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