mjk@tty3b.UUCP (06/29/83)
Really, though, doesn't Reagan come across as a fool -- what with his aside about giving a reporter his "receipe for oatmeal meatloaf" and his almost total inability to describe his Administration's Civil Rights programs (with good reason -- there are none). He comes off as an amiable man with very little knowledge of the effects of his policies. He assured us "the rich don't need my help and I am not doing things to help the rich." Well he certainly isn't helping the poor any, and most of the middle class isn't doing too well -- who the hell is he helping? Or, to put it differently, `Cui Bono?' I have to groan every time I see him (and other right wingers in this country) get misty-eyed about the fate of Solidarity. Trade Unions in Poland, but none in the U.S. is their policy. Let's not forget that one of Reagan's earliest acts as President was to provoke a strike by the air controllers and then smash the union and imprison its president. To this day, most of the air controllers who did the only proper thing for a union member to do under the circumstances, strike, do not have their jobs back. This is a friend of labor? There are many other examples as well -- his gutting of OSHA, his appointing a corrupt construction executive as Secretary of Labor, to name just two -- but this contrast between his love for Polish union solidarity and his contempt for solidarity among American trade unionists is the most striking. Lesley Stahl did a good job of highlighting one of the contradictions of Reagan's Central American policy when she asked how he can promise never to send troops to El Salvador if it's so vital to American security. I wish he would try to send troops down there, because that could be million here and $40 million there committee appropriations are much more difficult to fight, although it's clear that most Americans don't support them. (And I have contempt for the Congressional `liberals' who are voting this aid -- they are worse than the conservatives, who at least admit that all they care about is American influence and don't bother them with human rights puff.) And the Briefing Book. Yeah, it's fun to take a few stabs at Reagan when he's obviously been caught with his pants down (e.g. Looks like Republicans just can't get elected President without cheating, doesn't it?) But I think the furor over this detracts from other more important issues. For example, anyone hear Reagan mention anything about 10 million unemployed Americans? Nope, just that the economy is "starting to sparkle" and how good "we" have done by reducing inflation and interest rates. Well, everyone always knew inflation could be reduced by increasing unemployment; no trick there. Works vice versa too. Ronald Reagan was elected President because he told us he had a way of reducing both. He didn't. tty3b!mjk Mike Kelly @ Teletype-Skokie
cas@cvl.UUCP (07/01/83)
Personally, I am rather ambivalent about Reagan and his policies.
About the only view I would really feel comfortable with is that
he can't be any worse than Carter. However, I do get tired of reading
comments about how stupid the man is and how he doesn't know anything
about the issues he is addressing. Here is a man who on a regular basis
can convince the senate to vote in his favor. This is done in the
difficult situations by meeting with members (of both parties) on an
individual or small group basis. A person either stupid or ignorant
will be quickly found out on such an occasion, and certainly will be
unable to convince anyone of their cause. And if you think the members
of congress are even stupider and more ignorant than Reagan, he is also
quite successful when meeting with members of other governments.
I suspect that the individuals who watch Reagan and claim that he
doesn't know what he is talking about are suffering from a case of
wishful thinking - if the observer doesn't agree with the policies of
a politician, then the observer would like to beleive the politician is
somehow bad or incompetent apart from the policy itself. Its one thing
to totally disagree with Reagan's policies, but you won't be doing
yourself any favors if you underestimate him. Maybe he is stupid, even
senile. But I doubt it very much as long as he can continue to pull
out victories in congress.
