Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!orion!houca!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Reagan's Press Conference
Message-ID: <146@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jun-83 13:56:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.146
Posted: Wed Jun 29 13:56:58 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jul-83 06:15:12 EDT
Lines: 50

Really, though, doesn't Reagan come across as a fool -- what with his
aside about giving a reporter his "receipe for oatmeal meatloaf" and
his almost total inability to describe his Administration's Civil
Rights programs (with good reason -- there are none).  He comes off as
an amiable man with very little knowledge of the effects of his
policies.

He assured us "the rich don't need my help and I am not doing things
to help the rich."  Well he certainly isn't helping the poor any, and
most of the middle class isn't doing too well -- who the hell is he
helping?  Or, to put it differently, `Cui Bono?'

I have to groan every time I see him (and other right wingers in
this country) get  misty-eyed about the fate of Solidarity.  Trade Unions
in Poland, but none in the U.S. is their policy.  Let's not forget 
that one of Reagan's earliest acts as President was to provoke a
strike by the air controllers and then smash the union and imprison
its president.  To this day, most of the air controllers who did the only
proper thing for a union member to do under the circumstances, strike,
do not have their jobs back.  This is a friend of labor?  There are many
other examples as well -- his gutting of OSHA, his appointing a corrupt
construction executive as Secretary of Labor, to name just two -- but this
contrast between his love for Polish union solidarity and his contempt
for solidarity among American trade unionists is the most striking.

Lesley Stahl did a good job of highlighting one of the contradictions of
Reagan's Central American policy when she asked how he can promise never
to send troops to El Salvador if it's so vital to American security.  
I wish he would try to send troops down there, because that could be
million here and $40 million there committee
appropriations are much more difficult to fight, although it's clear that
most Americans don't support them.  (And I have contempt for the Congressional
`liberals' who are voting this aid -- they are worse than the conservatives,
who at least admit that all they care about is American influence and don't
bother them with human rights puff.)

And the Briefing Book.  Yeah, it's fun to take a few stabs at Reagan when
he's obviously been caught with his pants down (e.g. Looks like Republicans
just can't get elected President without cheating, doesn't it?)  But I 
think the furor over this detracts from other more important issues.

For example, anyone hear Reagan mention anything about 10 million unemployed
Americans?  Nope, just that the economy is "starting to sparkle" and how good
"we" have done by reducing inflation and interest rates.  Well, everyone
always knew inflation could be reduced by increasing unemployment; no
trick there.  Works vice versa too.  Ronald Reagan was elected President
because he told us he had a way of reducing both.  He didn't.

tty3b!mjk
Mike Kelly @ Teletype-Skokie