From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:59:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.205739.27170@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.233338.8242@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>>In <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>>No. Bush just flat out LIED. He is as human as you me or Clinton.
>>Look, Bush has no more credibility or less credibility than Clinton
>>in my eyes. But this draft thing is RIDICULOUS. The important
>>issue in this campaign is the ECONOMY. Who cares if Clinton
>>dodged the draft or was even for or opposed to the war. That is past. 

>>Bush did something much more relevant to the major issue...the economy.
>>He raised my taxes.

>A history lesson:

>In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
>administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
>(substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
>conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
>Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
>the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
>raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
>The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
>signed by President Bush.

And, as you conveniently leave out, was then *praised* by Bush as a
significant and positive step.

>No. Bush and the Democrats in Congress *together* raised your taxes
>to "fix" the deficit. The Democrats had a shot in 1990 to prove
>they could craft a bill that would reduce the deficit.
>The Democrats failed, and the deficit ballooned, while the
>economy stumbled. We are living today with the consequences
>of the Deomcrats' failure.

>Did you oppose the 1990 Budget Deal and Tax Hike?
>Was it a good idea in your opinion?
>If it was, it is hypocritical to accuse Bush of signing the bill.

No no.  You don't understand.  No one is complaining that Bush signed
the bill.  It's just a *character* issue.  It goes to the issue of trust.

(And he failed the character test.  Not just with the lie, but with his
statement afterwards, that it was a mistake.  *Why* did George Bush call
the budget deal a mistake?  Not because it was bad economics, but
because it got people upset.  What kind of leadership, what kind of 
character does THAT show?)

>Are you comfortable with the fact that it was drafted by
>the Democrats in Congress?

>>He lied.

>Breaking his promise was the price the Democrats demanded for
>compromise on achieving budget "cuts".  Now, on the campaign trail,
>we know why they made Bush pay this price. They did it so they
>could use it as a political weapon, even while they supported the bill.

This is silly.  At the time this bill was signed, the Democrats didn't
look like they could beat Bush at horseshoes, let alone in a
presidential campaign.

Furthermore, "all my friends are doing it" isn't really a good defense
of a decision to lie.  George Bush didn't get tricked into breaking his
promise.  He decided to, because he knew it was indefensible.  But no
one can "demand" anything of him.  He's never had a veto overrridden.

>"Read my lips. The Democrats are hypocrits"
>Al Gore voted for the tax hike bill - and now campaigns like he was against

>it.  Are you going to reward the party that crafted this legislation,
>that forced the tax increase, with the Presidency?

(As opposed to rewarding the person that signed this legislation, and
praised it, with the Presidency?)

No, parties don't craft legislation.  People do. (Gee, I sound like the NRA.)

Despite what George Bush is trying to claim, the Democratic party isn't
running for president.  Jimmy Carter isn't running for president.
Michael Dukakis isn't running for president.  Congress isn't running for
president.  Bill Clinton is.  

And Bill Clinton, despite the efforts of Jerry Brown to paint him as a
supply-side economist, and despite the efforts of George Bush to paint
him as a Marxist, is not some raving lunatic fringe radical.  He's a
moderate Southern Democrat, with views that really aren't that far from
George Bush's on most issues.

Besides, the Democrats didn't "force" any tax increase.  The budget
situation did.  Despite the cries from both the left and right, the
truth is, as even Ross Perot finally admitted, the only way to deal
with the deficit is *both* tax increases and spending cuts.

Further, as you note, the Republicans rejected the original Bush proposal too.

>>anne

>Pat

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush