plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (01/04/84)
What's good for the Rev. Jackson is good for Ronald Reagan. (Mr. Mondale and the other Democratic candidates are the ones biting their nails.) ..seismo!rlgvax!plunkett
tommyo@ihuxw.UUCP (Tom O`Connor) (01/04/84)
You hit on the reason why Jesse got our pilot out of Syria when others couldn`t - his race + politics. Heck, if some foreign country who doesn`t like our politics wants to make some news for an underdog and maybe embarrass our President, the Syrians sure did a very good job. I agree totally with your opinion about Jackson`s "looking out for himself" type of attitude. Many whites AND blacks don`t like Jesse. I`ll be darned if I`ll ever vote for him. We don`t need a screamer leading this country, we need a controlled person with EXPERIENCE. We need someone with charisma and character that could make Americans feel good and proud, like the late John Kennedy did. What kind of experience does Jackson have with international relations, as well as many national problems. He saw Harold Washington pull off an upset over Jane Byrne (He can thank Rich Daley for that) and figured "Hey, if a black man can be mayor, how about President?! A local Chicago columnist punned that we should`ve traded Jackson for the pilot. But let`s be realistic. Jackson will NOT win the nomination. If he tries a John Anderson (what ever happened to him?) and goes independent, he will NOT win. I really feel a little scared for him. There are enough kooks running around that would gun Jackson down before he had a chance to step into the Presidency. Jesse, be a realist. Give up now! Tom O`Connor ihuxw!tommyo
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/07/84)
Scott Prector asks, "what if Syria decided to put the crewman in worse conditions as a slap in the face to the US in response to Jackson's overtures? It would have been a good way for them to show how little they care for Reagan's thunderings and for the American people" and then states, "A point that I'd like to make is that I don't think it is a good idea for people not in the US government and designated by the President or Congress to step in and usurp the roles of US negotiators." Jackson, as a private citizen with connections to Syria, went to appeal for the release of an American citizen. He did not pretend to represent the U.S. government, and that was made very clear by Reagan's refusal to talk to him before he left. Hypothetical questions are sometimes useful: in this case, the question borders on the absurd. The Syrians are not fanatical crazies. They are, believe it or not, rationally pursuing their own interests in the Mideast. Why they would deliberately slap the U.S. in the face is something Mr. Prector does not explain. Indeed, all signs are that Syria wants better relations with the U.S., hoping that is the path to a removal of U.S. troops. I also think that much of the uproar has very much to do with Jackson himself. After all, when Henry Kissinger runs around the globe talking to foreign governments, no one gets all upset over whether he's been "designated by the President or Congress." But let a black man do it, and all of a sudden it doesn't seem like such a good idea to many. On a different track, I'd like to respond to Tom O'Connor. He writes, "He [Jackson] saw Harold Washington pull off an upset over Jane Byrne (He can thank Rich Daley for that) and figured 'Hey, if a black man can be mayor, how about President?!'" Besides plainly lacking an understanding of the last Chicago election (seeing as how he probably lives in the western suburbs, that's not surprising), Mr. O'Connor also does not understand Jackson's Presidential bid. Jackson is running as a pressure candidate. He wants to bring up issues which Mondale, Glenn, et al would like to ignore. So far, he has done a very good job of that, as I noted in a previous article. The racism barely concealed in Mr. O'Connor's statement speaks for itself. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (01/10/84)
Mike, First of all, I'm not Mr. Prector; my last name is Pector. (I'm not mad about your misspelling, just amused and thankful it didn't become Peckor :-)). Second, I'm not certain my hypothetical case is absurd. If the Syrians care so much about world opinion, why are they around the Beirut area in the first place, particularly now that Israel has withdrawn from a significant part of the area they held in Lebanon. Yes, Syria has its own interests and rationally, I suppose, pursues them. But what interest do they have in maintaining good relations with the US? Why should that be important to them? Look at Cuba, do they need the US for anything? If my memory is correct, I can't remember when the Syrians were last on wonderful terms with the US. The actual hypothetical instance was not important. The point was that Jackson took a big responsibility into his hands and I disagreed with his method. That responsibility was that of the US government alone, not some PRIVATE individual, particularly a presidential candidate. Mike, you didn't reply to the rest of my article; I'm interested in your thoughts. Remember, although we may agree there swere some good results from Jackson's venture, is what he did a good precedent? Is what he did the right thing to do in all similar circumstances? Who is to decide (if one believes Jackson was right in what he did) when Jackson's should or should not be applied? These points are discussed in more detail in my original article. I grant that I personally do not like Reverend Jackson, but I am making the best effort I can to prevent that from influencing my arguments. If you see me failing in that regard, let me know; I am trying to argue against an action that I believe could have been taken by anyone since such an action is a dangerous precedent, if not risky by itself. Scott Pector
pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (01/10/84)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) > >The actual hypothetical instance was not important. The point was that >Jackson took a big responsibility into his hands and I disagreed with >his method. That responsibility was that of the US government alone, >not some PRIVATE individual, particularly a presidential candidate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm afraid I don't quite understand that last sentence. It appears that you are saying that US citizens do not have the right to appeal to the leaders of other nations to act in a humanitarian manner. Is this a new law? Does this mean that US citizens can no longer write Yuri Andropov letters asking him to release Soviet Jews, or to stop building nuclear weapons? Is Samantha going to be arrested for traveling to Russia and talking to him? Did Nixon break the law when he traveled to China while a presidential candidate? Or is it just presidential candidates that aren't supposed to talk to foreign leaders? "Mrs. Thatcher on the phone? Tell her that I can't talk to her now - I'm running for president. Take her number and tell her that I'll call her back after the election." The entire argument, of course, that Jackson should not have gone to Syria is ludicrous. I realize that a lot of people resent anyone who exercises the right of free speech, but I don't think that the bill of rights has been repealed yet. Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp
pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (01/11/84)
Phil Polli, I think that you are taking my statement out of context. As you have shown it, it is a brief statement. But there were other clauses and sentences that went with it. Unfortunately, it probably was not well- stated. So, here goes one more effort: I guess the issue (at least for me) is becoming when is it acceptable for someone to go without solid approval from the US government to negotiate some issue (here, the release of a prisoner) directly related (here, as a consequence) to a set of disagreements (over people, land, ideas, etc.) with another government. By solid approval, I mean prior acceptance by Con- gress and/or the President and/or their representatives. I don't have problems with people writing letters to the US government, or even traveling to other governments. If such efforts convince the opposing government to do something "nice" or "good," and to do it through negotiations or steps with the US government, then so much the better. But I have a problem when such efforts are not at any time coordinated with US government actions, i.e., when such efforts are not voluntarily accounted for as a policy option by the US government, and when such efforts produce the desired result which is executed through a third party without US government approval, partici- pation, or concurrence. The former occurred, in my opinion, when the US government (apparently) reluctantly let Jackson go on his mission. As I said in my last article, it is possible that Reagan wasn't reluctant privately, but it doesn't sound that way from the news. The latter occurred when the Syrians agreed to release Goodman without US government negotiators participating and more or less in the custody of Jackson. (I think I've descibed this correctly, but I may well be mistaken on this: correct me if I'm in error about this detail.) To be more specific, when Goodman was released directly to Jackson, it appears (at least to me) that it was also done as a jab at the US government, at least as far as the manner in which it was done. A second concern, to me, is that Jackson is not just a private citizen; he's a Presidential candidate. By going over to Syria to negotiate as a third party without US government support, he leaves himself open to the charge of whether he used his candidacy as a means to free Goodman. No one knows entirely what was said and no one ever will. He may not have used his candidacy, but unfortunately he still has left himself open to this charge. Further, it is not entirely clear whether his actions will have an entirely beneficial affect on Reagan's dealings with the Syrians (although there are some benefits). Not everyone agrees with Reagan's approaches, but I don't think that it is right to have someone go in and experiment with another approach in this situation without concurrence by the US government. Hopefully, this letter is clearer in expressing my thoughts on this matter. I would like to emphasize that I don't think what Jackson did was illegal; rather, I think the way it happened is wrong. Bear in mind, Phil, I don't want to stifle freedom of speech or letter writing or even the use of the Net to help the world towards peace; I just think that actions need to be coordinated since we all can't play President at the same time. :-) Scott Pector