NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/chi/general/1611

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!tellab5!obdient!sunbird!machine!chinet!ignatz
From: [e-mail] (Dave Ihnat)
Newsgroups: chi.general
Subject: Re: Short-Term notes (Was Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!)
Summary: They may not be, but they sure gave good imitations...
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance, short-term notes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:54:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: Dave Ihnat
Distribution: chi
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Lines: 84

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>Talk about meanspirited.  Reagan was not and is not senile.  Quayle
>is not stupid.  And Bush is not meanspirited, merely realistic and of
>a value system inconsistent with yours.  (I'll have to agree about Carter.)
>
>There is plenty to beef about in our leaders; it isn't necessary to
>apply unkind and inaccurate labels to them.

While I'll agree that it may not be kind to talk about them that way, I don't
necessarily think it's inaccurate.  It's pretty well documented that Ronnie
had problems with concentration and concepts.  (My fave is the oldest--confusing
carbon dioxide emitted by trees with carbon monoxide...) Whether this
qualifies as senility, or simply a 'B' actor who got in over his head, is a
moot point.

Quayle may not be stupid in the sense that he can't add 2+2, but he does show
a remarkable willingness to start mouth before engaging brain.  He not only
showed an amazing ability to blather on about things he obviously knew nothing
about--not necesarily a handicap in politics, since Reagan did the same thing
and got elected President--but also made statements that ranged from simply
inane and inappropriate to ones indicative of absolute confusion over the
concept.  To make it worse, near the end we started to get a juvenile, "Well,
gee, look at what *he* said--if I said that, you'd be all over me."  (Usually,
the example wasn't as bad as the least of Dan's flubs.)

And as to whether Bush is mean-spirited, I think we can look at the last few
weeks of the campaign to see personality coming out under stress.  His telling
family of missing Viet Nam vets to "shut up and sit down".  The annoyance is
understandable; giving vent to it is unforgivable and insensitive.  His ad
hominem attacks and epithets thrown at Clinton-Gore, impugning character and
intelligence, instead of trying to stand on issues.  These, and numerous other
incidents and activities over the years point to a man who certainly does have
a value system that is different than mine; and a goodly part of that system
is that "if you aren't with me, you're agin' me; and that makes you stupid and
dangerous, or at least contemptible.

Finally, in the litany you also missed on Carter.  Jimmy is a highly
intelligent and motivated man--one of the best in the nuclear navy, if
my reading serves correctly, and nuke officers *aren't* fools or idiots,
no matter what some people may think about the military.  As I understand it,
however, one of his biggest problems was just the opposite of Reagan;
he couldn't delegate authority.  It's not uncommon for sharp individuals to
have a sneaking suspicion that they can do it better than anyone else; but
it's simply not possible for a leader of a modern superpower to personally
and continually digest all of the unbelievable flood of information and reports
that are generated in running a country.  Carter reportedly did a yeomanlike
job of trying; but it's obvious that he simply wasn't adequate to the task in
all areas.

I'm not saying that I, or the original poster, are any better than any of these
men.  What I do insist on is the fact that my elected representative--the person
who is making the decisions that will affect my livlihood immediately, and my
country for the next 30-50 years (how?  By packing the Supreme Court)--must,
simply MUST, live up to standards of intelligence and JUDGEMENT that are much
higher than those I expect of an average Joe (or Jane) on the street.  It's not
that they can't make mistakes--but their mistakes should be on the same scale
as their successes, heroic in nature and understandable in light of the
complexity of the job; not basic blunders that show social ineptitude, callous
personal relations, or a blatant disregard of the spirit and expression of
the Constitution of the United States.  I expect a degree of moral rectitude
that transcends the petty trumpeting about who inhaled or didn't, concerning
a weed that has been both legal and illegal in the lifetime of my father,
while overlooking, forgiving, or (possibly) abetting crimes such as the
Savings and Loan scandal, or Irangate, or...well, you get my drift.

THAT'S why you hear people belittling the leaders of our country.  It's sheer,
overwhelming disappointment and disillusion.  For all that I disagree with
many of his political stances, give me Teddy Roosevelt!  I want someone who
BELIEVES in things, things that aren't narrow secular targets but sweeping
support of those things that are *suppose*d to be supported by and expressed
by the ideals of our country!  DON'T back petty tyrants because they claim
to oppose communism, or the drug trade, or whatever the current trend is;  if
they oppress and torture their people while claiming alleigance with us, then
dammit, make them cough up or get on the other side of the fence with our
enemies!  If you measure our allies and opponents by that yardstick, I daresay
we won't end up with situations like the Frankenstein Saddam.

Enough.  What started as an amused note to point out some inconsistencies has
turned into a tirade; I'll let you rest.   But the bottom line is that all of
those leaders deserved, to some extent, the criticism they got.

        Dave Ihnat
        [e-mail] (preferred return address)
        [e-mail]