[net.politics] *THIS* is a choice???

stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig) (11/02/84)

Since the date draws near, and most everyone else has put in their
two cents worth, I might as well jump on the bandwagon.

In this corner, the reigning chumps:
REAGAN/BUSH:
I dunno, folks.  I am probably better off now than I was four years
ago (but I was still in school four years ago, now I get paid). 
Student aid did not really change, and, at least where I went, no
one that I knew was forced to drop school because of money.  But
there are other issues.  Reagan's foreign policy is a mess.  I
personally do not understand why everyone seems to feel that
negotiating an agreement with the Soviets is necessary to stamp an
Administration as "successful", but I think the Soviets were not
particularly helpful, either, and I see no sense in signing a piece
of paper just to say you've signed one.  Lebanon is a 
complete blunder.  I don't know too much about Chile, but I think
we must get tough with Marcos.  If he wants to dangle the military
bases as bait, fine, if he takes them away we have one less reason
to support him, and he is not about to turn around and let the
Soviets use them.  The real danger is what happens when Marcos falls
(as he must do some time-- we have seen lately that no political
leader is safe, and no one lives forever in any case) and we are seen
as having helped him keep his iron grip on power.
Domestically, I dislike most of his "social policies", too.  I
oppose school prayer.  I oppose abortion, personally, but I am not decided
if I can justify imposing that belief on others.  I think a
constitutional amendment is ridiculous in any case.  I oppose ERA (I
won't elaborate on why here, since I have answered that before), but
I feel that Reagan's opposition to women runs somewhat deeper than
merely opposing the ERA.  I think his spending policies have helped
push us one step closer to a disastrous encounter with a monstrous
deficit, his tax policies have benefited the rich at the expense of
the poor, and although I think the position taken by some
environmental alarmists is extreme, I am worried about the damage
Reagan's policies have allowed business to inflict on the
environment.
Finally, the idea of George Bush as President should something
happened to Reagan makes my skin crawl. 

So, in the other corner, we find:
MONDALE/FERRARO
Domestically, these two are probably somewhat better.  There HAS to
be tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the deficit.  And our
choices are clear.  It's like a bandaid.  We can take it off a
little at a time over a long period of time (mildly painful but over
a longer period of time), or we can rip it off in one quick grab (
an instant of sharp pain, and that's it.)  However, Mondale's plan
for reducing the deficit is based largely on some shaky predictions
about how the economy will progress.  However, I think that Mondale
is not strong enough on defense (we need replacements for the B-52 ASAP),
though he was right in making hash of Reagan's ridiculous statements
about giving the "Star Wars" technology to the Soviets.  His
opposition to the space programs (the Space Shuttle is not entirely
military, and there are some commercial efforts scheduled to get
underway, but right now they will need all the help and
encouragement they can get if they are ever to get off the ground)
is something I do not agree with; we need such programs desperately,
and if we do not do it, someone else will, and, incidentally, make
all the money off it.  Besides, there is value in doing pure
research.  Finally, all that hassle with Bert Lance early on causes
me to question Mondale's judgement.  I find it lacking.

As far as Ferraro goes, I am only slightly less unhappy with the
idea of her as President than I am of Bush.  I do not think she
would make a capable President at present.  I question her
judgement, too, with the finances stuff.  If she had been honest and
upfront from the start, rather than having a whole bunch of little
fires to deal with, I would have been a bit more favorably disposed
towards her. (I'm really just the secretary-- well, OK, I was the
treasurer, too-- yes, I was a director, gee, I had forgotten all
about that).  The remarks and conduct of her husband, and the fact
that she is Tip O'Neill's protege haven't helped her win my vote
either. From what I have seen, I also mistrust her foreign policy
opinions.

So, the verdict...I am not voting for either of the major parties.
Beyond that, who I am voting for is none of your business, tho I
will vote.
I didn't vote for either Reagan or Carter in '80, either.  I didn't
like Carter's record (why does everyone think the Camp David Accords
were so wonderful, they seemed to be just words to me, and that is
exactly what it turned out to be), and even a young punk aged just
19 can figure out that a tax cut and increased military spending won't
balance a budget already in the red. I wonder if I will ever cast a
vote for a major party candidate in a Presidential race.  So, as far
as where we are now, don't blame me, I voted for Anderson, and
as far as the mess we will be in in 1988 (and I think it will be a
mess no matter who is elected), don't blame me, I didn't vote for
him, either.

Mark Modig
..ihnp4!btlunix!mom