We Are All Clintonists Now

2 views
Skip to first unread message

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
6 September 1999

[Enter a "conservative" "intellectual" stage right, soliloquizing:]

It can seem so terribly unfair. Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to
their first majority in the House of Representatives since 1955, and
then to two successive majorities for the first time since the 1920s. He
forced welfare reform and a balanced budget onto President Clinton. His
reward for this record of accomplishment? Spurious ethics charges,
anonymous quotes in the Washington Post from Republican congressmen
about how much better things have worked since he quit the speakership,
and a Republican front-runner for the presidential nomination that
Gingrich coveted whose rhetoric is very largely intended to separate
himself as widely as possible from the once all-conquering Newt. (...)

Gingrich dutifully acknowledges that it was the errors of the Clinton
administration–the health care plan, the tax increases, and gays in the
military–that toppled the Democratic Congress in 1994, but he does not
really believe it. After the perfunctory acknowledgment, he devotes most
of his airtime to talking about what he imagines really did the trick:
the discrediting of the Democratic leadership through scandals like
Wright's. There may be some truth to this, although one wonders whether
ethics charges could really produce the 10 million vote shift of 1994.
Believing in the truth of it had, however, immense consequences for the
Gingrich-led conservative movement. In trying to upend the congressional
Democrats through procedural victories in Congress, Gingrich directed
the reforming zeal of conservatives toward the procedures of Congress.
Instead of tax cuts, the building of a post-Communist world order, equal
justice under law regardless of race, the cultural and linguistic unity
of the United States, or any of the dozen other powerful potential
issues available to them in the mid-1990s, conservatives found
themselves talking about term limits, a balanced budget amendment, House
members' bank, the line-item veto, and a series of other issues equally
remote from Americans' everyday concerns. The logical culmination of
this way of thinking was the Contract With America, which spent the
energies of the biggest Republican congressional swing since 1894 on six
months of votes on the internal governance of the House of
Representatives. (...)

Clinton had a big idea about Medicare; Gingrich never did. It was the
Reagan-Carter fight in reverse–principle vs. technicalities. To this
day, conservatives have not recovered from Gingrich's downgrading of
thematics. In 1999, for the first time since the 1940s, there is no
generally accepted conservative agenda. (...)

Because Gingrich lacked a unifying political vision of his own, he was
susceptible to the sort of populism that postulates some
hypothetical–will of the people– that politicians must detect and serve.
This susceptibility explains why Gingrich got so caught up in fads and
trends: he felt that if he squinted hard enough at them, he could detect
the people’s wishes. [Clintonism in a nutshell] (...)

In truth, nothing in politics happens spontaneously. [American Whiggery
in a nutshell] (...)

---

Well, there's the USA rightists' great 1990's fiasco, rather well
formulated by Mr. David Frumm for the New Standard Criterion of the Week
(13 Sep 1999 nominally denoting the week in question). Frumm's scribble
is called "Newt's Legacy."

<< http://www.weeklystandard.com/ >>

Legacy-distressed elephant people have to look no farther than _loc.
cit._, fortunately, to find the 2000's cure for gingrichoma mutilans, a
prescription for post-Newt recovery (and also eternal life, youth and
beauty in American politics) recently discovered and here revealed by
Mr. David Brooks under the rubric "How George W. Bush and John
McCain—without quite realizing it—are creating a new Republican Party."
It goes, in short excerpts from a long screed, like this:

... The candidates themselves don’t seem fully aware of the
implications of what they are saying, but together, Bush’s Compassionate
Conservatism and McCain’s New Patriotic Challenge are steps toward a
fresh vision for the Republican party. Indeed, if you meld the core
messages of the two campaigns, you get a coherent governing philosophy
for the post-Clinton age. (...)

Both Bush and McCain criticize the excessive anti-government zeal of
the 1995 congressional Republicans. George W. Bush recently attacked
"the destructive mindset: the idea that if government would only get out
of our way, all our problems would be solved. An approach with no higher
goal, no nobler purpose than 'Leave us Alone.'" That phrase—that
government should "Leave Us Alone"—was the rallying cry of the Gingrich
revolutionaries. Meanwhile, John McCain notes that a "healthy
skepticism" about government has turned into "widespread cynicism
bordering on alienation." Instead of telling people that government is
evil, McCain reminds them that public service is "the highest calling."
(...)

"Government must be carefully limited, but strong and active," Bush
says. The two candidates, however, emphasize activism in different
spheres. George W. Bush seeks to restore the power of local and intimate
authority—the authority of parents, neighborhood, charity, and local
government. Bush says the next task of welfare reform is to build up the
religious and community institutions that can touch people on the
profoundest level. (...)

In other words, the promise of a fully realized Compassionate
Conservatism is not merely that Faith Based Foundation X has a higher
success rate than Public Welfare Agency Y. It is that working for the
general good through voluntary organizations—instead of leaving such
functions to professional state agencies—gives people the opportunity to
govern themselves. [This particular ingenuity is so Clintonic, I'm
amazed Himself never actually thought of it!] (...)

A person running for the presidency of the United States of America
can’t be content to be alderman or even governor to the nation. He has
to possess a governing philosophy that connects citizens to higher
national aims and that organizes American behavior around the world.

This is where John McCain’s campaign makes its contribution. If the
Bush campaign promotes limited but energetic government on the local
level, the McCain campaign has articulated a philosophy of limited but
energetic government on the national and global level. (...)

"The threat that concerns me is the pervasive public cynicism that is
debilitating our democracy," McCain declared. Skepticism about
government, he continued, has turned into a biting contempt for public
life. And this cynicism doesn't lead people to want to scale back
government, as many Republicans used to believe. Instead, it just causes
them to detach themselves from public life and active citizenship. (...)

McCain embraces American might, believing that it gives us the
opportunity to better promote our interests, roll back rogue nations,
preserve international order, and advance the cause of democratic
self-government around the world. As he demonstrated during the Kosovo
crisis, McCain, more than any of the other Republican presidential
candidates, believes in using American military might to advance
America’s democratic ideals and punish outrageous dictators who threaten
peace. [Yoohoo! Madeleine! they're plagiarizing your tune.] (...)

Both defend politics and civic activity from the tide of anti-political
fervor that is sweeping the country. Together, they make a coherent
vision, which might be called One Nation Conservatism. (...)

We are united by the Declaration and the Constitution of the American
Founders. We are united by the system of government they established and
the ideals it embodies—so how can we love our country if we hate its
government? McCain hopes to restore confidence in that system of
government, both at home and abroad.

If you follow these two campaigns to their logical conclusion, you
arrive at a One Nation Conservatism that marries community goodness with
national greatness. [My word! the GOP has caught up with Jimmy Carter!
What next?] (...)

[Drums. Trumpets. Mr. Brooks perorates:]

No party is worth supporting if its goals are wholly negative, just
cutting and dismantling institutions. No party is worth supporting if it
cannot distinguish the parts of the state that foster self-government
from those that crush it. And no party is worth supporting if it is
wholly materialistic; if it seems to be interested in nothing more than
building up its supportersí bank accounts. The Republican party may be
learning this. It may be on the verge of absorbing the lessons of its
recent mistakes. Out of the present quiet and seemingly nonideological
presidential campaign, there may emerge a vigorous One Nation
Conservatism that will connect a revived sense of citizenship with the
long-standing national greatness Americans hold dear.

---
Talk about "don’t seem fully aware of the implications"!

Imitation is the sincerest form. 'Nuff said.

== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
No.

We ain't.


--

John T. Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
--

"(BTW, I do have an MA from Johns Hopkins, and a Ph.D. from the University
of Minnesota. Last I heard, Beck was a roadie. Hmmmmmm...who is a fraud?
Readers can decide.)"

- Scott Erb 2/20/98

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In article <xcjTN61ccKcHa0...@4ax.com>,
I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.
(Motorcycles? Black helicopters? Von Hayek? Miss Rand? Plotinus? Waco?
Clarabelle the Clown?)
Your infimal Beck nevertheless speaks for himself very clearly, very
unmistakably, very carnivorously. I've accumulated a long, long list of
political philosophy nits to pick with Citizen Mister Professor Doctor
Scott Erb of the University of Maine at Farmington, but with him they
are, or at least ought to be, pickable nits. If CMPD S. Erb of UMF
seriously believes in unpickable nits, the state of Maine damn well
ought to fire Erb and hire somebody else who can actually do the
educationizing job right. But that is just hypothetical nonsense. CMPD
SE of UMF is in fact a good guy. An extraordinarily good guy, all
things considered. He leans over backwards to try to be fair. Sort
of. He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
least.
You folks who actually know all about "roadies" really ought to wonder
what CMPD/SE/UMF is ultimately up to. Maybe he knows something you
don't. Or maybe you know something he doesn't.
On the other hand, maybe HE doesn't and/or you don't know what it's
ultimately all about.
Cheapjack top-down social-scientizers like Amitai Etzioni know all
about everthing, do they not? I was encouraged in my own personal quest
to note that the authorized Amitai-Etzionian pretentiousnesses did not
altogether deceive "johnz." He called the Etzioni quotation I recently
posted "drivel" and supposed, quite correctly, that I agreed with his
own casual estimate of its value. But I don't quite understand at all
why "johnz" thinks I shouldn't have posted the Etzionian drivel I posted
just because I utterly disagree with it. Is this not a news group? Is
my disagreeing with Herr Etzioni about privacy in America not "news"
that ought to concern our group quite as much as the 24,904th
reiteration by **** of exactly why St. Bill Clinton is a Chicom
treasonous rapist ratfink?
I don't complain, understand you. "johnz" has caught me out on that
point once, and I admit that I was caught out. But there's the rub: the
NG is full of people who won't ever, under any circumstances, admit that
they were ever caught out.
Everybody is infallible, it sometimes seems, except me. An easy
reflection indeed, and one that leads straight towards a cheap elitism
that makes fallibility a sign of election. If you don't understand the
religionist terminology here, you have egregiously failed to notice that
the USA remains even now a very white-skinned and Protestant-theologized
country. Disbelief in infallibility goes along "naturally" even in
September 1999 with white skin and ancestral Protestantism and
liberalism and progress and "civilization" and all good things
generally, don't you know? (No, you probably don't know anything about
all that, though you &*^% well ought to. A shame to think that Kevin
Phillips has scribbled at such length altogether in vain!)

But seriously, I must allow that "We are all Clintonists now" is a
summary expression and a historical allusion and not a net that I ever
meant to snare JTK in. People who explicitly (not to say
"ferociously", in the JTK or infimal Beck instance) disbelieve in "we"
are of course not quite altogether part of any "we" that they don't
actually carry a party card from. They are as "free" for all practical
purposes as Henry David Thoreau or Jedediah Purdy or even Simon Stylites
himself. Their sort of "freedom" is not to be measured by low secular
standards. Their sort of "freedom" is a blessed and mysterious
and infallible Thing-in-Itself that all non-co-religionists are
eternally disqualified from any evaluation of.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, "We are all Clintonists now."

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:26:11 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <xcjTN61ccKcHa0...@4ax.com>,
> kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
>> No.
>>
>> We ain't.
>>
>> --
>>
>> John T. Kennedy
>> The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
>> http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
>> --
>>
>> "(BTW, I do have an MA from Johns Hopkins, and a Ph.D. from the
>University
>> of Minnesota. Last I heard, Beck was a roadie. Hmmmmmm...who is a
>fraud?
>> Readers can decide.)"
>>
>> - Scott Erb 2/20/98
>>>>>
> I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
>I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.
>(Motorcycles? Black helicopters? Von Hayek? Miss Rand? Plotinus? Waco?
>Clarabelle the Clown?)
> Your infimal Beck nevertheless speaks for himself very clearly, very
>unmistakably, very carnivorously.

How many times are you going to say infimal in this post?

> I've accumulated a long, long list of
>political philosophy nits to pick with Citizen Mister Professor Doctor
>Scott Erb of the University of Maine at Farmington, but with him they
>are, or at least ought to be, pickable nits.

By all means you two should have lunch on each other.

See, you don't know your limits after all.

Kipawa Condor

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <xcjTN61ccKcHa0...@4ax.com>,
> kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
> > No.
> >
> > We ain't.
> >
> > --
> >
> > John T. Kennedy
> > The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
> > http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
> > --
> >
> > "(BTW, I do have an MA from Johns Hopkins, and a Ph.D. from the
> University
> > of Minnesota. Last I heard, Beck was a roadie. Hmmmmmm...who is a
> fraud?
> > Readers can decide.)"
> >
> > - Scott Erb 2/20/98
> >>>>

[feigned ignorance snipped]

>
> Your infimal Beck nevertheless speaks for himself very clearly, very

> unmistakably, very carnivorously. I've accumulated a long, long list of


> political philosophy nits to pick with Citizen Mister Professor Doctor
> Scott Erb of the University of Maine at Farmington, but with him they

> are, or at least ought to be, pickable nits. If CMPD S. Erb of UMF


> seriously believes in unpickable nits, the state of Maine damn well
> ought to fire Erb and hire somebody else who can actually do the
> educationizing job right. But that is just hypothetical nonsense. CMPD
> SE of UMF is in fact a good guy. An extraordinarily good guy, all
> things considered. He leans over backwards to try to be fair. Sort
> of.

No, he doesn't. He leans over backward to annoy his betters with smarmy
pastiches of reasonableness that both he and they know are insincere, but
with which he hopes to dupe those inlookers who missed the early Erb
history. You know how to use the archives, McCloskey, you could check it
out. Or if you'd rather not take the effort, you could ask me (or even
better, Robertson or johnz, although you'll likely have trouble convincing
the latter that your request is in good faith) to dig up some classic Erb.
By any standard I can imagine Beck is more "fair" than Erb. His
motivations, beliefs and purposes are all up front, and he'll always let you
know where you stand. Among those on the dark side, I would judge
insanityfactory to be in a similar class to Beck's, but Erb is just a
duplicitous weenie who looks to score points with the credulous.


> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
> least.

I think you gotta cite Beck's "self-identification" as a thug. Be sure
you understand what you're quoting before you post it.

The Wandering Diacritic is Schneider, but Celtic Screwdriver escapes
me...


>
> You folks who actually know all about "roadies" really ought to wonder
> what CMPD/SE/UMF is ultimately up to.

What he's up to is exactly this: he gets off on hearing himself yap, and
on seeing his name propagated about usenet as much as possible. All that
"stateless socialism" jazz is just a vehicle - could just as easily have
been export-less mercantilism, if that would've drummed up as much
opposition for him to feed on.


[snip ephemeral rambling]


> But seriously, I must allow that "We are all Clintonists now" is a
> summary expression and a historical allusion and not a net that I ever
> meant to snare JTK in. People who explicitly (not to say
> "ferociously", in the JTK or infimal Beck instance) disbelieve in "we"
> are of course not quite altogether part of any "we" that they don't
> actually carry a party card from. They are as "free" for all practical
> purposes as Henry David Thoreau or Jedediah Purdy or even Simon Stylites
> himself. Their sort of "freedom" is not to be measured by low secular
> standards. Their sort of "freedom" is a blessed and mysterious
> and infallible Thing-in-Itself that all non-co-religionists are
> eternally disqualified from any evaluation of.
>

Aside from the pejorative connotation, this is pretty accurate, just as
it may be accurate to describe McCloskey's side with the same paragraph,
substituting "security" (or "equality-of-condition", or "conformity", or
"order") for "freedom".
Whatever standard you use to judge the good is either axiomatic or
meaningless, and as far as accusations of "religiosity" go, I'll just say
this: the Truest Believers I ever met have all been atheists.

>
> Meanwhile, back in the real world, "We are all Clintonists now."
>
> Nuff said.
>

Well, you got that last bit right, anyway.


KC

Gary Cruse

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
>I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.

And I don't know what "infimal" is. Roadie is in my
dictionary, though. Are you pontificating without
a net again, McFop?

--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
Terrorist explosive bombs assassinate ANFO Teletubbies.

And the first one said to the second one there,
"I hope you're having fun."


John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to

I would've figured it was me if I hadn't already appeared in this
over-production. But I can't buy a nickname.

Kipawa Condor

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
"John T. Kennedy" wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:13:48 -0400, Kipawa Condor
> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
> >jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>

[trim]


>
> >
> >> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
> >> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
> >> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
> >> least.
> >
> > I think you gotta cite Beck's "self-identification" as a thug. Be sure
> >you understand what you're quoting before you post it.
> >
> > The Wandering Diacritic is Schneider, but Celtic Screwdriver escapes
> >me...
>
> I would've figured it was me if I hadn't already appeared in this
> over-production. But I can't buy a nickname.
>

Oh yeah, of course - it's McPhillips.

Mike J Schźeďder

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to

> In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
> jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
> >I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.
>
> And I don't know what "infimal" is. Roadie is in my
> dictionary, though. Are you pontificating without
> a net again, McFop?


"Infimal" is a mathematical term so obscure that ten minutes spent
browsing the net could not reveal a plain-enlish definition of the
stand-alone word (it is invariably encountered in the phrase "infimal
convolution"). I suspect that laymen such as McCloskey are mistakenly
using it as shorthand for "infinitesimal".


Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

See where NATO General Wesley Clark, the "Butcher of Bosnia", practiced the deliberate, pre-meditated extermination of civilians before the main-event:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%22first+minnesota%22+waco+clark+murder&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&format=threaded&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=english&subjects=cold-blooded&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:10:33 GMT, gcr...@att.net (Gary Cruse) wrote:

>In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
>jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
>>I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.
>
> And I don't know what "infimal" is. Roadie is in my
> dictionary, though.


Unlisted insults, finest kind.


Cheers,
Bredon
**********************************************
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
-----------------------------------------------
Posters who say Starr was covering up for Clinton:
Bill Kasper, Mike Schneider, "Mark" <draf...@deltastar.com>
------------------------------------------
Rough draft, additions and corrections invited:
LEGIT, AUTHORITATIVE NEWS MEDIA:
Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Newsweek,
Boston Globe
LEGIT LIGHTWEIGHT SECOND-RATE -- LOCAL, SPORTS, ETC:
Boston Herald, SF Examiner
NUTTY PAPERS:
London Telegraph, New York Post, SF Chronicle
RIGHT-WING/RELIGIOUS BUT SERIOUS / RESPECTABLE
Weekly Standard, London Times,
NOT REALLY PAPERS:
WorldNetDaily, NSNews (Nalty's website), Newsmax,
Washington Weekly, Capitol Hill Blue
nandotimes.com

PAPERS WITH NUTTY EDITORIALS/OWNERS:
Pittsburgh Tribune/Review (Scaife)
???Investor's Business Daily??? (Scaife?)
OTHER DUBIOUS SOURCES:
Stratfor.com, FreeRepublic.com
The Spotlight
MISCELLANEOUS TO DOUBT:
PRNewswire.com if cited by YabbaDoo. PRNewswire links to
Rep Natl Committee, Dem Natl Committee, & other partisan sites.
YD falsely credits the RNC flyer to PRNewswire.
Rightgrrl -- This is some rightwing Net thing.
LEFTWING, SPOTTY: SERIOUS, LOTS OF GOOD STUFF, SOME NUTTY:
The Nation, Slate, Salon, American Political Review, Michaelmoore.com, Liberal Opinion, Sentient
Times.
**********************************************

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 13:00:14 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:


> In other words, the promise of a fully realized Compassionate
>Conservatism is not merely that Faith Based Foundation X has a higher
>success rate than Public Welfare Agency Y. It is that working for the
>general good through voluntary organizations—instead of leaving such
>functions to professional state agencies—gives people the opportunity to
>govern themselves. [This particular ingenuity is so Clintonic, I'm
>amazed Himself never actually thought of it!] (...)


Hm? What do you mean by Clintonic here? Do you think the paragraph is
double-talk and are you adopting the use of Clinton* for doubletalk?
Or do you mean it's a sensible idea that Clinton should have thought
of?


/snip/

>
>Imitation is the sincerest form. 'Nuff said.

Steal Clinton's ideas and smear his name. Success leads to popularity
leads to jealously leads to assassination. Old story.

Billy Beck

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to

(about to rack-out, this ...thing... caught my eye in my last
cruise through the group)

Kipawa Condor <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:

>jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

>> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
>> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
>> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
>> least.
>
> I think you gotta cite Beck's "self-identification" as a thug. Be sure
>you understand what you're quoting before you post it.

*That'll* be a blank-out and a half. Watch.

The "and a half" part will soak up 50 lines, easy.


Billy

VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 22:45:14 -0400, Kipawa Condor
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:

>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:13:48 -0400, Kipawa Condor
>> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>
>[trim]


>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
>> >> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
>> >> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
>> >> least.
>> >
>> > I think you gotta cite Beck's "self-identification" as a thug. Be sure
>> >you understand what you're quoting before you post it.
>> >

>> > The Wandering Diacritic is Schneider, but Celtic Screwdriver escapes
>> >me...
>>
>> I would've figured it was me if I hadn't already appeared in this
>> over-production. But I can't buy a nickname.
>>
>
> Oh yeah, of course - it's McPhillips.

Ah yes.

He doees put the screws to them like nobody's business.

It's not as good as Wandering Diacritic though.

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 02:55:13 -0500, ta...@awildguess.net (Mike J
Schźeďder) wrote:

>In article <37da497b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, gcr...@att.net wrote:
>
>> In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
>> jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
>> >I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.
>>
>> And I don't know what "infimal" is. Roadie is in my

>> dictionary, though. Are you pontificating without
>> a net again, McFop?
>
>
> "Infimal" is a mathematical term so obscure that ten minutes spent
>browsing the net could not reveal a plain-enlish definition of the
>stand-alone word (it is invariably encountered in the phrase "infimal
>convolution"). I suspect that laymen such as McCloskey are mistakenly
>using it as shorthand for "infinitesimal".

Infimum means greatest lower bound which seems to be the intent.
Obviously convolution was also the intent.

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
7 September 1999 (#2)

Trickling down from the Shining Heights of Intellectual Reaction, Mr.
David Brooks's recent invention (or discovery, or hallucination) of
Bush-McCainism, of "one nation conservatism," has in due course come to
the attention of Mr. Tod Lindberg at the LUNA POST.

<< http://www.washtimes.com/opinion/lindberg.html >>

Mr. Lindberg does not quite get it right, but his polemical use of the
material is able enough. Here is a slice from the top of today's op-ed
piece and then the two concluding paragraphs in full:

... Mr. Brooks detects the birth of what he calls "one nation
conservatism." This GOP political program abandons the libertarian
rhetoric of getting government off your back and instead supports a
limited but activist government pursuing a conservative reform agenda
that will benefit all Americans, especially the poor.
Yes, especially the poor. We have reached an interesting point in
American politics. At the level of presidential politics, Republicans
have more to say about the poor than Democrats do.

(...)

George W. Bush gave a major speech on education policy last week, the
first such speech of his campaign. At its center were these three
proposals: federal funding only for programs that can be shown to work,
as measured by student performance; an expansion of Head Start from
primarily a "day-care, health and nutrition program" into a full-blown
"reading and school-readiness" program; and results-based reform of
Title 1, the biggest federal program aimed at poor children, which would
result in grants to parents of children in nonfunctioning schools of
$1,500 a child "for tutoring, for a charter school, for a working public
school in a different district, for a private school." This is not voice
of the plutocratic party. It's also of a piece with the campaign kickoff
speech Mr. Bush gave, in which he outlined his "compassionate
conservatism" in terms along these lines: "It is conservative to
confront illegitimacy. It is compassionate to offer practical help to
women and children in crisis."
As things stand -- and they may, of course, change -- Mr. Gore, the
Democrat, is running a campaign mainly pitched to the anxieties of
affluent suburbanites, and Mr. Bush, the Republican, has cast his
campaign mainly in terms of what his party can do for the poor.

---

I've left out the anti-Gore part, but presumably you know the sort of
thing Lindberg has in mind, "sprawl" and all that.

The problems with this version of Bush-McCainism are many. The
biggest can be seen, I think, if you try to imagine the Governor of
Texas actually saying something like "In this campaign our party must
concentrate above all on what we can do for the poor." Mr. Gore might
say that (even if he doesn't mean to do anything in particular), but Mr.
Bush surely will not. It is theoretically possible, of course, that the
symmetry is complete, that the Democrats will talk but not perform, and
the GOP perform but not talk. But surely it is incredible that American
pols of any sort will ever perform without grabbing credit?

Lindberg doesn't claim GWB has said anything of the sort. He says he
has "cast his campaign mainly in [those] terms," which need not mean
more than that Lindberg agrees with Brooks, whose terms they originally
are. But how much campaign-casting has there actually been so far?
"Compassionate conservatism" is just a buzzing in the air. As far as I
know, GWB has made only two (2) substantive speeches, the recent one on
education summarized above and the Indianapolis one on faith-based pork.
That's it. Is this slender corpus enough to establish His Texcellency
as an outstanding protector of the poor?

