From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:16:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug19.173717.22341@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
+In article <4659@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>>Of course Bush is trying to keep the infidelity thing quiet: he's guilty
+>>too*.  It *is* a non-issue.  But if one side brings it up, it's only fair
+  ^^^
+>>for the other side to respond in kind.
+>>
+>>*neither Bush nor Clinton deny infidelity.  Although it's possible they
+>>aren't guilty, I think if they weren't they'd be eager to deny it.
+>
+>	Then do you believe Clinton is also guilty?
+
+Yes, that's why I said "he's guilty too".
	Apologies.

+>>Media bias or fact?  True or false: Reagan *really* thinks Bush is the best
+>>choice.
+>	That's what he remarks. I think Reagan and Buchanan really do
+>believe that Bush is the best choice given what we have.
+
+"Best" or "better"?  Obviously, Buchanan considered himself a better choice
+until recently.  Sure, they prefer Bush to Clinton (big surprise)--but would
+either of them pick Bush over Buchanan, Kemp, or ?? if they had the choice?
	Buchanan I guess would have a bias if he wanted to pick himself
over Bush :), but I know what you mean. Again, I did say "given what we
have."

+>>  Grow up: pot smoking isn't the issue here, and although it's
+>>not politically correct these days, many, if not most, of us have tried it
+>>at one time.  Dismissing people on the grounds that they've tried it, or
+>>making silly jokes about it, isn't going to gain you any ground.
+>	Well, we did that to Douglas Ginsberg.
+An innocent victim in the War on Drugs.  Prudes and weenies at work, again.
	Not to mention the media who love to point out hypocrisy in a
Presidential selection or decision. How it wound up, Ginsberg dropped
out solely because of his past experimentation with marijuana. I admit
sometimes youthful indiscretions shouldn't matter in politics, but we
point them out all the time whether it is Clinton's side or Bush's.

+>I agree it isn't a productive charge, but it was the way Clinton responded to
+>those charges that have precipitated the "inhaling" jokes.
+
+I must say that *was* rather Quaylesque of Mr. Bill.
+
+>	Besides, we should lighten up! If Reagan can joke about his age
+>(Thomas Jefferson, old age stuff), we can handle the jokes about Bush
+>(silver foot in his mouth) and Clinton (didn't inhale).
+
+It's one thing to joke, and I like humor as much as the next guy, but it has
+its risks.  For example, Reagan claimed that Clinton compares himself to
+Jefferson.  It's been reported that this is not true--I've never heard/read
+him doing that--but many people hearing that "joke" now *do* think he did. 
+That will likely turn some potential Clinton supporters off, unfairly.
	I don't recall Clinton calling himself the new Thomas
Jefferson, but I do remember someone describing him as such. I can't
remember who or when though. I wish Ron had used his "Comeback Kid"
statement rather than Jefferson. To me Ron saying, "I knew the Comeback
Kid ..." would be quite amusing too.

+>>Boo hoo.  And where's all the openess and balance in the form of expression
+>>of platform-conflicting ideas such as being pro-choice?  Remember how the
+>>Republicans blasted the Democrats for not letting whathisname from
+>>Pennsylvania make his pro-life pitch?  Heard any pro-choicers at the RNC?
+>	Answer: why didn't they bring up the debate, because they didn't
+>have the support by RNC rules to bring one up.
+
+And clearly the pro-life Democrats, likewise.  I haven't heard any Republicans
+apologize for charging Democrats with the same crime they committed
+themselves.
	I've never heard anyone using a convention to sincerely
apologize to the other party before. I haven't heard Democrats apologize
for all the attacks on George and Dan either.

+>	You need to have heard the PBS interview Judy Woodruff had with
+>Barbara Bush tonight. I wish I had a transcript of it. Barbara brought
+>up the question, "Why didn't you defend us Republicans during the
+>Democratic National Convention when they made so many vicious charges
+>against us? How they characterized Republicans so viciously? Why are you
+>asking me these questions and didn't ask them?"
+
+Probably because the Democratic convention was much less of a bashfest than
+the Republican convention.  The Democrats were much more positive, talking
+about their plans for the future.  The Republicans are very negative about the
+Democratic ticket, nostalgic about the Reagan years, eager to blame the
+Democratic congress, and their sole program for the future is to procure a
+Republican congress.
	Were we listening to the same DNC in July? Do you consider
accurate the statement: "It was Herod, the Quayle of his day, who put no
value on the family." [Jesse Jackson, the Pat Buchanan of the Democratic
Convention, if we are going to apply the same criteria the media use]
	You also must remember the situation back last month. Ross Perot
dropped out on the last day of the DNC. The Democrats wanted to put
Clinton in the best light possible because two weeks ago he was getting
NO attention. The Republicans are treating this campaign in this
convention strictly as a two-party race; if Perot were still running
(which arguably he is), the Republicans I am sure would not be bashing
the opposing ticket so much.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc