From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:08:41 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1626@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.204024.1545@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>>I agree with you Cap'n. 'Course the Reps. should have been doing the same
>>whist they held the power.

>Unfortunately the complexity and realities of our government have evaded you
>as they have the majority of Americans.

Now let me get this straight. I post saying that cabinet nominees *should* 
cut across party lines in order to get the absolute best person for each
position and you take this as proof *I* don't understand how our government 
works? And I bet you sit at home wondering why so many call you a jerk devoid 
of even that first clue. 

>The Republican Presidents have never have the luxury of the rubber stamp
>approval of Congress, that Bill Clinton now enjoys, for their appointments.

That's funny---seeing as how Clinton hasn't yet taken office I don't beleive
that even a single appointment has been approved as of yet.

>Every appointment they've been able to make has been after the people passed
>the litmus tests the Congressional Democrats have used.  Rarely did Reagan
>and/or Bush had the luxury of picking candidates based soley on qualifications,
>remember Bork and Tower?  

Now listen closely while I explain to you how our gov. works. First the people
vote on who they want to represent them. Seeing as how the demmies have 
controlled Congress for most of the last 3 decades that pretty much proves
that the people have wanted the demmies in congress. That also means that
they have wanted cabinet nominees to have to face a Democratic litmus test.
Here's a clue for you: THIS IS A COUNTRY *FOR THE PEOPLE*. Not a country
for Paul. I feal sorry for you that you're not in the majority here since you 
seem to be having such a hard time dealing with that fact. 

>> IMHO this is the # 1 drawback to our 2 party 
>>system. No matter who wins we always get the best of that party, which may
>>or may not be the overall best. 

>Wrong!  When a Republican wins we get the people that have the best chance 
>of passing the fire test of liberal-Democratic-congressional ideology.
>That has usually meant a less qualified but more politically correct 
>appointee.

Oh so you're saying that since the people want a Democratic controlled congress
the only way to really get the best of either party is to vote for a Democrat
for President. Thanks for pointing out yet another reason why the Rep. party 
is currently failing.

You know Paul it's simple minded bitter people like yourself that give the 
Republicans who really want to help this country a bad reputation. Unfortunitly
there seemed to be quite a few of your type in the Rep. party this last 
election. Far from a majority no doubt. But it only takes a few jerks to make 
a whole party look bad in the eyes of the public. And you all wonder why your 
party's political power is dwindling. Maybe a term(or more)of watching from 
the sidelines will help you and your party to get its act together and once
again start to lead(not that you personally have ever lead)instead of 
constantly looking for someone else to blame for the bad things that happened 
while you held the power. If you're really concerned about your party then
grow up and stop whining about loosing this past election and start doing
something constructive to help to improve it for future elections.

Stan Knight
|I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't get any over the weekend|