Both these speeches do, to be sure, imply certain benefits for the
poor. But in neither case are the poor the primary beneficiaries. The
real purpose of faith-based pork (FBP) is to hand our religionists a
little tinsel star of approval from Uncle Sam. Separation of church and
state makes it hard to steady their wobbly self-esteem in a more direct
fashion, but taxpayer funding of their social service efforts may
possibly turn out not to be unconstitutional. As a general policy FBP
makes no sense at all, since there simply are not enough religionist
relief organizations to take over more than a small share of federal
welfare expenditures. Gov. Bush proposes to spend eight billion dollars
in this way: were he to be elected, he might find it impossible to meet
this expenditure quota simply for lack of plausible recipients. The
eight billion is, as I recall, intended to be 10% of somebody's number
for current direct government spending in this area. 90% would remain
with Beltway City, even if FBP meets these campaign-speech expectations.
In addition, a good deal of what could plausibly be spent would not be
for the poor specifically. Programs against alcohol or drug abuse, for
instance, are not means-tested, and it is hard to imagine that Congress
would insist they become so.

This brings us to education; it, too, can hardly be considered as
primarily an anti-poverty program. GWB's proposed modification of
Head Start would seem intended precisely to make that less of an
anti-poverty program and more of an educationalist one. Not rewarding
"poor schools" has nothing but a reverse verbal connection to assisting
"the poor." As to vouchers, the real situation is rather like that
with faith-based pork: there are only so many private schools around,
nowhere near enough to accommodate a major degradation of public
education. Though Bush's proposal would have more than merely symbolic
impact, it is hardly a panacea, and the symbolic side of it remains
quite important. It is clear that bad-mouthing "government schools" has
become an orthodoxy with the GOP, and gratifying that generous
conservative sentiment is at least as important as fighting poverty.
And here again, it is plain enough that voucher schemes have a tendency
to pat religionism on the back. I'd guess that churchliness is at the
bottom of both these Bushisms, that "elitist mainstream liberalism"
offends the elephant people vastly more because of its secularism and
"individualism" than because it has not been a true friend to the poor.
The idea of their raising that last objection borders on the laughable.

However, all this is beside the point in a way. More important than
casting doubt on the Governor's motives is noticing that there is very
little in either of his lone two policy speeches that couldn't equally
well appear in one of Mr. Gore's many. Faith-based pork actually does
so appear. Not a dime's worth of difference, as far as that goes. On
education, there are two big reasons why Gore can not simply swipe GWB's
platform: (1) the secularism question just mentioned, a real worry about
separation of church and state, and (2) the National Education
Association. Though it will be obvious which party I prefer,
nevertheless, I think Democrats would do well to stop worrying so much
about both of these obstacles to vouchers. I admit that the two parties
are distinguishable here, but I wish they were not. In any case, such
difference as does exist has nothing to do with anti-poverty measures.

Thus I recommend that you understand Mr. Brooks's Bush-McCainism my
way rather than Mr. Lindberg's. It is imperceptive (or manipulative) to
allege that the GOP has now specially taken up the cause of the poor.
All that has happened is that our two parties have, once again, attained
near-complete convergence. This 199O's convergence involves the
Democrats de-emphasizing poverty, not the Republicans discovering the
issue. "We are all Clintonists now."

Mike J Schźeider

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
In article <POfUNxGpgNIkqM...@4ax.com>,
kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:

> >> >> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
> >> >> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
> >> >> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
> >> >> least.
> >> >

> >> > The Wandering Diacritic is Schneider, but Celtic Screwdriver escapes
> >> >me...
> >>

> > Oh yeah, of course - it's McPhillips.
>
> Ah yes.
> He doees put the screws to them like nobody's business.
> It's not as good as Wandering Diacritic though.


Now I really *do* like that nickname.
What a neat little double entendre!

http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/diacriti.htm
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary (enter "diacritical")

Kennedy? Are you by any chance from Germany...or maybe just like Wagner?

"Blustering Teutonic Ranter" is up fer grabs.


-- The Wandering Diacritic

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
8 September 1999 (#3)

Again we stumble over Mr. David Brooks, upscale doctrinaire for the
New Weekly Standard Criterion, who is prominently obtruded today in the
_infra dig_ LUNA POST

<< http://www.washtimes.com/politics/toppolitical.html >>.

This news story reports a neo-reactionary confabulation that discussed,
among other things, Mr. Buchanan's perhaps transcending the GOP in his
bimillennial presidential quest. The price of a generality like "We Are
All Clintonists Now" is, obviously enough, that some of us cannot
altogether be counted as "we," and such pronominal exclusion seems to be
Mr. Brooks's view of Mad Pat's deserts:

During a panel discussion on "compassionate conservatism," David
Brooks, a senior editor at the Weekly Standard, remarked that Mr.
Buchanan's food and entertainment tent stood out at the Iowa GOP
presidential nomination straw poll last month.
"There were trucks parked there," Mr. Brooks said. "There were these
guys in bikers' beards, there were tattoos, they had the
red-white-and-blue bandannas. They were not Republicans. They had no
interest in Republicanism. They were freaked out by the idea. But they
loved Pat."
Mr. Brooks said he "came away thinking that, indeed, the Republican
Party will never not be a globalist party and the paleo-conservatives
will leave the Republican Party, and Buchanan would be smart to leave
it."
He predicted that the GOP "will try to buy him off," but ultimately
there is "no way to paper over" the fundamentally incompatible views of
Mr. Buchanan and the GOP on the global economy.

---

The idea of "paleo-conservatives" being read out of the party of
President Taft and President Hoover and Mark Hanna and Barry Goldwater
certainly has a sort of crazy charm. As does the idea that these
fundamentally incompatible PC's run to tattoos and bandannas and Pat
Buchanan (and, not impossibly, the very LUNA POST).

It looks like the Great Church of Bush-McCainism is rather a narrower
sect than I had originally concluded from Mr. Brooks's toney scribble, a
thinkpiece which did not mention many proper names at all, and certainly
not Mr. Buchanan's. Yet if Brooks's "we all" is smaller quantitatively
than I thought, let me point out that the qualitative Clintonism of
those he deems fundamentally orthodox is only strengthened by such
judicious excommunications. Certainly Clintonism will never not be a
globalist ideology. No doubt about that. To disagree with NAFTA
("nearly absolute free trade always" or however it goes) is, of course,
to be merely a dog howling in the political wilderness nowadays.

As the full story remarks, Brooks's exclusive Bush-McCain Clintonism,
or rather Buchanan's likely reaction to it, might conceivably cause the
Republicans to miss the Presidency yet again. (One crosses one's
fingers.) Mr. Chris Matthews, who spoke at this vrookfest, is quoted as
saying "that if Mr. Buchanan runs on the Reform ticket, he will get 15
percent of the total vote, and Mr. Gore 'could squeak in' with anywhere
from 43 to 45 percent of the vote." Mr. Brooks's response to this bit
of elementary political arithmetic is not indicated, but one may
speculate that he would in extremity prefer even Gore-Rodham Clintonism
to no Clintonism at all, even to Bush-McCain Clintonism significantly
diluted by concessions to the PC Motorcycle Menace.

Ideologues are notoriously like that. "Papering over" always annoys
them dreadfully. However, when the ideology involved is Universal
Clintonism (a.k.a. "One Nation Conservatism"), subtle dialectical
problems emerge, since it is very arguable--to put the point rather
mildly--that "papering over" is radically part of the UC/ONC ideology
itself. Though Mr. Brooks's antics are great fun to track, probably the
less theoretical doings of the Governor of Texas and the Arizona Senator
themselves will be a better guide to the authentic suchness of
Bush-McCain Clintonism. We may congratulate Mr. Brooks for having
arrived at the insight that such a thing as Universal Clintonism exists
without endorsing his entire account of what it is like or of what it
ought to be like.

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:58:05 -0500, ta...@wildassguess.net (Mike J
Schźeider) wrote:

>In article <POfUNxGpgNIkqM...@4ax.com>,
>kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> >> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
>> >> >> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
>> >> >> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
>> >> >> least.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Wandering Diacritic is Schneider, but Celtic Screwdriver escapes
>> >> >me...
>> >>
>> > Oh yeah, of course - it's McPhillips.
>>
>> Ah yes.
>> He doees put the screws to them like nobody's business.
>> It's not as good as Wandering Diacritic though.
>
>
> Now I really *do* like that nickname.
> What a neat little double entendre!
>
> http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/diacriti.htm
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary (enter "diacritical")
>
> Kennedy? Are you by any chance from Germany...or maybe just like Wagner?
>
> "Blustering Teutonic Ranter" is up fer grabs.

I have a little german blood, but it doesn't work for me. Too
confusing.

How about the Ace of Hearts?

No?

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
8 September 1999 (#4)

When it comes to diagnosing Universal Clintonism, it now appears that
my own views are rather moderate. I should never venture, for instance,
to claim that Speaker Gingrich has joined "us all." It takes a
thoroughly rightist dingaling to go that far:

<<
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty_com/19990908_xcjod_police
_act.shtml >>

"Newt's groveling excuses"

There are still those who claim that Newt Gingrich was the greatest
conservative leader in recent years, though the more he talks since he's
left office, the less likely that claim seems genuine. Newt -- excuse
thyself no more. I'm tired of hearing it.

A recent C-SPAN interview series caught our (former) conservative
"hero" talking about how he and Clinton used to commiserate about each
other's ethics problems, about how Clinton -- a "talented man" -- will
have all the "good" his presidency could have done overshadowed by
scandal, and about how "nobody is a saint," so Americans should stop
prying into the private lives of politicians.

Newt, you co-opted coward, you. You make me sick.

If you're not being hypocritical for criticizing Clinton's dalliances
while you conduct one of your own, you dare to suggest that Americans
have no right to know about the personal behavior of those we elect to
lead us? What happened to all your hype about how character is supposed
to count? What happened to all of your self-righteous proclamations
about morality in leadership?

There are those of us who have always believed in these principles,
Newt -- even before you "proclaimed" them. And we still believe in them,
though you obviously don't.

Good riddance to you, Mr. Gingrich. America needs brave conservative
traditionalists as leaders of this country, not mealy-mouthed vindictive
miscreants who seek to blame others for their own failures.


Jon E. Dougherty is a contributing editor to WorldNetDaily.

---

I mentally picture this J.E.D. creature with humongous motorcycle,
red-white-and-blue bandanna, Pat Buchanan button, and all the rest of
the standard palaeo-conservative apparatus....

Mike J Schźeider

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
In article <7r5g2p$7kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

> We Are All Clintonists Now

> 8 September 1999 (#3)
>
> Again we stumble over Mr. David Brooks, upscale doctrinaire for the
> New Weekly Standard Criterion, who is prominently obtruded today in the
> _infra dig_ LUNA POST
>
> << http://www.washtimes.com/politics/toppolitical.html >>.
>
> This news story reports a neo-reactionary confabulation that discussed,
> among other things, Mr. Buchanan's perhaps transcending the GOP in his
> bimillennial presidential quest.


<snicker> How? By joining the Socialist Party without changing a
single policy proposal -- and fitting right in?


Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Goat-like creatures other than Robert Bork ("Win Ben Stein's Money" category)

See where NATO General Wesley Clark, the "Butcher of Bosnia", practiced the deliberate, pre-meditated extermination of civilians before the main-event:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%22first+minnesota%22&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&format=threaded&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=english&subjects=murder+and+military&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=

Mike J Schźeider

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
In article <tj=WN3WkTpHU8hw...@4ax.com>,
kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:

> >> It's not as good as Wandering Diacritic though.
> >
> > Now I really *do* like that nickname.

snip


> > "Blustering Teutonic Ranter" is up fer grabs.
>
> I have a little german blood, but it doesn't work for me. Too
> confusing.
>
> How about the Ace of Hearts?


Hmm.... Nah. It doesn't immediately identify you.


Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Goat-like creatures other than Robert Bork ("Win Ben Stein's Money" category)

See where NATO General Wesley Clark, the "Butcher of Bosnia", practiced the deliberate, pre-meditated extermination of civilians before the main-event:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%22first+minnesota%22+waco+clark+murder&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&format=threaded&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=english&subjects=cold-blooded&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 07:43:40 -0500, ta...@wildassguess.net (Mike J
Schźeider) wrote:

>In article <tj=WN3WkTpHU8hw...@4ax.com>,
>kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> It's not as good as Wandering Diacritic though.
>> >
>> > Now I really *do* like that nickname.
>snip
>> > "Blustering Teutonic Ranter" is up fer grabs.
>>
>> I have a little german blood, but it doesn't work for me. Too
>> confusing.
>>
>> How about the Ace of Hearts?
>
>
> Hmm.... Nah. It doesn't immediately identify you.

Hey come on! Chicks dig invective! But look who I'm telling...

Okay, okay, how about Jack of Clubs then?

-

John Kennedy

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99
to
Ah, here's a B. Beck post very well worth reading!

Let's see, the current moon cycle started with the new moon on Aug 11,
so this would be about day 27.


Cheers,
Bredon
----

On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 08:22:41 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
wrote:

>
> (about to rack-out, this ...thing... caught my eye in my last
>cruise through the group)
>

>Kipawa Condor <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:


>
>>jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> He leans over backward in his spare time to try to be fair to the
>>> self-identified thug Beck and to JTK and "johnz" and the Celtic
>>> Screwdriver Person and the Wandering Diacritic Person. Sort of fair, at
>>> least.
>>

>> I think you gotta cite Beck's "self-identification" as a thug. Be sure
>>you understand what you're quoting before you post it.
>

> *That'll* be a blank-out and a half. Watch.
>
> The "and a half" part will soak up 50 lines, easy.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html

**********************************************


The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/

********************************************
Good info on "tax cut": http://www.cbpp.org/7-29-99tax2.htm

Mike J Schźeider

unread,
Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99
to
In article <sfzWN9ayiDou=FyUoz06...@4ax.com>,
kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:

> >> How about the Ace of Hearts?
> >
> > Hmm.... Nah. It doesn't immediately identify you.
>
> Hey come on! Chicks dig invective! But look who I'm telling...
> Okay, okay, how about Jack of Clubs then?


Why not Blackbeard?


Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Goat-like creatures other than Robert Bork ("Win Ben Stein's Money" category)

See where NATO General Wesley Clark, the "Butcher of Bosnia", practiced the deliberate, pre-meditated extermination of civilians before the main-event:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%22first+minnesota%22&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&format=threaded&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=english&subjects=murder+and+military&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=

John T. Kennedy

unread,
Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99
to
On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 04:31:02 -0500, ta...@wildassguess.net (Mike J
Schźeider) wrote:

>In article <sfzWN9ayiDou=FyUoz06...@4ax.com>,
>kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> How about the Ace of Hearts?
>> >
>> > Hmm.... Nah. It doesn't immediately identify you.
>>
>> Hey come on! Chicks dig invective! But look who I'm telling...
>> Okay, okay, how about Jack of Clubs then?
>
>
> Why not Blackbeard?

I like it a lot, but it's no longer literal. Mostly closer to white
now.

Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy

unread,
Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99
to
CNN - 09-09-99 - 10 am:

"Al Gore proposed a startling plan today that he will
introduce to Congress if elected President in an interview
with Cleveland Plaindealer reporter Wanda Berghof. 'I think
television depicts too much senseless violence to our
nation's youth,' Gore said, 'if elected President I will
propose a TV buy-back program like the successful
gun buy-back programs which have taken so many
deadly weapons off of our streets.' Gore went on to
say, 'This might seem like a radical idea, but obviously
children are getting the wrong message from watching
TV shows which glorify guns and killing and this has
resulted in the mass murders in some of our nation's
schools." Asked whether his plan might contradict
his information superhighway program, Gore replied,
'I'm not talking about computer monitors, but TVs
which can get hundreds of channels.' He also said,
'This will only apply to TVs without the V-chip.'"

--------------------------------------

The OldTimer

unread,
Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99
to

Henry Glenworthy > wrote in message ...

I can imagine what all the lizards are gonna' say about this one. I have
this funny feeling that there is soon to be a Clinton house buy back too!

X-No-Archive: Yes

By God, he worked his ass off for it
and I don't care what anybody says,
it belongs to me!

The GIMMIECRAT creed.

The OldTimer

Charles L Roche

unread,
Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99
to
Uhh...does that include a black and white Muntz that only gets PBS?

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
Fuckin' hilarious!

He should do it BEFORE he spends more time on TV looking
like a total spaz.

TV is AL Gore's worst enemy, after himself.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga

Gun Control is OSHA for criminals.

Hippster

unread,
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
"The OldTimer" <t...@told.net> wrote:

>I can imagine what all the lizards are gonna' say about this one. I have
>this funny feeling that there is soon to be a Clinton house buy back too!
>
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>By God, he worked his ass off for it
>and I don't care what anybody says,
>it belongs to me!
>
>The GIMMIECRAT creed.
>
>The OldTimer
>
>

algore is forgetting that millions of Americans are kept ignorant because of the
nightly news that cover up for him and his socialist buddies on a daily basis -
via network news - via the television !!!! Gosh, what an idiot !!!

Hippster

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend upon the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw

ez99NO...@webtv.net

unread,
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
That's a "Mad Man Muntz", right?. Thst's the set that introduced me to the vast wasteland.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Michael Cidras

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:18:31 -0000, in talk.politics.guns "Henry
Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote:

>CNN - 09-09-99 - 10 am:
>
>"Al Gore proposed a startling plan today that he will
>introduce to Congress if elected President in an interview
>with Cleveland Plaindealer reporter Wanda Berghof. 'I think
>television depicts too much senseless violence to our
>nation's youth,' Gore said, 'if elected President I will
>propose a TV buy-back program like the successful
>gun buy-back programs which have taken so many
>deadly weapons off of our streets.'

<snipped the Father of the Internet's funny remarks>

There goes the WebTV crowd.... Hey, wouldn't that be like patracide or
something like that?


--
Michael Cidras
SAJ7755F

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
So when are they going to get around to the Socially Liberal part of
it?

B
---

On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 13:00:14 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

>We Are All Clintonists Now

> 6 September 1999
>
>[Enter a "conservative" "intellectual" stage right, soliloquizing:]

bhuva...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
In article <7OnUN4TfhpN=fjHWKwPg...@4ax.com>,

kenne...@DODGE.THIS.hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 02:55:13 -0500, ta...@awildguess.net (Mike J
> Schźeďder) wrote:
>
> >In article <37da497b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, gcr...@att.net wrote:
> >
> >> In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
> >> jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've already pretty much decided about your infimal Beck, even though
> >> >I don't begin to know how to have a clue exactly what a "roadie" is.
> >>
> >> And I don't know what "infimal" is. Roadie is in my
> >> dictionary, though. Are you pontificating without
> >> a net again, McFop?
> >
> >
> > "Infimal" is a mathematical term so obscure that ten minutes spent
> >browsing the net could not reveal a plain-enlish definition of the
> >stand-alone word (it is invariably encountered in the phrase "infimal
> >convolution"). I suspect that laymen such as McCloskey are mistakenly
> >using it as shorthand for "infinitesimal".


No, I've seen him use it for 'infimous'.


>
> Infimum means greatest lower bound which seems to be the intent.
> Obviously convolution was also the intent.


That was my first guess: something like 'the solipsistically infimal'.

Imo that's too harsh: chiseled infimy is a good old American genre.
Beck often does it quite well.

Perhaps the convolution might refer to politico-philosophy rather
than style. But that's stretching a word that wasn't in the post in
the first place. McC has sources outside the net. :-)


Cheers,
Bredon

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
16 September 1999


Support for UCH (the Universal Clintonism Hypothesis) continues to pile
up, some of it coming even from forbidding extraterrestrial climes like
WingNutDaily:

<<
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/19990916_xnjdo_is_bush_wh
.shtml >>

Is Bush what he says he is? GOP frontrunner has expanded Texas
government, says report
By Jon E. Dougherty

Conservative activists in Texas say Gov. George W. Bush -- the
front-running candidate for the Republican presidential nomination -- is
masquerading as a leader for a smaller, more limited role for government
in Americans' lives.

According to Texas Eagle Forum, Bush's state legislative priorities
show him to be anything but a political conservative.

((Citizen Browser hasn't seen *that* line for at least three minutes and
twelve seconds. When the vrooks have all excommunicated one another,
does America win by default?))

For example, Bush helped to expand federally subsidized school health
programs and promoted "native language" use for special education
students -- two decisions Eagle Forum considers anathema.

According to TEF's scorecard, the Texas governor signed HB 1275 into
law, which requires that education plans for special education students
be translated into the parents' native language. TEF, like many
conservatives, believes in an "English-only" official policy both for
schools and all government functions. Bush -- who has been known to
cater to Hispanics during his initial campaigning -- has also not spoken
out against a small Texas border town's decision last month to adopt a
"Spanish-only" policy for official government functions, and instructed
city officials not to talk to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.

"He supports bilingual education, federalizing education while calling
it 'local control,' and school-based health clinics," said Cathie Adams,
spokesperson for the TEF. "In my book, a politician who supports these
things is neither conservative nor moderate but a liberal."

Adams also said Bush supports "Hillary Clinton-style health care
reform," noting that the GOP frontrunner also signed legislation
expanding school health care initiatives.

"That's what SB 445 was all about," she told WorldNetDaily. Under the
auspices of the Children's Health Insurance Program, the law authorizes
the use of Texas' tobacco settlement money to enhance the federal
program.

TEF also noted that Bush's agenda included hate crimes legislation that
excluded sexual orientation, United Nations-backed trade measures, the
homosexual agenda over traditional family roles, state-sponsored
gambling via a lottery and global treaties that circumvent the U.S.
Constitution -- such as support for the Kyoto Treaty and the
International Criminal Court.

A spokesman for Bush's presidential campaign told WorldNetDaily that
the governor, should he become president, will "implement the core
conservative principles of smaller government."

He said growth to state government during Bush's 10-year
administration, "when adjusted for inflation and population growth, was
just 3.7 percent." He said Bush "has a record of cutting taxes and
slowing the rate of growth" in state government.

"As you know, he also signed the two largest tax cuts in Texas history,
totaling $3 billion," the spokesman said.

Regarding whether or not a President Bush would cut federal government
and bureaucracies, the spokesman said, "He's guided by ... principles of
limited government, cutting taxes, strengthening families, promoting
individual responsibility and individual control."

He added that Bush intends to lay out tax and economic policies "within
the next few months."

However, TEF argues that the Bush state administration has enlarged
government by "nearly 38 percent," with increased entitlements mostly to
public schools. And, the watchdog group added, the governor has a
penchant for incorporating existing federal funds into state programs,
which, they say, is anathema to decreasing the size and expense of the
federal government.

((His Texcellency is not a total fool. Better to spend Bill Clinton's
tax money than raise his own. !Viva el federalismo!))


== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

D.G. Porter

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
Eagle Forum -- Phyllis Schlafly -- wingnut with money behind her.

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/17/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
17 September 1999 (#6)

UCH (the Universal Clintonism Hypothesis) is not intended to imply
that all our Clintonoids are particularly good at emulating St. Bill's
definitive mastery of politics as usual. Their actual achievement is as
may be; it is their projected emulation alone that makes them
Clintonistical. The following piece from the Bushwhackers at Salon
illustrates this distinction.

<<
http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/feature/1999/09/16/truth/index1.html
>>


The Teflon governor meets the national media Bush is glib,
none-too-smart and quick to anger, but reporters have yet to tell the
truth about him.

By Jerry Politex

Sept. 16, 1999 | Three months with George W. Bush on the campaign trail
has been time enough for the national media to learn what Texas
reporters have known for years: He's a policy lightweight who enjoys
schmoozing but has a hair-trigger temper when pressed and never forgets
a slight. Further, he thinks of himself as a hands-off CEO and leaves
both the ideas and the details to someone else. Hence, he contradicts
himself and "misspeaks himself," sending reporters on a scavenger hunt
for clarification, bouncing back and forth between Bush and his various
spinners until he and his camp can come up with a story that they can
recite as one.

Why, then, do national reporters generally keep silent? You'll have to
ask them, but some answers come to mind when you look at how Bush
treated Texas reporters during his five years as governor.

First, while Texas reporters, columnists and editorial writers appear
to represent a wide political spectrum, the major newspapers themselves
run from moderate to conservative, keeping something of a lid on what
citizens read. Secondly, one Texas reporter has written that some of his
colleagues have eyes for the job of press spokesman in a Bush White
House, so they wouldn't want to make too many waves. It also helps that
Bush spends time in his off-hours making casual, social calls to
reporters, talking about sports and family, helping them along with the
myth that they're all Bush buddies.

((Aha! what we need to deploy to Austin is a crusty old maid reporter
who loathes children's games and all cheap buddydom.))

Karen Hughes, his main spinner, is another huge factor. She's not above
tongue-lashing reporters in public when their stories don't jibe with
her vision of things, and she tends to reward those who stay in line.
And Texas reporters are accustomed to having someone, usually Hughes,
standing near Bush during press conferences to correct him, feed him
information, or pull him away when things are not going well. As Austin
writer Robert Bryce has written, "Hughes, 43, can sometimes be seen
mouthing the words to Bush's speeches as he delivers them."

None of these methods of keeping reporters in line, particularly the
last one, will work as well on the national level at this point. So
we're back to the original question: When will the national media get
tired of George's Bush-league grasp of big issues and media tactics and
call him on it?

((In all fairness, one can argue that Clintonism proper worked even
better in Arkansas than it ever has nationally. With St. Bill, it was
not a matter of underestimating the national press, but rather of taking
the GOP too lightly. I don't know enough about His Texcellency to judge
whether he'd make the same mistake in reverse, but it is quite possible.
When it happens among neo-reactionaries, this is the Goldwater Fallacy,
that is, "in your heart you know he's right." The crucial role of
seeming banalities in Clintonism puts the pol at some risk of actually
believing in more consensus than actually exists.))


They're starting to. During George's recent cocaine crisis, at least
one national reporter observed that the 48 hours of Bush missteps,
confusion and temper did not produce anyone in the Bush camp with the
gumption to step up and settle him down. Writing in the Austin
American-Statesman, Dave McNeely observed that Bush needed someone like
the late Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock.

"As Bush deals with matters like education and environmental policy, he
might need an uninhibited kibitzer like Bullock ... Bush's own feisty
and occasionally defensive nature may cause him to take hard stands on
positions without fully understanding all their implications," writes
McNeely. "Having a wizened governmental innovator as an advisor in the
wings, someone not afraid to run against the grain of some advice Bush
may receive, could be very valuable to keep him centered."

Of course, one wonders: What happened to the days when the president
himself was the "wizened governmental innovator," not a self-described
"C student" who, somehow, is expected to learn on the job?

The mini-mess over immigration costs is another example of Bush-league
handling of issues and the media. In an interview with the San Francisco
Chronicle, Bush was asked "if he would reimburse California for the
estimated billions of dollars the state spends annually on services and
education for illegal immigrants," wrote the Chronicle's Carla
Marinucci.

"'No,' said the GOP front-runner. Asked for a reason, Bush said,
'Because that's not a federal role, in my judgment.' Republicans and
Democrats both expressed surprise, noting that Texas -- under Bush's own
administration -- has tried to recover such costs."

Days later, according to the New York Times, Bush spinner Mindy Tucker
said her boss believed that the feds should compensate states, contrary
to what was previously reported in the Chronicle. Tucker said Bush
misunderstood the reporter's question. The Times continued:

But the confusion and criticism triggered by Bush's response raised
other questions about his oratorical poise and underscored the intense
scrutiny that he is under as the front-runner for the Republican
presidential nomination. Responding to Ms. Tucker's statement, Steve
Forbes, one of Bush's rivals for the nomination, said, "... Maybe he
ought to get his ears checked."

((This is a very easy case to analyze. Obviously when GWB thinks of
himself as potential POTUS he says NO COMPENSATION! and when he thinks
of himself as actual GOTEX he says COMPENSATE! Once you grasp the
really pertinent principle, there is no inconsistency at all, and no
reason to suppose the man is hearing-impaired. This observation is not
just a cheap Demoncratic shot, by the way, since Mr. Jefferson behaved
very similarly about far more important matters.))

Little by little, this typical Bush behavior is occurring outside
Texas, and is beginning to get into print. In an interview with the
Providence Journal's M. Charles Bakst, Bush was asked about East Timor.
(His first real national embarrassment came when he described its
residents as "East Timorians," not East Timorese.)

((This item ought to be suppressed altogether. If the good journalistic
guys keep bringing it up, they'll only evoke support for GWB. Both of
the Democratic candidates already seem too schoolmarmy, too much like
they yearn to go through every citizen's essay questions with a red
pencil. Though Americans of course adore Education, sensible
Clintonists ought to remember that they also dislike school. GWB has
this point well under control.))

Bakst reports that Bush "rejected the idea of U.S. troops going to East
Timor, but said he'd back a United Nations force. With U.S. troops in
it? 'No, not with American troops.' Why not? 'Because I don't think
that's appropriate use of American troops.' When I tried to follow up,"
Bakst continues, Bush "said, 'The answer is: No American troops.'" Bakst
said Bush had an "edge" to him. No doubt; getting challenged gets Bush
angry.

On Thursday, the Times' Maureen Dowd observed that it was time for Bush
to make up for his glib, Quayle-like "East Timorians" gaffe with a
thoughtful policy on the Timor crisis, but so far he hasn't risen to the
occasion. Dowd won a Pulitzer for tirelessly skewering President Clinton
last year. It may be that, finally, Bush is about to get the media
scrutiny -- and criticism -- he deserves.

---

About the writer: Jerry Politex is the pen name of the Texas editor of
Bush Watch. First published in February 1998, Bush Watch is older than
any other Web site devoted to George W., including his own.

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/2/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
2 October 1999 (#7)

((Even P. Robertson of the Christian Pseudolition "is comfortable with"
clintonizing! The following NYTC story is cut down to material directly
from or about Mullah Pat and Gov. Bush.))

<< http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/100299wh-gop.html >>

In a striking departure from other Presidential candidates -- past and
present -- Gov. George W. Bush of Texas delivered a speech to the
Christian Coalition on Friday that mentioned abortion only in passing
and did not touch on school prayer, gay rights and other matters vital
to religious conservatives.

Even so, he drew a rousing ovation and an unusually warm outpouring from
the coalition's founder, Pat Robertson.

"I'm completely comfortable with him," Robertson said in an interview.
"He is sound on the issues and running a simply marvelous campaign."

Bush's reception was a testament to the potency of his Presidential
quest and underscored a new pragmatism among religious conservatives.
Many said they were comfortable with the Governor and, most importantly,
believed he could win.

In fact, Bush's advisers said he enjoyed such a commanding lead in the
polls that he could behave more like a general election candidate -- and
avoid saying things that could haunt him if he wins the nomination.
(...)

[W]hile other candidates spoke more directly and passionately about
conservative issues, Bush was clearly favored by Robertson, the group's
president, who offered high praise for him and dismissed the prospects
of other Republicans.

"He's acting very Presidential already," Robertson said. "I wouldn't
say, 'Well, come to the Christian Coalition and pander to them -- and go
to the labor unions and pander to them.' "

Indeed, Bush felt no need to tailor his message to the group. Unlike his
rivals Bush essentially delivered his standard stump speech to the 3,500
delegates. His only nod to the group was an appended passage in which he
mentioned signing a bill requiring that parents be notified whenever
their unmarried, minor daughters seek abortions.

"Laws like this both respect families and protect life, and these are
some of the highest and most compassionate goals of government," Bush
said. (...)

((_Aut Clinto aut diabolus_!))

Asked in the interview about other candidates who made more forceful
appeals to the coalition, Robertson offered a pragmatic analysis that
they had little chance. He was most critical of Bauer, saying: "He's not
going to win. You don't win with 1 or 2 percent. And most people are not
terribly keen on a lost cause." (...)

Robertson said he admired Mrs. Dole, but explained: "Elizabeth is a very
charming lady. She subscribed to virtually all of the ideological points
of the Christian Coalition. But I don't think she will take first. Maybe
she's playing for a role as Vice President."

Robertson was even more critical of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the
only Republican contender who declined an invitation to speak today. He
said McCain's support of campaign finance reform would make him unfit to
be President. "It would absolutely gut organizations like the Christian
Coalition," he said. "He will not talk to our lawyers. He will not
listen to reason."

Robertson said Forbes was Bush's biggest threat because he was
organizing in pivotal states and pouring his own fortune into the race.

And while he was critical of Buchanan in his own speech for positions
the candidate has taken on World War II -- and for threatening to bolt
the party for the Reform Party nomination -- Robertson defended Bush for
not mentioning Buchanan on Friday. "It would seem self-serving if Bush
goes after Buchanan," he said. (...)

== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Connie

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to
J.H.: I'm puzzled by your subject header, "We are all Clintonists now". I
wonder if you may be comparing apples to oranges. During a vacation in
Europe around the time of the '92 election campaign, I saw an article in a
paper over there suggesting that "some say (now said)" that Clinton was a
like chameleon, i.e. that he'd go to one group and say one thing and then go
to another group and say something quite different.. on the same issue. Now
THAT's what I'd call pandering. But, as reported in the piece you posted,
Robertson seemed to be praising Bush for NOT PANDERING.. not tailoring his
message to whatever group he was talking to. As reported, Robertson said
that Bush was "acting very Presidential already,", adding "I wouldn't say,

'Well, come to the Christian Coalition and pander to them -- and go to the
labor unions and pander to them.' " Continuing,the posted piece said,

"Indeed, Bush felt no need to tailor his message to the group. Unlike his
rivals Bush essentially delivered his standard stump speech to the 3,500
delegates".

It does appear that Bush is being consistent on his message which I'd say is
quite different from someone who says one thing to one group and quite
another to another group, telling each group what they want to hear. In my
book, the Bush approach sounds like something we'd call honesty. Now, if
what you're really saying.. as you seem to be.. is that Clinton and Bush are
the same .. and the people are buying it, for the life of me I can't figure
out how you drew that conclusion.. at least in the context of the piece you
posted. It is, of course, possible that you intended something else in your
choice of Subject line. But, if so, please define what that might be so
we'll both know what you're talking about!! Connie

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7t4r3r$jmc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

><< http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/100299wh-gop.html >>

delegate. His only nod to the group was an appended passage in which he

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
6 October 1999 (#8)

((The Caudillo of Rio Limbaugh has finally caught on. EIB now expands
to "Exasperation Induces Bellowing." Anything that annoys Citizen Rush
so much as His Texcellency's yesterday's education speech to the
Manhattan Institute merits reproduction in full.

((But first an appetizer, one Himself hasn't yet (1315 EDT) mentioned
the full enormity of: "Too often, my party has confused the need for
limited government with a disdain for government itself. But this is
not an option for conservatives. At the constitutional convention in
1787, Benjamin Franklin argued that the strength of our nation depends
'on the general opinion of the goodness of government.' Our Founders
rejected cynicism, and cultivated a noble love of country."

((Dr. Franklin will be excommunicated from the VRWC forthwith, no
doubt, but will that solve the electoral problems of the kooks and loons
and anarchos? ))

<< http://www.georgewbush.com/speeches/10599_edu.htm >>

Governor George W. Bush

"A Culture of Achievement"

Manhattan Institute Luncheon // October 5, 1999
Note: Governor frequently deviates from text


It is an honor to be here -- and especially to share this podium with
Rev. Flake. Your influence in this city -- as a voice for change and a
witness to Christian hope -- is only greater since you returned
full-time to the Allen AME Church. I read somewhere that you still call
Houston your hometown, 30 years after you moved away. As governor of
Texas, let me return the compliment.

We are proud of all you have accomplished, and honored to call you one
of our own. It’s been a pleasure touring New York these past few days
with Governor Pataki. Everywhere I’ve gone, New York’s old confidence is
back thanks, in large part, to a state senator who challenged the status
quo six years ago. From tax cuts to criminal justice reform to charters,
your agenda has been an example to governors around the country.

It is amazing how far this city has come in the 21 years since the
Manhattan Institute was founded. You have won battles once considered
hopeless. You have gone from winning debating points to winning
majorities -- and I congratulate you.

Last month in California, I talked about disadvantaged children in
troubled schools. I argued that the diminished hopes of our current
system are sad and serious -- the soft bigotry of low expectations.

And I set out a simple principle: Federal funds will no longer flow to
failure. Schools that do not teach and will not change must have some
final point of accountability. A moment of truth, when their Title 1
funds are divided up and given to parents, for tutoring or a charter
school or some other hopeful option. In the best case, schools that are
failing will rise to the challenge and regain the confidence of parents.
In the worst case, we will offer scholarships to America’s neediest
children.

In any case, the federal government will no longer pay schools to cheat
poor children.

But this is the beginning of our challenge, not its end. The final
object of education reform is not just to shun mediocrity; it is to seek
excellence. It is not just to avoid failure; it is to encourage
achievement.

Our nation has a moral duty to ensure that no child is left behind.

And we also, at this moment, have a great national opportunity -- to
ensure that every child, in every public school, is challenged by high
standards that meet the high hopes of parents. To build a culture of
achievement that matches the optimism and aspirations of our country.

Not long ago, this would have seemed incredible. Our education debates
were captured by a deep pessimism.

For decades, waves of reform were quickly revealed as passing fads,
with little lasting result. For decades, funding rose while performance
stagnated. Most parents, except in some urban districts, have not seen
the collapse of education. They have seen a slow slide of expectations
and standards. Schools where poor spelling is called "creative." Where
math is "fuzzy" and grammar is optional. Where grade inflation is the
norm.

Schools where spelling bees are canceled for being too competitive and
selecting a single valedictorian is considered too exclusive. Where
advancing from one grade to the next is unconnected to advancing skills.
Schools where, as in Alice in Wonderland, "Everyone has won, and all
must have prizes."

We are left with a nagging sense of lost potential. A sense of what
could be, but is not.

It led the late Albert Shanker, of the American Federation of Teachers,
to conclude: "Very few American pupils are performing anywhere near
where they could be performing."

This cuts against the grain of American character. Most parents know
that the self-esteem of children is not built by low standards, it is
built by real accomplishments. Most parents know that good character is
tied to an ethic of study and hard work and merit -- and that setbacks
are as much a part of learning as awards.

Most Americans know that a healthy democracy must be committed both to
equality and to excellence.

Until a few years ago, the debates of politics seemed irrelevant to
these concerns. Democrats and Republicans argued mainly about funding
and procedures -- about dollars and devolution. Few talked of standards
or accountability or of excellence for all our children.

But all this is beginning to change. In state after state, we are
seeing a profound shift of priorities. An "age of accountability" is
starting to replace an era of low expectations. And there is a growing
conviction and confidence that the problems of public education are not
an endless road or a hopeless maze.

The principles of this movement are similar from New York to Florida,
from Massachusetts to Michigan. Raise the bar of standards.

Give schools the flexibility to meet them. Measure progress. Insist on
results. Blow the whistle on failure. Provide parents with options to
increase their influence. And don’t give up on anyone.

There are now countless examples of public schools transformed by great
expectations. Places like Earhart Elementary in Chicago, where students
are expected to compose essays by the second grade.

Where these young children participate in a Junior Great Books program,
and sixth graders are reading To Kill a Mockingbird. The principal
explains, "All our children are expected to work above grade level and
learn for the sake of learning… We instill a desire to overachieve. Give
us an average child and we’ll make him an overachiever."

This is a public school, and not a wealthy one. And it proves what is
possible.

No one in Texas now doubts that public schools can improve. We are
witnessing the promise of high standards and accountability. We require
that every child read by the third grade, without exception or excuse.
Every year, we test students on the academic basics. We disclose those
results by school. We encourage the diversity and creativity of
charters. We give local schools and districts the freedom to chart their
own path to excellence.

I certainly don’t claim credit for all these changes. But my state is
proud of what we have accomplished together. Last week, the federal
Department of Education announced that Texas eighth graders have some of
the best writing skills in the country. In 1994, there were 67 schools
in Texas rated "exemplary" according to our tests. This year, there are
1,120. We are proud, but we are not content. Now that we are meeting our
current standards, I am insisting that we elevate those standards.

Now that we are clearing the bar, we are going to raise the bar --
because we have set our sights on excellence.

At the beginning of the 1990s, so many of our nation’s problems, from
education to crime to welfare, seemed intractable -- beyond our control.
But something unexpected happened on the way to cultural decline.
Problems that seemed inevitable proved to be reversible. They gave way
to an optimistic, governing conservatism.

Here in New York, Mayor Giuliani brought order and civility back to the
streets -- cutting crime rates by 50 percent. In Wisconsin, Governor
Tommy Thompson proved that welfare dependence could be reversed --
reducing his rolls by 91 percent. Innovative mayors and governors
followed their lead -- cutting national welfare rolls by nearly half
since 1994, and reducing the murder rate to the lowest point since 1967.

Now education reform is gaining a critical mass of results.

In the process, conservatism has become the creed of hope. The creed of
aggressive, persistent reform. The creed of social progress.

Too often, on social issues, my party has painted an image of America
slouching toward Gomorrah. Of course there are challenges to the
character and compassion of our nation -- too many broken homes and
broken lives.

But many of our problems -- particularly education, crime and welfare
dependence -- are yielding to good sense and strength and idealism. In
states and cities around the country, we are making, not just points and
pledges, but progress. We are demonstrating the genius for self-renewal
at the heart of the American experiment.

Too often, my party has focused on the national economy, to the
exclusion of all else -- speaking a sterile language of rates and
numbers, of CBO this and GNP that.

Of course we want growth and vigor in our economy. But there are human
problems that persist in the shadow of affluence. And the strongest
argument for conservative ideals -- for responsibility and
accountability and the virtues of our tradition -- is that they lead to
greater justice, less suffering, more opportunity.

Too often, my party has confused the need for limited government with a
disdain for government itself.

But this is not an option for conservatives. At the constitutional
convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin argued that the strength of our
nation depends "on the general opinion of the goodness of government."
Our Founders rejected cynicism, and cultivated a noble love of country.
That love is undermined by sprawling, arrogant, aimless government. It
is restored by focused and effective and energetic government.

And that should be our goal: A limited government, respected for doing
a few things and doing them well.

This is an approach with echoes in our history. Echoes of Lincoln and
emancipation and the Homestead Act and land-grant colleges. Echoes of
Theodore Roosevelt and national parks and the Panama Canal. Echoes of
Reagan and a confrontation with communism that sought victory, not
stalemate.

What are the issues that challenge us, that summon us, in our time?
Surely one of them must be excellence in education. Surely one of them
must be to rekindle the spirit of learning and ambition in our common
schools. And one of our great opportunities and urgent duties is to
remake the federal role.

Even as many states embrace education reform, the federal government is
mired in bureaucracy and mediocrity.

It is an obstacle, not an ally. Education bills are often rituals of
symbolic spending without real accountability -- like pumping gas into a
flooded engine. For decades, fashionable ideas have been turned into
programs, with little knowledge of their benefits for students and
teachers. And even the obvious failures seldom disappear.

This is a perfect example of government that is big -- and weak. Of
government that is grasping -- and impotent.

Let me share an example. The Department of Education recently
streamlined the grant application process for states. The old procedure
involved 487 different steps, taking an average of 26 weeks. So, a few
years ago, the best minds of the administration got together and
"reinvented" the grant process. Now it takes a mere 216 steps, and the
wait is 20 weeks.

If this is reinventing government, it makes you wonder how this
administration was ever skilled enough and efficient enough to create
the Internet. I don’t want to tinker with the machinery of the federal
role in education. I want to redefine that role entirely.

I strongly believe in local control of schools and curriculum. I have
consistently placed my faith in states and schools and parents and
teachers -- and that faith, in Texas, has been rewarded.

I also believe a president should define and defend the unifying ideals
of our nation -- including the quality of our common schools. He must
lead, without controlling. He must set high goals -- without being
high-handed. The inertia of our education bureaucracy is a national
problem, requiring a national response. Sometimes inaction is not
restraint -- it is complicity. Sometimes it takes the use of executive
power to empower others.

Effective education reform requires both pressure from above and
competition from below -- a demand for high standards and measurement at
the top, given momentum and urgency by expanded options for parents and
students. So, as president, here is what I’ll do. First, I will
fundamentally change the relationship of the states and federal
government in education. Now we have a system of excessive regulation
and no standards. In my administration, we will have minimal regulation
and high standards.

Second, I will promote more choices for parents in the education of
their children. In the end, it is parents, armed with information and
options, who turn the theory of reform into the reality of excellence.

All reform begins with freedom and local control. It unleashes
creativity. It permits those closest to children to exercise their
judgment. And it also removes the excuse for failure. Only those with
the ability to change can be held to account.

But local control has seldom been a priority in Washington. In 1965,
when President Johnson signed the very first Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, not one school board trustee, from anywhere in the
country, was invited to the ceremony. Local officials were viewed as the
enemy. And that attitude has lingered too long.

As president, I will begin by taking most of the 60 different
categories of federal education grants and paring them down to five:
improving achievement among disadvantaged children; promoting fluency in
English; training and recruiting teachers; encouraging character and
school safety; and promoting innovation and parental choice. Within
these divisions, states will have maximum flexibility to determine their
priorities.

They will only be asked to certify that their funds are being used for
the specific purposes intended -- and the federal red tape ends there.

This will spread authority to levels of government that people can
touch. And it will reduce paperwork -- allowing schools to spend less on
filing forms and more on what matters: teachers’ salaries and children
themselves.

In return, we will ask that every state have a real accountability
system -- meaning that they test every child, every year, in grades
three through eight, on the basics of reading and math; broadly disclose
those results by school, including on the Internet; and have clear
consequences for success and failure. States will pick their own tests,
and the federal government will share the costs of administering them.

States can choose tests off-the-shelf, like Arizona; adapt tests like
California; or contract for new tests like Texas. Over time, if a
state’s results are improving, it will be rewarded with extra money -- a
total of $500 million in awards over five years. If scores are stagnant
or dropping, the administrative portion of their federal funding --
about 5 percent -- will be diverted to a fund for charter schools.

We will praise and reward success -- and shine a spotlight of shame on
failure.

What I am proposing today is a fresh start for the federal role in
education. A pact of principle. Freedom in exchange for achievement.
Latitude in return for results. Local control with one national goal:
excellence for every child.

I am opposed to national tests, written by the federal government.

If Washington can control the content of tests, it can dictate the
content of state curricula -- a role our central government should not
play.

But measurement at the state level is essential. Without testing,
reform is a journey without a compass. Without testing, teachers and
administrators cannot adjust their methods to meet high goals. Without
testing, standards are little more than scraps of paper.

Without testing, true competition is impossible. Without testing,
parents are left in the dark.

In fact, the greatest benefit of testing -- with the power to transform
a school or a system -- is the information it gives to parents. They
will know -- not just by rumor or reputation, but by hard numbers --
which schools are succeeding and which are not.

Given that information, more parents will be pulled into activism --
becoming participants, not spectators, in the education of their
children. Armed with that information, parents will have the leverage to
force reform.

Information is essential. But reform also requires options. Monopolies
seldom change on their own -- no matter how good the intentions of those
who lead them. Competition is required to jolt a bureaucracy out of its
lethargy.

So my second goal for the federal role of education is to increase the
options and influence of parents.

The reform of Title 1 I’ve proposed would begin this process. We will
give parents with children in failing schools -- schools where the test
scores of Title 1 children show no improvement over three years -- the
resources to seek more hopeful options. This will amount to a
scholarship of about $1,500 a year.

And parents can use those funds for tutoring or tuition -- for anything
that gives their children a fighting chance at learning. The theory is
simple. Public funds must be spent on things that work -- on helping
children, not sustaining failed schools that refuse to change.

The response to this plan has been deeply encouraging. Yet some
politicians have gone to low performing schools and claimed my plan
would undermine them.

Think a moment about what that means. It means visiting a school and
saying, in essence, "You are hopeless. Not only can’t you achieve, you
can’t even improve." That is not a defense of public education, it is a
surrender to despair. That is not liberalism, it is pessimism. It is
accepting and excusing an educational apartheid in our country --
segregating poor children into a world without the hope of change.

Everyone, in both parties, seems to agree with accountability in
theory. But what could accountability possibly mean if children attend
schools for 12 years without learning to read or write? Accountability
without consequences is empty -- the hollow shell of reform. And all our
children deserve better.

In our education reform plan, we will give states more flexibility to
use federal funds, at their option, for choice programs -- including
private school choice.

In some neighborhoods, these new options are the first sign of hope, of
real change, that parents have seen for a generation.

But not everyone wants or needs private school choice. Many parents in
America want more choices, higher standards and more influence within
their public schools. This is the great promise of charter schools --
the path that New York is now beginning. And this, in great part, is a
tribute to the Manhattan Institute.

If charters are properly done -- free to hire their own teachers, adopt
their own curriculum, set their own operating rules and high standards
-- they will change the face of American education. Public schools --
without bureaucracy. Public schools -- controlled by parents. Public
schools -- held to the highest goals. Public schools -- as we imagined
they could be.

For parents, they are schools on a human scale, where their voice is
heard and heeded. For students, they are more like a family than a
factory -- a place where it is harder to get lost. For teachers, who
often help found charter schools, they are a chance to teach as they’ve
always wanted. Says one charter school teacher in Boston: "We don’t have
to wait to make changes. We don’t have to wait for the district to
decide that what we are doing is within the rules…

So we can really put the interests of the kids first."

This morning I visited the new Sisulu Children’s Academy in Harlem --
New York’s first charter school. In an area where only a quarter of
children can read at or above grade level, Sisulu Academy offers a core
curriculum of reading, math, science and history. There will be an
extended school day, and the kids will also learn computer skills, art,
music and dance. And there is a waiting list of 100 children.

This is a new approach -- even a new definition of public education.
These schools are public because they are publicly funded and publicly
accountable for results. The vision of parents and teachers and
principals determines the rest. Money follows the child. The units of
delivery get smaller and more personal. Some charters go back to basics;
some attract the gifted; some emphasize the arts.

It is a reform movement that welcomes diversity, but demands
excellence. And this is the essence of real reform.

Charter schools benefit the children within them -- as well as the
public school students beyond them. The evidence shows that competition
often strengthens all the schools in a district. In Arizona, in places
where charters have arrived -- teaching phonics and extending hours and
involving parents -- suddenly many traditional public schools are
following suit.

The greatest problem facing charter schools is practical -- the cost of
building them. Unlike regular public schools, they receive no capital
funds. And the typical charter costs about $1.5 million to construct.
Some are forced to start in vacant hotel rooms or strip malls.

As president, I want to fan the spark of charter schools into a flame.
My administration will establish a Charter School Homestead Fund, to
help finance these start-up costs.

We will provide capital to education entrepreneurs -- planting new
schools on the frontiers of reform. This fund will support $3 billion in
loan guarantees in my first two years in office -- enough to seed 2,000
schools. Enough to double the existing number.

This will be a direct challenge to the status quo in public education
-- in a way that both changes it and strengthens it. With charters,
someone cares enough to say, "I’m dissatisfied."

Someone is bold enough to say, "I can do better." And all our schools
will aim higher if we reward that kind of courage and vision.

And we will do one thing more for parents. We will expand Education
Savings Accounts to cover education expenses in grades K through 12,
allowing parents or grandparents to contribute up to $5,000 dollars per
year, per student. Those funds can be withdrawn tax-free for tuition
payments, or books, or tutoring or transportation -- whatever students
need most.

Often this nation sets out to reform education for all the wrong
reasons -- or at least for incomplete ones. Because the Soviets launch
Sputnik. Or because children in Singapore have high test scores. Or
because our new economy demands computer operators.

But when parents hope for their children, they hope with nobler goals.
Yes, we want them to have the basic skills of life. But life is more
than a race for riches.

A good education leads to intellectual self-confidence, and ambition
and a quickened imagination. It helps us, not just to live, but to live
well.

And this private good has public consequences. In his first address to
Congress, President Washington called education "the surest basis of
public happiness." America’s founders believed that self-government
requires a certain kind of citizen.

Schooled to think clearly and critically, and to know America’s civic
ideals. Freed, by learning, to rise, by merit. Education is the way a
democratic culture reproduces itself through time.

This is the reason a conservative should be passionate about education
reform -- the reason a conservative should fight strongly and care
deeply. Our common schools carry a great burden for the common good. And
they must be more than schools of last resort.

Every child must have a quality education -- not just in islands of
excellence. Because we are a single nation with a shared future.
Because, as Lincoln said, we are "brothers of a common country."

Thank you.

---

_Aut Clinto aut diabolus_. I repeat myself, but what else is there to
be said?

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:18:59 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:


/long snip of Bush Jr speech/

>
> Every child must have a quality education -- not just in islands of
>excellence. Because we are a single nation with a shared future.
>Because, as Lincoln said, we are "brothers of a common country."
>
> Thank you.
>
>---
>
> _Aut Clinto aut diabolus_. I repeat myself, but what else is there to
>be said?
>


ROTFL!


Cheers,
Bredon
---
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
8 October 1999 (#9)

((It appears that three out of four of "us" over yonder on Airstrip
One are Clintonists now, better friends of the Third Way than of the
Last Ditch and the Dead End. O frabjous day!))

<< http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/100899britain-tories.html
>>

BLACKPOOL, England -- William Hague, the Conservative Party leader,
brought his party's annual convention to a close Thursday with a call
for tougher resistance to further integration with Europe and an attack
on Prime Minister Tony Blair as a liar and hypocrite.

"The man is a fraud," Hague said, taking issue with Blair's speech last
week in which he told the Labour Party conference that the country's
ills were the fault of "the forces of conservatism" and invited
disaffected Tories to abandon "today's extreme Conservative Party."

Hague said it was not extreme to want to protect your own national
characteristics, keep your own currency and do away with "regional
bureaucracies and European political superstructures."

Seeking to end a long-running and damaging internal quarrel, he placed
the Conservatives squarely on the side of those wary of closer ties to
Europe and declared the distinction the one that now most defined the
rival parties.

He stopped short of any pledge to withdraw from the European Union, as
hard-liners in the party have been seeking. But he said Britain should
cooperate in no more European intergovernmental conferences without the
prior guarantee of a "flexibility clause" that would allow it to opt out
of any arrangements it did not like.

"Now we must join battle to defeat new, pervasive, foolish ideas which
threaten our country," he said to cheers and applause.

The address by Hague signaled that the Conservatives, badly defeated in
the 1997 national election and still lagging far behind Labour in
popularity polls, would center their appeal to voters on the Europe
argument. He counseled delegates to resist expected characterizations of
the stance as "small, narrow and petty," saying instead that it was
"great, large and generous."

The party appeared confident and united Thursday listening to Hague,
but it soon became clear that the bickering in the ranks over Europe has
not ended. A significant warning shot came from Kenneth Clarke, the
former Treasury head and a popular figure among Conservatives across the
country. "I feel I am watching the party marching off to an extreme
Euroskeptic view which will damage our chances to win elections," he
said.

While Hague is an effective speaker to his party and a combative
debater in the House of Commons, he has yet to rouse great support from
the public. More than two years into his post, he has presided over
constantly diminishing Conservative appeal, with polls showing that if
an election were held now, the party would attract only 25 percent of
the vote, down from 31 percent in May 1997.

The Conservatives lost because vast numbers of middle-class voters
deserted them for the reformed Labour Party of Blair. It is Hague's
mission to attract them back, and he has decided that Europe is the
issue on which to base that campaign.

----

I daresay Tory things would never have come to so pretty a Europickle if
Baron Thatcheress were still alive.

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99
to
On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:17:33 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:

>We Are All Clintonists Now

> 8 October 1999 (#9)
>
> ((It appears that three out of four of "us" over yonder on Airstrip
>One are Clintonists now, better friends of the Third Way than of the
>Last Ditch and the Dead End. O frabjous day!))
>


Good show. :-)

Where did the term Third Way come from? How would you describe it?


Bredon
---

> While Hague is an effective speaker to his party and a combative
>debater in the House of Commons, he has yet to rouse great support from
>the public. More than two years into his post, he has presided over
>constantly diminishing Conservative appeal, with polls showing that if
>an election were held now, the party would attract only 25 percent of
>the vote, down from 31 percent in May 1997.
>
> The Conservatives lost because vast numbers of middle-class voters
>deserted them for the reformed Labour Party of Blair. It is Hague's
>mission to attract them back, and he has decided that Europe is the
>issue on which to base that campaign.
>
>----
>
>I daresay Tory things would never have come to so pretty a Europickle if
>Baron Thatcheress were still alive.
>

Nicholas Manousos

unread,
Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99
to
bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:17:33 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >We Are All Clintonists Now
> > 8 October 1999 (#9)
> >
> > ((It appears that three out of four of "us" over yonder on Airstrip
> >One are Clintonists now, better friends of the Third Way than of the
> >Last Ditch and the Dead End. O frabjous day!))
> >
>
> Good show. :-)
>
> Where did the term Third Way come from? How would you describe it?

The dritten weg comme aus die dritten reich. Keep practicing your
gooosestep.

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99
to
In article <37FEF1...@gis.net>,

mano...@gis.net wrote:
> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:17:33 GMT, jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >We Are All Clintonists Now
> > > 8 October 1999 (#9)
> > >
> > > ((It appears that three out of four of "us" over yonder on
Airstrip
> > >One are Clintonists now, better friends of the Third Way than of
the Last Ditch and the Dead End. O frabjous day!))

> >
> > Good show. :-)
> >
> > Where did the term Third Way come from? How would you describe it?
>
> The dritten weg comme aus die dritten reich. Keep practicing your
> gooosestep.
>>>>

It is odd how our gentlevrooks can't pat themselves on the back enough
for winning the Cold War singlehanded but then talk like they lost it
when they begin to describe the Clinton Epoch. Evidently they really do
look at Ms. Janet Reno and see Himmler or Beria. Rum lot. No sense of
measure, what?

The true predecessor of the Third Way was the Vital Centre, that being
the name of a 1950's book by Schlesinger Minor on behalf of regulated
capitalism and/or the mixed economy. I would guess the actual phrase
"Third Way" was originally British from ten or a dozen years ago and
meant "New Labour" people who detested Thatcher's stuff and Gorbachev's
more or less equally.

I should describe the Third Way as "politics as usual," or, indeed, as
"We are all Clintonists now."

Without aiding or abetting the VRWC, one may add that there is a
definite element of tinsel and flimflam in slogans of this sort. I mean
the sort that professedly seek the middle of the road. Usually the
political triangulation involved is rather phoney, and the problem
appears even in my own example: Gorbachev's genuinely socialist stuff
was not available or desired in the UK in any way seriously parallel to
the then market for Thatcherite abominations. So "the Third Way" really
meant the effective left edge of the political world, not the vital
centre at all. Besides trying to mislead us about where the center is,
the slogan has the defect of being purely negative. "Yes, fine, let it
be agreed that Way One and Way Two are not the way to go. But what the
deuce characterizes your Third Way apart from the numeral three?"

I knock the slogan because it is useless to Clintonism. There is so
very little left left in the world and especially in the USA, that for
St. Bill to position himself as a centrist is idle. He doesn't have any
equivalent of Blair's TUC to cope with, a traditional sham radical demon
off to his left. Something of the vital centre sort would be more
useful for Gov. Bush, who is at the moment perhaps to some extent trying
to run as a sane "moderate" trapped between the ravening left (us
Demoncrats) and the lunatic right (Rio Limbaugh and Buchanan and the
Gingrichites). As a serious analysis of American politics, that
tripartition would be no more than a bad joke, but as a propaganda tool,
His Texcellency's handlers ought to be able to get decent mileage out of
it. I don't see any comparable strategy for Bill Bradley or
what's-his-name, your guy. Even if they drag out the tired old Jesse
Jackson bogey and inflate it once again, would anybody be the least bit
impressed?

Life is unfair, especially in politics. The upshot of this analysis
is that since the immense preponderance of our currently active kooks
and loons and anarchos are over in right field, Gov. Bush is better
positioned to play the Third Way card than any Democrat can possibly be.
Here again the result of ThirdWayism is a very misleading suggestion
about where the center is located. The fact that the kook-loon-anarcho
contingent is so very visible on the Internet must not deceive us into
thinking they command zillions of votes in the real world. They do not.
For purposes of sham triangulation, the vrooks are nearly as good as
out-and-out off-the-map foreigners. If the Austin apparat takes due
care to disoblige only the Big Kooks and Major Loons, leaving their
followership alone, running against Limbaugh and/or Buchanan (as well as
Bradley) could be as profitable for Bush Minor as running against
Khrushchev (as well as Nixon) proved to be for Sen. Kennedy.

It is more fun to strategize for the bad guys, at least at the moment.
Sigh. Of course I'd advise Bradley to run against Limbaugh & Co. also,
but such advice is otiose. BB is in no danger of being confused with
the VRWC crowd, and accordingly he gains nothing much by condemning
them. The danger, I suspect, is in the other direction, that of
"demonizing" them. Not only do *I* know that the vrooks don't command
zillions of votes, everybody in America knows it. Most people have no
trouble, especially here in Newt Gingrich's wake, spotting political
kooks and loons and estimating them at their proper value. A campaign
against the Wingnut Extremist Menace might satisfy quite a lot of people
in the Democratic Party, but it would also fatally insult the
intelligence of the American electorate. Shouting "Wolf! Wolf!" and
pointing at a hamster, even though it be a rabid hamster, is
definitely not the way to go.

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
9 October 1999 (#10)

<< http://www.slate.com/framegame/entries/99-10-06_36113.asp >>

The Bush Triangulation Strategy
By William Saletan

Last week, House Republicans tried to postpone a fiscal squeeze by
deferring payment of the Earned Income Tax Credit to low-income workers.
Their presidential front-runner, George W. Bush, shot them down. "I
don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the
poor," said Bush. Tuesday, speaking in New York about education reform,
Bush spanked his party again, this time for projecting pessimism,
indifference, and "disdain for government."

Bush's broadsides have filled the talk shows and front pages with
speculation that he is "triangulating" against congressional
Republicans, just as Bill Clinton "triangulated" against left-wing rap
artist Sister Souljah in 1992 and against congressional liberals in
1995. But the media's one-dimensional understanding of
triangulation--that Bush is trying to "distance himself from the GOP's
right wing" and "stake out the middle ground" between two
extremes--oversimplifies the game. Bush isn't positioning himself on a
straight line between Clinton and the congressional GOP. He isn't even
taking up a third position on their two-dimensional battlefield. He is
venturing into a third dimension, rejecting the whole Washington debate,
and defining his contest with Al Gore along a new axis. He is trying to
render Gore's three-point campaign message obsolete.

1. THE COUNTRY IS DOING WELL.
Clinton and Gore constantly recite statistics that reflect well on
their administration: more jobs, lower deficits, lower interest rates,
fewer people on welfare, less crime. They credit their own policies,
particularly the 1993 tax hike, for achieving these results by
establishing fiscal responsibility. For years, congressional Republicans
predicted that Clinton's plan would ruin the economy. Then they defied
credulity by reversing their message, claiming that the economy was in
great shape and that their own policies were responsible for it.

