

Agreed.  "Slickness" only works with a politician that manages to evoke "sincerity", i.e. Ronald "Teflon" Reagan.

-> >  2a) He's an Adulterer.  Well, welcome to reality, folks:
-> good-looking, >  successful, and brilliantly intelligent men will
-> tend to attract >  women.  It doesn't affect his ability to govern.
-> There may be enough >  sensible Americans who appreciate that he was
-> able to hold his >  marriage together through these alleged affairs,
-> that it won't be a >  major issue.
->
-> That might be true if he wasn't so clearly trying to dodge around and
-> lie about it.  If he's not true to his wedding vows, why should I
-> expect him to uphold his oath of office.

Well, let's see.  John Kennedy, Dwight David Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt.  With all these, there is either conclusive proof or solid evidence pointing in the direction of these men having extramarital affairs.  Did it impair their ability to govern?  Nope.  Not condoning the activity, mind you, but in the cases of JFK and FDR, who probably had affairs while serving as president, the ability to govern was unhindered.  Besides, the Gennifer Flowers story has been widely discredited.

-> >  2b) ... and a Draft Evader.  The Republicans will try to make this
-> >  ridiculous claim the centerpiece of their campaign, in spite of >
-> Quayle's much much worse record on the same subject.  The way I see >
-> it, Quayle got into the Guard by having his R-I-C-H `ol Daddy make a
-> >  phone call.  Clinton, on the other hand, really agonized over the
-> >  decision, writing some beautiful statements on his feelings at the
-> >  time, and eventually decided that he would "serve his country"
-> after >  all.  But then he lucked out with a good lottery number.
->
-> Yes, and for what nobel cause - because he wanted to maintain his
-> ability to run for office.  What high standards.  What sublime
-> feelings.
The central issue here isn't who dodged the draft and who didn't.  It isn't even how they dodged.  If I had been old enough for the draft in '69 and in Quayle's shoes, I might have put my fingers on the line in the Indiana National Guard's typing pool.  Quayle, in public life, has had a consistently hawkish position on defense issues.  If memory serves, he has also spoken about the nobility of the Vietnam war in a way remniscent of the Rambo line, "Do we get to win this time?"  Also, don't forget Quayle's 
voting record on veteran's issues.  Storefront counseling centers for Vietnam vets, funding for medical care for vets, vets benefits.  All voted against by Quayle in the House and Senate. Clinton, on the other hand, never spoke of Vietnam the way old athletes talk about their greatest games.  Clinton's letter to his ROTC commander, whether you agree or disagree with it, shows him to be a man who legitimately agonized over the morality of the war, which is more than you can say about Quayle.

-> > In fact, though, Clinton's judgment has been thoroughly excellent
-> in > the conduct of his campaign, which is why he leaped so
-> dramatically in > the polls over the last few weeks.  His major
-> decision, choosing Gore > for VP, demonstrates his good judgment (or
-> Slickness, which is the > same thing during a campaign) especially in
-> contrast to Bush, whose > appointments have been incredibly horrible
-> to the point of
-> > ridiculousness (Quayle?  Souter?  Thomas?).
->
-> Clinton's popularity is a result of his successful marketing himself
-> as a moderate, while still attempting to pander to most of the
-> special interests making up the party.  Gore may well backfire with
-> Perot out of the race.  I suspect that you'll see the polls changing
-> after the Grand Old Party convention, especally when we start taking
-> a detailed look at Arkansas.
And Bush hasn't pandered?  Look at the flip flop on abortion, the flip flop on "voodoo economics", etc.  George Bush has shown himself consistently trying to pander to the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party.  I understand he's going to have an "exclusive interview" with Pat Robertson on THE 700 CLUB next week.  If the Christian Coalition isn't a special interest group, I don't know what is.  Also, Gore is a far more competent, far more qualified person for any elective position than Dan Quayle coul
d ever hope to be.

-> > 5) He's just a Tax & Spend Liberal.  Ho ho ho, the Republicans have
-> > already started in on this one, unbelievable though it seems.  This
-> > one still qualifies as a character issue, because Bush transformed
-> the > "L-word" from a philosophy into a label.  I'll take the 3
-> pieces > separately:
->
-> First of all, Rudman's analysis of Clintons proposals indicate that
-> if implemented, his plans would consume 2/3s of all business profits.
-> Can you say, Great Depression II.
->
-> >    TAX: Guess what?  There's a big big deficit right now and we'd >
-> better start paying it back!  In particular, the very very wealthy >
-> profited enormously over the past 12 years; Clinton is morally
-> correct > to try to right this situation by raising taxes on the
-> ultra-wealthy.
According to USA TODAY (7-22-92), Arkansas has the 42nd lowest tax burden of any state in the union.    Clinton has also been good for business in the "Natural State", bringing in $8.2 billion in new plant investment and 200,000 new jobs.  Bear in mind, also, that businesses would be getting something in return:  a better educated work force, tax cuts for small business, and several other benefits such as R&D credits, and a $10 billion a year incremental investment tax credit.  As for the tax fairness bit,
 raising the top tax rate by 2% is not likely to cause "Great Depression II".  There will be tax breaks for investment in long-term growth.  Part of the problem with Reaganomics was that it made
 no provision for whether an investment created jobs.  Clintonomics will.  Also, Clinton says about the health care system in BUSINESS WEEK that cost control measures in his health care plan will bring health care costs more in line with inflation.  This, according to Clinton, will "free [capital] up to go back in the private sector.  Of course, probably not all of Clinton's cost-control measures will work, but substantial savings are possible.  I haven't seen Rudman's figures; I respect Rudman and think t
hat he was one of the greatest senators of this era, and will be missed.  But, I'm not sure about this one and would like to see his work on this one.

-> Much of the problem is that the government has created artifical
-> conditions that encourage speculation in paper rather than in
-> investment.  By killing tax incentives for capitol investment,
-> in R&D, you end up with money invested in paper shuffling.
->
-> For example, there is no incentive for investing in updating and
-> re-engineering a plant;  there is a write off for closing the plant,
-> firing the workers, and opening a new plant in Mexico.

Precisely the points that Clinton is addressing in his economic plan. Bush's plan, or what there is of it, does not address many of the concerns you state.  Only a 15% investment credit and a nebulous reference to "extending research".

-> I'll admit, kicking Jessie and Brown in the backside were one of the
-> few things Clinton has done that I like.  However, in his acceptance
-> speech, he cozied up to just about every special interest in the
-> party. I admit, there is something to be said for voting for Clinton.
-> If he actually were allowed to implement much of his plan, the
-> resulting revolt in 1996 would nail the democratic party coffin shut
-> for all time.
What about the Christian Coaltion and the Religious Right?  Seems Clinton doesn't have a lock on "pandering" to special interests.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections