From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: The REAL Reagan Record
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:50:50 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug29122600@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.201727.27586@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
>   In article <farenebt.714948494@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>   >art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>   >
>   >>   Huh? National Review? Now there's a good example of objective reporting. 
>   >>   Their editors seem to yearn for a military government. Is Buckley still
>   >>   connected with that rag?
>   >
>   >>Have you ever read NR?  Would you be so kind as to enlighten with
>   >>facts proving their lack of objectivity?  How about some proof of your
>   >>preposterous claim that the editors yearn for a military government.  Oh,
>   >>now I see you cover your dishonest attack with the claim that the editors
>   >>"seem" to yearn.  Clever.
>   >
>   >Well, they are a right-wing magazine and flaunt it every issue. Just read the
>   >This Week section of the mag. There's nothing wrong with them being a conserv.
>   >magazine but they are not an objective source of journalism (much like the
>   >liberal New Republic). 
>   >
>
>   The New Republic? The magazine that:
>
>You mean The National Review.

No, I mean The New Republic, which was mentioned by the previous poster as an
example of a 'liberal' magazine. My posting is intended to show either that
a) The New Republic isn't a 'liberal' magazine, or b) the concept of 'liberal'
has been misrepresented by the right (e.g. Reagan) to point that it is almost
meaningless.

>
>   * Supported the Contras in Nicaragua
>
>Good idea.
>
>   * Supported the Gulf War, because there *was* a Gulf War
>
>Actually, there was quite a spirited debate in NR at the time.  Some were
>for, some against.  But, you are right, when push came to shove they got
>on board.
>

The New Republic devoted an entire issue to a pre-war debate on the merits
of going to war. While there was plenty of anti-war talk, the editors didn't
hesitate to endorse the war both before and after it actually began. They're
only complaint at this point is that Bush didn't go the rest of the way
and remove Hussein permanently.

>   * Has run article after article proposing that 'workfare' replace 'welfare'
>
>Superb idea.
>
>   * Has run numerous articles proposing cuts in the FICA tax
>
>Another good one.
>
>   * Has run cover stories opposing 'multiculturalism' in education
>
>The best of the lot.
>
>   About the only conservative totem NOT supported by TNR is the capital-gains
>   tax cut, which they have steadfastly opposed, NOT because it 'benefits only
>   the rich', but because they oppose ANY preferential treatment of income in
>   the tax code. They believe that all income should be taxed alike, regardless
>   of the source.
>
>I don't know where you get your info, but as a matter of editorial policy
>NR supports capital gains cuts.
>
>   (They also liked the Heritage Foundation's health-care plan)
>
>Whatever that is.
>

The HF health-care plan is a market-oriented proposal for univeral
health insurance. It's pretty interesting.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42218 alt.politics.bush:3110