🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Higgins shifts his ground with all the admirable agility you'd
hope for in someone with the unenviable job of defending Dan Quayle
before this newsgroup. :-)  At first we were supposed to believe that
Dan wasn't really that dumb or uninformed after all, on the strength of
a defense policy article dealing with space issues.  Then a bunch of
responses come in pointing out that these things are ghost-written by
aides to serve the boss's constituency interests and political agenda,
and don't tell a thing about Quayle's ignorance or lack thereof.  Oh,
well, ok, <*SHIFT*> what really matters, we're now told, is that Quayle
is *responsible* for those articles appearing.  Yeah, and if he doesn't
do what we want (who's this we, white man? Aha, there's an NSS in the
signature) we can REMIND HIM OF THE ARTICLE!  Wow, *that* ought to have
heads rolling in the EOB, don't you think? :-)

In reality any politician who can't sidestep some policy article his
aides ghosted last term isn't electable material to begin with; and
dumb as Danno is, we do know he's electable.  It takes more than a soft
spot for hiring Trekkies as summer interns to be a leader in the space
program: you have to have the personal (slightly irrational) vision
that will keep your eyes riveted on the goal when other stuff intrudes;
and you need the respect of the White House.  Dan has been given this
job as a sinecure, and no matter how many articles his gophers put out
and no matter how many speeches he gives on the swiss steak circuit,
the White House will still thank him very nicely for his work and put
it on the agenda... SOMEWHERE, after the Seychelles but before the
potato treaties.  This is the sense I get at the moment.  Dan can
surprise us by exerting tons of personal initiative.  My only point is
that nothing we've seen so far hints at this.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP