From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: What you think you know, and what you don't
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:59:05 GMT

In article <16862DFD0.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>Most of the Democrats in this forum think they have Quayle pegged; they've
>never heard a speech of his, of course, but they have the collection of
>his public misstatements posted over their desk, and they enjoy the
>minutia the press report, like how he was set up with the potato incident.
>But before Quayle was Bush's running mate, the press gave a different
>story.

My Qualifications:I am not a Democrat.  I have heard entire speaches
from Dan-o several times, have frequently heard extensive excerpts,
have read articles written by him, and seen several interviews.

>In 1981, the CHicago Tribune stated in a feature articcle that Quayle was
>one of a group of six "rising stars" in the US Congress.

The Chicago Tribune has backed a few winners, and a few losers.
What exactly is a rising star:  someone who has the vision
and skill to be an effective leader, or someone who is
willing to be a stooge for shadowy handlers?

>In 1984, Hedrick Smith wrote in the New York Times that Quayle had "emerged
>as a leader of the 16 Republicans elected in 1980"

OK, he's good at wheelin-and-dealin.  No news here.
> 
>In 1985, the Times listed Quayle as one of "the 12 most underrated members
>of Congress". The 12 were listed as having been chosen because "they are
>unpretentious, rarely partisan legislative professionals who are candid,
>well-informed and not prone to self-promotion."

If the bits about "rarely partisan", "candid", and "well-informed"
were true in 1985, then DQ has changed a lot.  BTW, who were the
other 11 "underrated" congressfolks?

>In 1986 the National Journal credited Quayle with a "deft performance" in
>office. The article listed only three Senators as potential leaders;
>Quayle was one.

What is the National Journal?  What was the basis of their rating?
How is this any more meaningful that saying that Aunt Edith
thinks he is cute?

>In 1988, Politics in America wrote "Quayle iss seen as a dilligent
>Senator willing to work on complicated defense issues and interested in
>reforming Senate procedures to make the chamber function more efficiently."

"Efficiently" in this context usually means "able to get
my way more often with less work" (of course, this applies
to all parties, not especially DQ and his pals).

>The Almanac of American Politics said in 1988 "Dan Quayle brings to the
>Senate...and inclination that many observers found surprising to dig
>into issues, do his homework and come up with workmanlike legislative
>solutions to problems of government."

Any specific examples?  If these citations are based on some
attempt at "objectivity" and not just conservative mouthpieces,
how did they regard other Senators, such as Al Gore?

>So, to those of you whose entire knowledge of Quayle is that which the
>media brought you: Which story do you believe? The one they gave you
>before he was part of the Republican ticket, or the one after he became
>a political football?

> 
>   --mike

Why the (obligatory) media bashing?  Are you trying to invalidate
your own sources (Tribune, Times)?

Which story do I believe?  The Story of Dan which I perceive
with my own senses, taken from several years experience
and a variety of sources.  The story which reaches the conclusion
that DQ is either a bumbler with limited intellectual skills
or a clever political manipulator hiding behind a clown mask.

Helpful suggestion:  if you are interested in continuing
the conservative agenda, don't back Dan.  After November,
he will be shuffled off to some political netherworld
to make room for the Newt Gingrich's and Phil Gramm's
of the party.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections