From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> <1992Aug27.212402.10909@s1.gov>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.212402.10909@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

   >   In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:

   @ >Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
   @ >to anyone else on the net?

   >	   It sure did to me. It is amazing to see a bunch of fat cats
   @ and pampered pets claim that hard work is such a virtue, to see
   @ Marilyn Quayle insinuate that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger when her
   @ husband was an even bigger one (the worst danger in his National Guard
   @ training would have been a hunter mistaking him for a deer), and so
   @ forth.

   >Oh, a stint at Oxford is less draft dodging than joining the National
   >Guard for six years, showing up, marching, saluting, digging foxholes
   >etc?  Yup, sitting at Oxford and not inhaling is much more patriotic.

	   How was going to Oxford draft dodging?

He got a deferment for the trip.

	   Eventually, Clinton signed up for the draft, so how is that
   draft dodging? I saw it all on Nightline :-)

He reentered the draft when the lottery was coming up and got himself a
nice fat number, 311.  He re-entered the draft only after getting a
deferment to join the ROTC, an agreement on which he reneged.

	   As I commented earlier, was Quayle choosing to put his life on
   the line in Vietnam? NO. As I commented earlier, the only people
   likely to shoot at him were deer hunters.

At that time it was far more likely that a National Guardsman would be
shipped to VN than a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.  When you joined the Guard
there was no guarantee you would not be mobilized.

   >	   And Marilyn Quayle is something else -- if having a career
   @ goes against a woman's fundamental nature, then why did she go to law
   @ school? Why didn't she just drop out of high school?

   >This is another one of those democratic lies I mentioned in another post.
   >At no time did anyone criticize Hillary for having a career.  She was

	   But Marilyn Quayle was implying _exactly_ that, that a woman
   with a career is going against her fundamental nature, and that
   includes both Hillary Clinton and herself.

Care to provide the quote?

   >criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,
					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					   Quoted out of context, I'm
   sure. She was referring to cases of serious abuse.

Oh?  I read the article in question and it was far more inclusive than
that.  As I mentioned in another post, there were and are mechanisms in
place to prosecute cases of child abuse.  Perhaps you recall the
McMartin-Buckey case?

   >marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	   Prove it. As far as I know she NEVER claimed that _all_
   marriage was slavery. She certainly doesn't consider herself Bill
   Clinton's slave.

Here's what she said:

"The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency
relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of
the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social
institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position.  Along
with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include
marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."  Rodham, H. 1982.
Harvard Educational Review.  (Reprint of a 1974 essay.)

   >indeed fair game, with all that implies.

	   Well, it's a two-way street :-)

I think that's what I just said.

   >The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
   >for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
   >the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
   >opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.

	   They had fun at the expense of something clearly superstitious
   and something that had been carefully covered up for much of Reagan's
   term in office.

You call vitriolic attacks in the media "fun".  Well, I guess it depends
on whose ox is being gored.  It was ok to have "fun" at Nancy's expense
but when we take a few digs at the radical left wing, politically active
wife of a liberal presidential candidate that's dirty pool, right?

   >I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
   >is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
   >State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
   >of her legal and political positions is in order.

	   I've yet to see that in any mainstream news media. So that's
   why they are such big villains :-)

Well, wouldn't you want to keep it a secret?  I would.

   >Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				   Where???
   >that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself.   If you can't
   >stand the heat...

She said it in an interview on tv during one of the early primaries,
could have been NH.  I saw the interview and by golly she sure said it.
It wasn't long after that she dropped out of sight.

	   Then Marilyn Quayle should just shut up, if she doesn't want
   to be a target, also.

Marilyn Quayle's not bitching about it.  Why do you suggest she is?  You
have an agenda perhaps?