Cliff Shaffer
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!cvl!cas
PS - Notice that he didn't try too hard to get the abortion amendment
passed - a bill which was obviously doomed to failure.mat@hou5e.UUCP (07/04/83)
I voted for Mr. Reagan and I would do so again. Why? ecause of just one thing ... ``Stay the course'' Look at what is happening to the LEADING indicators, to the stock markets, to backlogged inventories. This isn't happening because of the course Mr Reagan has steered ... it is happening because business leaders believe that the Administration AND the Federal Reserve are going to maintain a steady attitude. The spectre of the ``Great Society'' and its costs, both dollar and human, hung over our heads for over a decade. The fear of gov't intervention has strangled business ever since R M Nixon's 30-day wage-and-price freeze. Government intervention changing or holding the marketplace could result in a firm going under -- or just losing money, which, when it is caused by government stupidity, is little more than confiscation. I don't think that Mr Reagan is doing a great job of foreign policy ... on the other hand, I think that he is being, for the most part, more realistic than most of our recent leaders ... and certainly more realistic than many political writers and would-be presidents. As to being a friend of Big Labor ... Big Labor now holds a stranglehold over this nation. I don't mind JP Stevens being struck. I don't mind GM being struck. But if ALL the American automakers were struck, and for a prolonged period, then I would be steaming mad. And if ALL air-traffic control is struck (which is what happens when there is only one FAA running it) then I am damned mad, and I think that Mr Reagan stood up for my interests. As regards morality, and prayer, and ... . Well, many people seem to think that he is in the right direction, but just a little too far afield. 'Course, this has to depend on the issue. Anyhow, the issue raised was economics and business. Listen to the reports in the morning about the financial institutions. In NY, WINS has a fair set of them every weekday morning. Mark Terribile Duke of deNet
wall@ucbvax.UUCP (07/05/83)
I couldn't agree more with Mike Kelly's comment about the so-called liberals who are not even hesitating to approve more military aid to El Salvador. One really gets a sense of what those wishy-washy liberals are made of when looking back at Reagan's speech to the joint congress in late April. Every damn liberal in the house was up on his feet applauding Reagan throughout his entire speech, a sight that really makes you sick to your stomach. People like Ed (covert action is *illegal*) Boland and Clarence Long were up there kissing Reagan's toes. These are the same people who are **against** (?) more aid to El Salvador. Let's face it, these men see the cival war in El Salvador as a Russian-controlled act of communist aggression via Cuba and Nicaragua, and as long as they refuse to see the situation in El Salvador as a popular movement of the people of El Salvador against an ugly dictatorship, they will continue to funnel money to Central America. As a liberal, I feel a bit uneasy when these type of men also refer to them- selves as liberals. It's a disgrace to be associated with them. The only Democrat that has stuck his neck out and opposed Reagan's Central America policies is Christopher Dodd. It was Dodd who gave the follow-up speech to Reagan's speech to Congress, and what he said was pretty much on target. He understands that more military aid will not bring peace to Central America; what will bring peace to the region is the United States supporting negotiations with the FMLN-FDR, and throwing out the extreme right like Roberto D'Aubussian (spelling?). Another thing that is *totally* hypocritical in Reagan's Latin American policies is that on the one hand he calls for democratic rule in El Salvador and Nicaragua, but he never touches the *friendly* governments of Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. In Chile, General Pinochet is planning on holding presidential elections in 1990! If this is democracy in action then it is not surprising that the people of El Salvador say nay to democracy. The people of the United States (myself definately included) cannot understand the suffering in Latin America because we are fortunate enough to live in a country of relative freedom from persecution by our government and we also enjoy an extremely high standard of living. In much of Latin America the yearly income is under $1,000. And the sad thing is that much of our great wealth came from these people's countries, as our leaders worked closely with the old oligarchy to reap great wealth at the expense of the people of Latin America. But one thing that the American people *can* do is stop US support of the continued suffering of Latin Americans. If we are really going to be proud of being Americans, then we have to stop the suffering. Just a few thoughts from, Steve Wall wall@ucbarpa
larry@grkermit.UUCP (07/06/83)
From: cas@cvl.UUCP Here is a man [Reagan] who on a regular basis can convince the senate to vote in his favor. This is done in the difficult situations by meeting with members (of both parties) on an individual or small group basis. A person either stupid or ignorant will be quickly found out on such an occasion, and certainly will be unable to convince anyone of their cause. And if you think the members of congress are even stupider and more ignorant than Reagan, he is also quite successful when meeting with members of other governments. You're confusing Reagan with his administration. He has some very SMART men running the show for him. -- Larry Kolodney (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
diy@sb1.UUCP (07/27/83)
I have no great love for Reagan, but I have to admit that I agree with him on
one idea that he mentioned one time...The media making "much ado about nothing".
It seems that since Watergate every president must now sacrifice someone in his
staff to the media gods:
Nixon and everybody else in his group
Carter and Bert Lance
Now Reagan and the Debate Papers
It just seems to me that there is a general attitude among the press corps that
there is something going on, that everybody is hiding something. I wonder,
does this scenario take place:
Editor: OK, today's assignments...Johnson, hang out by Senator Jones house, and see if any suspicious characters ever come there.
Wilson, check all the bank records of the heads of our state departments.
See if they have been withdrawing a lot of money lately...might be a good story
there.
Jackson, check the family trees of the city council! By God, I'll bet we'll
find that the mayor's fourth cousin on his paternal grandmother's side is also
employed by the city somewhere. Nepotism!!! It's our sacred duty to guard
against it!
Martin, you go through all the trash cans in the governor's mansion. We
are the watchdog for the public, and no stone must be left unturned,no nook or cranny left unooked or crannied, no private letter or conversation
must not be publicized, cause we've got to let the public know!!!
ad nauseum, etc, so on so forth...
Don't get me wrong, I really do believe that the press should serve as a
watchdog of sorts. I'm against MAKING news as opposed to reporting it!
And everything I've heard and seen from the media is smelling more and
more like news created. And it's getting more and more biased. Does
anybody believe for one minute that the Washington Press Corps is totally
unbiased towards Reagan???
I could be wrong, or not looking at it correctly. I invite comment!
I've got an open mind!
WHO WATCHES THE WATCHDOG??
DENNIS