| Jeff Dean on Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:41:17 -0500 (EST) |
|
At 10:42 PM 11/4/00 -0500, you wrote: What do people on this list feel about the recent "revelation" regarding Bush? Does anybody really care? I know I don't. It happened 24 years ago. And, the man hasn't had a drink in 14 years. So Clinton lies about a little backroom sex and he's impeached, but Bush lies about DUI and he's to be congratulated and elected? What happened to all of the talk about character? It's a double standard. Bush is ethically no better than Clinton and his candidacy should go down in flames as a result. So, if he had a problem, he admitted it and beat it. That's right. Poor GW. It's in the past, right? So what happens if he's drunk at a presidential function? What if the DUI had happened recently and he'd been convicted and jailed? But, I think it was a cheap shot by the opposition to reveal this information with five days left in the election. Who cares how or when it was revealed? It does appear to be convenient timing, but it's a fact nonetheless. Fortunately for Bush it was at a time when society gave him a pat on the behind and a wink as he walked out the door. But if he was caught once, how many other times was he drinking and driving? How many moms/kids/students did he nearly hit while driving drunk? Why should we not care? This event shows an immense lapse in judgement on Bush's part, and it's a showstopper. Perhaps he should be impeached in Texas now as a liar and admitted drunk driver... Remember Gore said that he wouldn't run that type of campagne, yet the democratic party has been pulling all sorts of bad juju in Michigan (in particular) as well as elsewhere. You can't tell me HE didn't know about Bush's record. None of us will ever know if Gore or Gore's campaign had anything to do with it. But it's still moot because the DUI is a fact. Timing is irrelevant. It's sorta like Larry Flint coming out and claiming, on CNN, that he has evidence of Bush paying for some woman's abortion or Jesse Jackson saying that Collin Powell wouldn't have made the rank of general if Bush had anything to say about it. Yet, he (Flint) has yet to produce this "evidence".
What irritated me is that the correspondent didn't challenge Flint and he got away with a cheap shot on national TV. Same sorta crap. Have you forgotten the Whitewater nonsense, campaign finance investigations, and the whole impeachment proceeding? Current politics is a dirty mess, and we can't pin it on anyone individually or even either party. They're all playing the same game. So, vote Bush if: - You don't care for an articulate, intellectually engaged president - You want the Republican machine to proceed unchecked in judiciary (via appointments), legislative, and executive branches (this amounts to eliminating many of the constitutional checks and balances we're dependent on to avoid a moderate and representative government) - You agree that Clinton's character lapses are irrelevant, that the Republican congress acted irresponsibly by moving to impeach, and you don't mind continuing with another liar/deceiver as president Vote Nader if: - You want to waste your vote, or you want to vote for Bush and pretend you didn't. Say all you want about voting your conscience, but Nader's credible candidacy is simply a distraction to a two-party reality. A vote for Nader, however much you want to stand for his ideals and those of the Green party, is a vote for Bush. Gore is far closer to Nader than a Bush on issues that matter. Check www.nadersraidersforgore.com on this one.
|
|