Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Fri, Sep 11 1992 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 04:33:18 EDT Message-ID: Lines: 143 09-11 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Sept. 11-13, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Friday morning in USA TODAY: Clinton, Taxes, Neuharth. TODAY'S DEBATE - CLINTON'S SERVICE: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Bill Clinton admits he avoided military service as a graduate student in 1969 by signing up for the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. And he's admitted he was glad he wasn't drafted after he gave up that deferment on Oct. 30, 1969. Polls suggest most voters greet that history with a shrug. ... Despite Republican attempts this week to raise the issue's profile, it doesn't amount to much compared to the economy, health care or education. When President Bush tried to distinguish himself from Clinton this week by alluding to his own heroic World War II record, he missed a central point: The war and times don't match easily. World War II was the united effort of a country struggling for survival. The Vietnam War saw the nation divided on the very morality of U.S. involvement. In World War II, people rushed to enlist. In Vietnam, few of the 27 million draft-eligible males signed up to fight. ... The key question is whether Clinton lied about his actions or did something illegal. The short answer is no. Like many in similar circumstances, he had doubts about the war. Like many, he acted less than heroically, neither risking his life to fight the war nor risking his future by fighting to stop it. ... What Clinton has done, unwisely, is issue a barrage of incomplete explanations that leave his motives in doubt. His biggest equivocation may be the reason he's given for renouncing his ROTC deferment and making himself eligible for the draft in October 1969. He's said he did it because he didn't think it right to have a deferment while friends were drafted. But a Dec. 3, 1969, letter to his ROTC chief indicates Clinton decided to gamble on the Dec. 1 draft lottery, where he drew an undraftable 311, for, in his words, "one reason: to maintain my political viability." So, Clinton's guilty of being political, a character flaw of all candidates. OTHER VIEW: WILLIAM HAMILTON, a retired Army officer (two infantry tours in Vietnam) and former Nebraska GOP state executive director, now a syndicated columnist: Think what one will about JFK's military commitment to Vietnam and LBJ's fumble-footed execution of that commitment, but 8.74 million of us did not flinch when duty called. ... 58,151 were killed, 303,678 of us were wounded, more than 2,000 are still missing. Even those who didn't get a whiff of grapeshot (inhaling was optional) suffered exposure to dengue fever and malaria, suffered family separation and incredible physical discomfort. Meanwhile, from the safe comfort of Oxford, England, Bill Clinton held the ROTC department of the University of Arkansas at bay until he drew such a high draft number that any danger of going to Vietnam was over. This spring, Clinton promised proof he did not evade military service while his peers were fighting and dying on foreign soil. So, where's the proof? Better for Clinton to reaffirm he opposed the Vietnam War on moral grounds and then own up to the fact he went out of his way to evade military service. ... Instead, Clinton maintains he didn't try to avoid military service - things just worked out that way. Character and previous military experience are important in choosing a commander-in-chief. Would you rather your loved ones be ordered into combat by George Bush, who flew 58 torpedo bomber combat missions, or by someone who evaded service entirely? Remember PT 109? Would you rather follow John F. Kennedy's orders or Bill Clinton's? Politics aside, most veterans revere JFK's combat heroism. Many veterans knew Jack Kennedy, and they can tell you: Bill Clinton is no Jack Kennedy. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON PRESIDENT BUSH VETOING TAX INCREASES: MEMPHIS, Tenn., Linda Porterfield, 38, research director: I believe him. He's learned his lesson. People are fed up with high taxes. He wants to leave the White House in a good light in another four years. OMAHA, Neb., Reginald Morris, 28, multicultural dir.: Anytime in an election, they are going to do anything or say anything to help them win the election. These statements are just to win votes. Once the person wins, they fall back on the statements. I never heard him before the election talking about cutting taxes. PLAYA DEL REY, Calif., MoJo Seifi, 17, student: No. We're in a bad recession and we're going to need the money. Everybody has raised taxes, so they aren't going to go down. I earned about $900 working and taxes took about $80. They shouldn't be taxing so much kids who are starting to work. CINNAMINSON, N.J., Barbara Irvine, 47, woman's foundation director: I believe his vow but don't think eliminating tax increases as an option is a correct way to go economically. The economy is in very bad shape. We need to look at all possible options. He's pledging to bail out Florida and the wheat farmers. Where is he going to get the money? OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Robert A. Funk, 52, owner: There would be no more taxes, period, during his four years in office. He would improve the economy by increasing the capital gains for business. If he stands on the principles that he has stood on the last four years, he'll win. TOPIC - USA TODAY: Al Neuharth is the founder of USA TODAY. 1982: "USA TODAY doesn't rub off on your hands, or on your mind." - TV critic Linda Ellerbee. 1992: "The New York Times puts more information in our students' hands, but USA TODAY puts just as much in their heads." - UNC journalism research professor Phil Meyer. I confess. I loved it when media critics by the hundreds put down our baby USA TODAY when it was born 10 years ago next week. McPaper. Fast food of journalism. Full of "bits and shits," they sneered. Criticism was vicious and malicious. But it put us in the public eye. We got millions of dollars worth of free ... publicity from those who pounced on us. Without it, we probably would have been stillborn. Instead, people wanted to see this newborn kid that was being denounced as a demon. Most liked what they saw. ... Now, many of those critics are singing mea culpa. I confess. I don't like that nearly as much. It's not really helpful. And not nearly as much fun. If we're big boys and girls with thick skins, we learn much more from criticism than from compliments. USA TODAY Senior Editor Taylor Buckley put it in perspective for some of our thin-skinned co-workers back then when he said: "They call us McPaper. But they're stealing our McNuggets." ... For the latest measuring period, these are average daily paid circulation figures for the top five: USA TODAY - 1,921,000; The Wall Street Journal - 1,853,000; The New York Times - 1,212,000; Los Angeles Times - 1,173,000; The Washington Post - 849,000. What a difference 10 years has made. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM