X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:41:49 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >    i think that one of these first months, the nation is gonna look at
> > clinton and wish that george was back in the white house. it should be
> > about 6 months before everybody realizes that bill is not up to the
> > job, and then we have another 3 1/2 years before we can put someone
> > competent in the white house. ethics. haitians. living with saddam.

Assuming a version of Bill that is genetically engineered to run
the Oval Office (excuse me while I delve into SF), the real problems
of America are difficult to deal with. It took nearly 12 years of
our support for Saddam Hussein to become the bad person we all know
and love, and this situation will not go away in 6 months. It is a
foreign policy disaster of large proportions, and no quick fix will
make everyone happy. We want a militarist dictator next to Iran to
keep Iran in check and it just so happens that the one we have chosen
is Saddam. As for Haiti, the US government never wanted Aristide in
power there. I just hope some people in Foggy Bottom start defining
democracy by the ballot, not the bullet.

> EXACTLY.  After 12 years of Republican leadership, all of a sudden
> Reagan and Bush are seen as the tyrants that made our country bad.
> So, we elect Clinton to make things better?  Shyeah!  Right!  As if!

All of the sudden? I've been posting dire messages of impending doom
for YEARS now and this is supposed to be sudden? Wake up and smell
the brocolli!

> >    which reminds me. supposedly hillary will be "in charge of domestic
> > policy", or so i heard on the radio. does this refer to the servants
> > at the white house or something else?

> Hillary is probably still cursing LBJ for the law he passed as soon
> as becoming President prohibiting the President to appoint any
> immediate relative to the Administration.  (i.e. JFK and Bobby...
> Hmm.  Maybe some of the JFK-Clinton comparisons ARE justified!)

If a law can be made, it can be unmade.

> > empower america - kemp '96

> Yes, I will support Kemp in 1996.  I may even work on his campaign
> here in California.  But I have one small question.  WHERE IS JAMES
> BAKER?  The day he decides to run for President, I'll be in
> Washington to work on his campaign.  Any man that can talk the Arabs
> into siding with Israel against Iraq, pull off the most complicated
> negotiations, etc.  should easily be able to convince the American
> people that he should be President.

I dunno. He found it difficult to convince The American People (tm)
that his boss should have been president. Convincing rich dictators
to remember which side of the bread is buttered is different than
convincing the voters that we need this "foreign policy genius" as
the man in the Oval Office. The last "foreign policy genius " we
had, GHWB, had wars going on three of the last for X-mases. The
"foreign policy genius" before that created OPEC, started a long
slow starvation of the military that Carter started deficit spending
to stop and was nearly kicked out of office for obstruction of justice.

May God save us from "foreign policy geniuses."


>     Considering he ran Reagan's and Bush's campaigns, I wonder if
> he'll run his own...<smile>...  Probably do a better job than anyone
> else would anyway...

Yeah. Right. He ran George Bush's 1992 campaign. It was Atwater who
ran the show in 1988. Talk to me about good jobs sometime, OK?

Although if Kemp ran in 1992, I would have had to think about who
I would have voted for.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU