From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.190619.19029@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
> I remember when Bob Kerrey (sp), himself a Vietnam war hero, said that he would
> have an edge on Clinton on this issue.  He stressed that issue was NOT relevant
> but would be used by the Republicans since they can't win on the basis of real
> issues.
No, I was refering to Clinton dodging the draft, I hope you could figure that
one out. Bob Kerrey huh? Well it seems that as of late, Sen. Kerrey has been
working very well with President Bush over the MIA issue. As for Republicans
not being able to win on real issues, well, that's a completely baseless
arguement. Are you implying that the American voters who have voted for a
Republican executive do not realize what real issues are? If so, well than you
are worth this reply. Please elaborate. 
> How
>>>can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
>>>priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife? 
> 
> So you believe everything you read in tabloids?  You must think we live in
> a fascinating world.
No, not the tabloids, I was paraphrasing the sob story Clinton gave Jerry Brown
in the Democratic primary debates. Do you deny the possibility of Clinton's
lechery? If so, then _you_ must think we live in a pretty, to use a word from
your generation, swell world.  
> How
>>>can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>>>American work place? 
> 
> What president are you talking about, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjami?  If, per
> chance, you are ascribing this observation to Governor Clinton, you should
> realize that it has already been established that Clinton made such a remark
> only in Bush's imagination.  Why do you think not not even Bush still makes
> that claim?
Actually, you are in error here (get used to it) I am refering to Gov. Clinton,
and basically the entire Democratic campaign strategy. But if you demand
specifics, I refer you to a speech, given by the Gov. in Portland, CT. on
September 8, 1992:
"Unlike our competitors, this nation has no national strategy, no comprehensive
partnership between business and workers and workers and education and
government..."
Now, at first glance it would appear that this is a direct reflection of
President Bush, but this cannot be so. I'm sure everyone would agree (I realize
this is an instant invitation to flames) that, despite all the noise that the
political parties are making, the president does not control every facet of our
lives. We as a nation, IMHO, are basically autonomous and if any institution of
government really affects us, it is the state governments. So when Gov.
Clinton only focuses on trumped-up negative themes, he alienates those of us
who are working VERY hard to keep our heads above water. This is the origin, as
far as I can tell, of the "doom and gloom" accusations. And yes, the Democrats
DO focus on the doom and gloom, it is absurd for you to say otherwise.

 
> I thought the allegations were that Bill Clinton (if that's whom you're talking
> about) experimented with drugs in the late sixties.  A lot of people
> have experimented with drugs more recently than that and have gone on to
> become anti-drug crusaders.
True, but I wouldn't even think of voting for the common hippie who survived
the sixties. Yes, a lot of people have reformed... where are you addressing the
issue that because Clinton used drugs, he is someone to look up to? 

>  You've choosen an interesting thread. Now let's see how many
>>>other flaws we can find in "Billary" Clinton. 
> 
> I'm usually embarrrassed when my 5-year old daughter indulges in this sort of
> childish name-calling.
As you should be, we are all proud of your parental skills. But this is called
humor. You should learn to laugh at yourself, and your ideas, particularly
since the best the DNC could do was elect Bill Clinton and the "two for one
special" Hillary. (A whole thread of her own) Listen, if you want to know the
real Bill Clinton, I refer you to my "coup de grace:CLINTON COWARDICE", which
was taken from non-partisan sources (all cited) I'm looking for some insightful
replies to it, but so far no one has come up with a good rebuttal (sp?). It
can only be found in alt.politics.bush however. I bid you well sir.
Here endith the lesson
--
Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7875 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4751 alt.politics.bush:7244