This is the biggest obstacle facing Bush: He is challenging the
incumbent vice president in a time of peace and prosperity, and the
congressional GOP has not made a persuasive case either that the
prosperity is false or that it is true because of Republican efforts in
Washington. Clinton and Gore have spent seven years telling Americans
the story of how their administration revived the economy. Whether or
not this story is true, it is now deeply ingrained in the public
consciousness, and Bush can't look to his party in Washington for an
effective rebuttal to it.

Instead, Bush is attempting something far more bold and interesting: He
is weaving an alternative story. While focusing on Bush's criticisms of
his party in his speech Tuesday, the media overlooked the more important
passage that preceded them. He said:

"In state after state, we are seeing a profound shift of [educational]


priorities. An 'age of accountability' is starting to replace an era of

low expectations. ... The principles of this movement are similar from
New York to Florida, from Massachusetts to Michigan. ... At the


beginning of the 1990s, so many of our nation's problems, from education

to crime to welfare, seemed intractable. ... But something unexpected


happened on the way to cultural decline. Problems that seemed inevitable
proved to be reversible. They gave way to an optimistic, governing
conservatism. Here in New York, Mayor Giuliani brought order and

civility back to the streets--cutting crime rates by 50 percent. In
Wisconsin, Gov. Tommy Thompson proved that welfare dependence could be
reversed--reducing his rolls by 91 percent. Innovative mayors and
governors followed their lead--cutting national welfare rolls by nearly
half since 1994 and reducing the murder rate to the lowest point since


1967. Now education reform is gaining a critical mass of results. In the
process, conservatism has become the creed of hope. The creed of
aggressive, persistent reform. The creed of social progress."

What's important about this narrative is not what it says but what it
doesn't say. It makes no mention of anything that happened in the White
House or in Congress. Bush has decided that he can't win the federal
policy debate that has consumed Clinton, Gore, Newt Gingrich, and the
national media for seven years. So he has simply erased it. Yes, crime
is down, fewer people are on welfare, and school reform is gaining
momentum. And yes, the incumbent party deserves credit. But in Bush's
story, that party isn't the Democratic White House. It's the state and
local GOP.

2. CONGRESS IS PETTY AND MEAN.
Republican congressional leaders--Gingrich, House Majority Leader Dick
Armey, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay--have spent their tenure in the
majority denouncing government, bickering with Clinton and the
Democrats, impugning their integrity, and blaming them for every
problem. They have convinced many people that Clinton and Gore are
blameworthy. But they have convinced many others that congressional
Republicans are more interested in impugning integrity and fixing blame
than in solving problems. The negative portion of Gore's game plan,
therefore, is to lump Bush together with Armey and DeLay as the party of
carping and destructiveness.

Bush's game plan is to turn Gore's game plan on its head. He's not
going to argue with Gore over which party is destructive or blameworthy.
He's going to reject the whole Washington blame game--undercutting his
own party as well as Gore--and portray himself as a man who solves
problems instead of complaining about them or blaming them on his
enemies. "Too often, my party has confused the need for limited
government with a disdain for government itself," Bush said Tuesday.
"Our Founders rejected cynicism and cultivated a noble love of country.


That love is undermined by sprawling, arrogant, aimless government. It
is restored by focused and effective and energetic government. And that

should be our goal: a limited government, respected for doing a few


things and doing them well."

Some House Republicans, including DeLay, have fired back at Bush,
accusing him of betraying them, meddling in their business, and
distorting their ideas. This counterattack has only helped Bush achieve
the distance he sought in the first place. Others, including Armey, have
tried to spin Bush's comments, suggesting that he's really siding with
them against Clinton in the Washington budget fight. They don't
understand that they've lost that fight and that Bush is willing to
repudiate the fight and everyone in it--including them--in order to ruin
Gore's strategy and beat him.

3. THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS SCARY.
Gore, like Clinton, has often used cultural issues such as abortion to
make the GOP look extreme. The media and "moderate" Republicans,
convinced that these issues are the party's weakness and that its
libertarian economic ideas are its strength, have interpreted Bush's
remarks as a rebuke to Republican "Puritanism." But a closer look at
Bush's comments suggests the opposite: He is concerned that the party
looks mean because of its economic policies, and he is using cultural
issues to soften that image by projecting Republican "compassion."

If Bush had felt a need to triangulate against the cultural right, he
could have joined others in repudiating Pat Buchanan for questioning the
wisdom of American intervention against Nazi Germany. He didn't.
Alternatively, he could have used his address to the Christian Coalition
last Friday to criticize religious intolerance. Instead, he gave a
speech that bypassed traditional moral issues such as school prayer and
homosexuality and never mentioned the word "abortion." The media
inferred that Bush was ignoring moral issues because the religious right
has nowhere else to go. They missed the real story: The reason why Bush
doesn't have to talk about old moral issues that might make him look
mean is that he's introducing new moral issues that make him look warm
and caring.

In his speech to the coalition, Bush used the word "compassion" 16
times. He urged Christians to pursue a kinder, gentler mission: "What we
need are people who live out their faith in every walk of life, in
politics, but also working in crisis pregnancy centers, drug treatment
programs, and homeless shelters. People who make God's work their own.
... Our compassion must extend to the poor and to the fatherless. Our
compassion must defend the disabled. ... I will rally the armies of
compassion to nurture, to mentor, to comfort, to perform their
commonplace miracles of renewal. ... I will involve them in after-school
programs, maternity group homes, prison fellowships, and drug treatment
programs."

Tuesday, Bush warned, "Too often, on social issues, my party has


painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah. Of course there

are challenges to the character and compassion of our nation--too many


broken homes and broken lives. But many of our problems--particularly

education, crime, and welfare dependence--are yielding to good sense and
strength and idealism." He went on: "Too often, my party has focused on
the national economy, to the exclusion of all else--speaking a sterile


language of rates and numbers, of CBO this and GNP that. Of course we
want growth and vigor in our economy. But there are human problems that

persist in the shadow of affluence." On this view, the GOP's problem is
libertarian indifference in Washington, and the solution is to fix
"broken homes and broken lives" through "compassion" back home.

Gore recognizes Bush's strategy and is trying to drag him back into the
Washington fight. "He's now differed with [congressional Republicans] on
one little detail," Gore said on Face the Nation. "If he really wants to
try to break with them, he ought to endorse our health-care Patients'
Bill of Rights. He ought to endorse an increase in the minimum wage for
the working poor. And he ought to come out against this huge, risky tax
scheme." But Bush isn't biting, and congressional Democrats, more
interested in beating their Republican colleagues than in beating Bush,
have welcomed and exploited his indictment of the GOP. Bush doesn't
mind. They can have the battle. He wants the war.

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/11/99
to
We Are All Clintonists Now
11 October 1999 (#11)

UCH (the Universal Clintonism Hypothesis) finds supporting evidence even
in darkest Scaifesylvania:

<< http://www.triblive.com/frames/opinfram.html >>


Wise clarification

To more than a few dedicated Republicans, George W. Bush has become no
less than a conservative infidel. What with all his recent talk
disdaining free markets and casting the GOP Congress as something of the
earned income tax credit Simon LeGree, this clearly is not anybody's
father's GOP.

Democrats love the intra-party squabble. But they are cautious. They see
George W. as throwing a bone to popular misconceptions - and thus,
scoring points with ``moderates'' of all political stripes - but still
worshiping at the altar of base Republican principles.

((Such Democrats are badly mistaken, for His Texcellency's handlers are
most assuredly Clintonists of the first water.))

And many of our brethren in the media are concerned as well. In the
Liberal League, Mr. Bush is seen as borrowing a page from Bill Clinton's
"triangulation" strategy. He's positioned himself "in opposition to the
most extreme forces within his party" was the take of The Washington
Post's Dan Balz. Over in the senior circuit, conservative commentators
such as Rush Limbaugh have offered the ultimate slap - George W. is the
ultimate liberal conservative, a "Rockefeller Republican."

Bush Junior raised the ire of many a GOP stalwart with a few rather
candid pronouncements on Republicans:

The congressional majority was trying to "balance the budget on the
backs of the poor," he said Sept. 30 on one stump. It was a reference
to a House GOP proposal to pay the earned income tax credit in monthly
installments instead of in one lump sum. (Never mind that the credit,
more and more, seems to be turning into a welfare payment instead of a
true tax break.)

On another stump, Tuesday in New York, Bush said the party of Lincoln
had become too negative, too pessimistic and too enamored of believing
that free markets can solve social problems while ignoring the role of
government. (Never mind that free markets could go a long way to solving
social services challenges very well, thank you, especially if
government got out of the social services business.)

"Too often, my party has confused the need for limited government with a

disdain for government itself," Bush added, seemingly trying to take the
bite out of a GOP dogmatism that some claim is no better than an
astigmatism.

Bush backed off his statements a bit by midweek. The Republican Party,
he said, suffered primarily from voters' misperceptions, not from its
own mistakes. It was a wise clarification.

((Somehow the dimwit populace was fooled into taking Mr. Gingrich of
Georgia and the Pillars of Impeachment for Republican statespersons of
importance. Silly us.))

Though far ahead in fund raising and momentum, George W. Bush still must
win his party's nomination. And should he be elected, he'll have to be
able to work with a GOP most likely to retain control of the Congress.
He risked and salvaged both last week.

((Ummm. "Both" doesn't really have a proper antecedent, does it?))

---

In other UCH-related news, you may learn from the front page of
today's LUNA POST how Mr. DeLay of Texas considers that Mr. Delay of
Texas, for instance, is a model "compassionate conservative." What
next?

Connie

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
Jhm: Thank you SO much for posting that Bush speech in it's entirety. I've
been hearing all about how Conservatives felt they were being attacked by
Bush in that speech and elsewhere. But it appears that those chagrined at
supposed Bush comments may have been tweaked by a press that VERY
selectively pulled out bits and pieces of what Bush said (e.g. "Too often my

party has confused the need for limited government with a disdain for
government itself") and neglected to report on Bush's expansion of such
lead-in statements (e.g. vis-a-vis his central focus on our nation's failing
schools, Bush later said, among other things, . "This is a perfect example

of government that is big -- and weak. Of government that is grasping -- and
impotent").

Effectively, thoughout the speech you posted, Bush made pretty much the same
arguments conservatives have been making all along. What was different was
that Bush framed his comments in a positive, indeed hopeful, tone as
compared to the far more pessimistic tone so often used by Conservatives as
they express their exasperation over what is going on (and what's not going
on) today in our public school system. I almost hate to say this here where
there are so many who love to hate Reagan, but there was something of a
Reaganesque quality to Bush's hopeful tone, looking forward to a better day
rather than backward on the mistakes of the past.

I must say that, as I read through that speech, what Bush said pretty much
reflected my own views on the topic. If this is the "real Bush", he's just
given me a good reason to think about voting for him!

By the way, still puzzled about your Subject line, "We are all Clintonists
now", I'll just note that there's little comparison between the specified
Bush speech and the typical Clinton speech. The President, before and after
his election, has typically given "laundry list" type speeches, a quick
brush stroke here, another there, but little if any depth to his ourpouring
of promises and other comments. After I hear a Clinton speech, I typically
find myself asking "no what did he mean by this? What are the implications
of that?". There is simply no depth to these speeches.. very little detail.
He seems to touch briefly on something he thinks will get him brownie points
from "the people" and then rushes on, with little explanation, to some other
focus grouped item that appears to have been phrased to make it acceptable
to "the people". In contrast, the specified Bush speech went into
considerable detail re: what the problems are and how he hopes to start
remedying them. I have never heard a speech like that from Clinton .. in
any area.

And, finally, down below I've added a little reference to an op-ed piece
that suggests, vis-a-vis the press's treatment of Bush comments, here "the
speech", that the press was giving him a "bum rap".

The specified John Podhoretz commentary which appeared in the 10/8/99 New
York Post, was entitled "Bush, Gomorrah and the Right; The Media did a
Disservice to the Front-runner's Interesting Speech" Podhoretz, who
suggested that he had, himself, been one of the "mutterers" (as have been
many conservatives) about what Bush had previously said, started his op/ed
piece as follows:

><Quote>
George W. Bush is getting a bum rap. The speech he gave here in New York on
Tuesday was the most conservative address he has yet delivered, and the
1,000 people who attended it showed no sign they had taken offense at its
contents. But you wouldn't know that from the press coverage the next
day, or the outpouring of anger from conservatives who did not attend the
speech and got the wrong idea from the gleefully biased and wrongheaded way
the media covered it".
<End Quote>

Connie

jhmcclo...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7tg09j$3bt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

><< http://www.georgewbush.com/speeches/10599_edu.htm >>

>Governor George W. Bush

> "A Culture of Achievement"