From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:32:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <Bw59wx.BJw@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>> In article <98654@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:

>>>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
>>>the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment(supposedly
>>>his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
 
>> He did not look like an extremist.  And he didn't run away from his
>> book.  He corrected misstatements by both Stockdale and Quayle.

>Like the man said, you must have watched a different debate. Gore lied
>about his book, lied about his Senate voting record, and God only knows
>WHAT else he lied about. Gore was as stiff as a wooden statue; he was
>clearly reciting "canned" speeches. 

Can you elaborate?  What "lies" did he tell about his book?  What "lies"
did he tell about his Senate voting record?

Do you mean the $100 million Marshall plan?  Quayle lied about that.
You mean the 

Quayle looked rabid, rude, and immature.  *Not* presidential.  Gore
looked like he prepared for the debate, yes.  Maybe that means he's
prepared for the presidency.  Unlike, say, Dan Quayle.  Or George Bush.

>>>with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>>>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?

>> Why is this bad?  And when did Gore exaggerate?

>>>This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>>>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>>>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

>> You're right.  While Dan didn't make himself look as stupid as he usually
>> does, he came off as immature and foolish.  He didn't say one
>> substantive thing in defense of Bush/Quayle.  He spent his entire time
>> lying about Clinton and Gore's records.
 
>Depends on your point of view; many of us see it as telling the TRUTH
>about the Sex & Gore economic proposals. Bill and Al attack Bush for
>raising taxes, and plan to raise taxes even more. They attack Bush for
>embracing the Liberal agenda, and say they'll do more of the same. For
>God's sake, everything they bitch at Bush about, they plan to do even MORE
>of!  

No, it's about the *character* of GHWB.  It goes to character and trust.
It's not the taxing itself.  It's all the lying and fudging about it.
It just goes to show that you can't trust George Bush.  :)  [Sound familiar?]

Anyway, it's all your speculation that BC/AG will raise taxes.  The B/Q
argument is that "the revenues that Clinton wants to raise can't come
from his proposals, therefore he's going to raise taxes on the middle class."
Unprovable hypothesis -- why not say "he'll cut programs, instead."

Bush has no liberal agenda.  He has a statist "whatever it takes to get
reelected" agenda.

>> It was obvious that Gore was the only candidate prepared to be up there.
>> It was obvious that Gore was the only one of the three prepared to
>> assume the presidency if necessary.  That's what the vice presidency is
>> about, and by that standard, Gore won big.

>Whew! And how many six-packs had YOU had before the debate?

None, thanks.  Gore is the only one who looked presidential.  Dan
looked like a little kid up there.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"