From: tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Shoeless Joe)
Subject: Bush bashing, etc....
Summary: people lighten up
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:51:07 GMT
Keywords: bush quayle clinton

	I would like to address a common theme I see every evening on the
news and see every night on talk shows. This would be the Bush-bashing that
is so prevalent and so acceptable in today's liberal media. (No one can argue
that the American media is not liberal). Why is it that our president, a man
we elected (if you didn't vote in '88 but were of age, then shut up and don't
complain) can be portrayed as a man who has done absolutely nothing in his
first term in office? Further, why is it that Field Marshall von Clinton
gets about three times as much media coverage (on the average) as President
Bush does?
	One of the most common compaints is that George Bush has reniged (sp?)
on his promise of 'no new taxes'. First, let's look at this statement. 'No'
is a negation, 'new' refers to something which is already there, and 'taxes', 
well we all know what taxes are. It sounds to me like what Mr. President
said what that he would not create any new taxes, and although he stressed
in his campaigning in '88 that he would not *like* to raise taxes, a lack
of agreement between the executive and legislative branches (no matter on
whom you place the blame) forced him to do that.
	Another complaint is that he would have X amount of jobs created by
199X. I don't think that in 1988 Mr. Bush could foresee that the media would
report that America is in a deep recession with no hope of getting out (I
believe Mr. Greenspan disagrees with this). Because of the media hype, people
stopped spending their normal amount of money and hence the economy slowed 
down. Congress was no help, either. Again, blame who you want, but Mr. Bush
proposed many economic plans to Congress, all of which were rejected. Now it
seems to me that to keep this great nation of ours going, we must be able to
have some sort of hope of agreement between the President and Congress. Keep
in mind that their is only one President Bush, while there are 500+ members
of the combined House and Senate, both controlled by the Democratic party.
If there is to be a true system of checks and balances between the two brances,
I think that the Congress is going to have to give something up. It is true
that it would be much easier for Mr. Bush to change his policies, but for
him to do so in order to please Congress would reduce him to nothing more
than a puppet, subject to the whims of a Democratic Congress. For the
record, I also admit that Mr. President needs to give up a little more, too,
but the bulk of the giving up needs to be done by Congress.


		thomas ehardt
		DuPage County (IL) Republican
		fully registered in Washington DC
		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


	Another thing: why is it that the media made such a hype over Dan
	Quayle's being in the National Guard during the Vietnam Way, while
	no further exposure has been given to Gov. Clinton's position
	during that time. Now I seem to remember an interview with the
	Governor in which he admitted to 'doing everything necessary to 
	avoid the draft,' including writing letters of cowardice (I can
	describe them as nothing less) to senators, governors, etc. He
	stated that he does not regret avoiding the draft (he went to Oxford
	during the war so as to avoid being drafted) and also said that he
	would not hesitate to do the same again, if he ever needed to.

			Just another thought.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3960 alt.politics.clinton:3928 alt.rush-limbaugh:4246 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5070