From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:04:43 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

In article <BuD8z9.AJ9.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <9SEP199212023919@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:
>>
>>As a vet in Vietnam, I saw that plane and it was reported on our TV and
>>in our local paper.  I am incensed that these STUPID diversionary tactics
>>are again being used in the political campaign.
>
>The point isn't so much that he dodged the draft.  It is that he has lied 
>about it.  Repeatedly.  
>
>-- 
>Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
>anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
>Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
>Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890

The point isn't that Bush was involved in the in the Iran-Contra affair,
but that he has lied about it.  The fact is, he was not out of the
loop.

This nonsense about Clinton "lying" about something that happened 
twenty years ago when he was a young man being a "character issue" is
absurd when our president has lied to us about what he did as
Vice President of our country.

This is just a bit of nonsense to keep the draft-dodging issue
out there and avoiding:

	1) Offending people who think draft-dodging
	is a non-issue

	2) Being accused of hipocracy.  Didn't Dick Cheney
	avoid service?  Dan Quayle?

If the Bush people want to call Clinton a draft dodger, that's fine
with me.  Whatever the sequence of events, Clinton did try hard
to avoid the draft, if only for a while.

There is another reason for using this as a "trust" issue; it
works well with other issues about Clinton's character.  Like
his problems from the Flowers story.

The fact is, George Bush as a politician has shown no more
honesty.  At one point he claimed he never called Reagan's
policies "voodoo economics."  He has consistently mis-represented
his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair.  He "bravely"
promised to not raise taxes, then not-so-bravely raised
them.  George Bush has shown that he will abandon principle
at every turn.  Who do you trust?

I will tend to trust the man who lies about what he did 20+ years ago
rather than the guy who lies about what happened 1-2 years before.
I will tend to trust the guy who has shown an interest in discussing
the issues rather than demonizing his opponent.

The Bush people hear polls that say, "voters think Clinton has a
better plan for the economy" and their response is not to explain
their plan, but to attack Clinton's character.  I believe it was
Dan Quayle who accused the Democrats of talking down to the
American people, but it is really the Republicans who are saying:

	Hey, we know what is right for the American public,
	but we can't explain it in small words, so we will
	try instead to divert these stupid voters from the
	issues at hand.

This may work - I have no illusions about the intelligence of
Americans.  It was Bush's Secretary of Education who recently
said that a large number of Americans are "as dumb as fungus."
Now they are pandering to that crowd.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software