From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Arthur B. Laffer
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:12:12 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

In article <1992Oct15.102658.19202@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> 
|>         BUSH DOES NOT MERIT REELECTION
|>         by Arthur B. Laffer 
|> 
|>   George Bush has not earned the right to be reelected.  His performance
|>   has been poor across a wide range of presidential tasks.  It's time
|>   for a new broom to sweep the country clean.
|> 
|>   In my opinion, the issue is not whether Bill Clinton did or did not
|>   misuse the Selective Service system or whether he had an affair or
|>   whether he smoked marijuana.  Any cursory review of U.S. presidents
|>   demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that their prior behavior
|>   has no bearing whatsoever on their performance as president.

It's interesting isn't it that Clinton's past is "irrelevant" when he
is running for President, but just the things that he has admitted to with
regards to his anti-war activities in the 60's and his tour of Europe
(including several countries behind the Iron Curtain) would prevent him from
getting a security clearance so that he could get a job at a defense
contractor?

|>   Jack Kennedy as a senator and congressman wasn't very good.  And yet
|>   he was a truly great president because of his tax cuts and strong 
|>   defense posture.  Lyndon Johnson went the other way.  Ronald Reagan,
|>   the biggest tax increaser as governor of California, was unquestionably
|>   the best president of this century because of his tax cuts and "Star
|>   Wars" defense program.  Right-winger Richard Nixon opened up Red China,
|>   raised taxes and put on wage and price controls.  The record is full
|>   of presidential suprises.

I'm sure glad that JFK kept his main campaign promise:  Getting Castro out of
Cuba.  Why, there's no telling how many central and south American countries
would have had leftist revolutions sponsered by Castro.  Yup, keeping your
major campaign promises are what make the great Presidents.  If only LBJ could
have at least gotten one or two of his civil-rights or social programs
passed, or maybe if he had picked something like the space program to back,
maybe then he would have been remembered for more than just trying to win
JFK's Vietnam War.  Oh, you forgot Jimmy Carter.  I remember him running in
rural areas as the "farmers'" President  -- the only trouble was that they
though he meant family farm and were shocked when he repeatedly zinged the
small family farm in favor of the large corporate farms (like his family's).

|>   The biggest suprise of all is George Bush.  Based upon what he had
|>   accomplished, he had to be a great president.  He had the best resume
|>   in town and turned out to be a dud.  Who knows what Clinton will be
|>   like?  The record is full of suprises.

Yes sir,  Bush should have done a better job in dealing with other nations. 
After all, he did have all that experience dealing with them at the UN and in
China. . .


<< stuff deleted >>

|>   As governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton was above average.  He had an
|>   undistinguished career, but never came close to being as bad as, say,
|>   Jim Florio of New Jersey or Lowell Weicker of Connecticut.  Clinton
|>   should do a far better job than Bush has done.  But, then again, that's
|>   not saying much.  

You're being a bit kind here, aren't you.  Perhaps you've never been to
Arkansas.  I my friends from Arkansas say: "Bill Clinton is going to do for
America what he's done for Arkansas -- two cars in every yard.  (Neither one
works and the yard doesn't belong to you, but isn't that beside the point?)"

|>   The final point is that, if Clinton screws up the country, you'll get
|>   a great GOP president in 1996 the likes of Kemp or Quayle.  If Bush
|>   wins you'll get a rotten four years and by 1996 you'll still have
|>   nothing to look forward to.

Sounds great on the surface, but he can do damage via his appointment(s) to
the Supreme Court that will last for a generation.  Classic US short term
(less than 10 years) thinking.  After all, we are still paying for some of the
decisions that FDR's and JFK's appointments have made, many of which redefined
the US Constitution.

|>   ---------
|>         Arthur B. Laffer, a member of former President Ronald Reagan's
|>         economic policy advisory board, is chairman of a research and 
|>         consulting firm.  He wrote this article for Newsday.
|>         Reprinted in Minneapolis Star Tribune, Thursday October 15, 1992.
|> -- 

dp

***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh