I first encountered The Real Bob about 30 years ago when he was out stumping for Milton Shapp(Shapira) with my great-uncle Les, my grandmothers brother. Les if I recall correctly was running for the state legislature at the time on a platform of legalized everything--enough to make even the most libertine LBOer blush. Uncle Les introduced me to The Real Bob and as I recall I got to hear them both make little speeches. I couldn't help but notice that The Real Bob had on a heavy wool suit and it was a hot day. This led me to think that The Real Bob might have circulatory problems---which over the years became evident---after his much publicized surgeries.
Les in later years got religion and I'm sure he's up there in unknown politicians heaven smiling down on me as I write. The Real Bob went on to become governor of Pennsylvania; too late for poor Les who died impoverished during a Republican administration in Harrisburg. Not that Les hadn't made a lot of money in his lifetime, he just couldn't hold onto it.
A favorite cousin of mines husband, "Chainsaw Bob" in later years became The Real Bob's main man. Chainsaw Bob was always taken a back by my left-labor politics and the fact that I put credence into pronouncements of suspect organizations like the ADA. Even though I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the ADA; except for being bored to death at one or two of their dinners!
The moral of this story is don't take "any" politician seriously.
TL
"Max B. Sawicky" wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> >Actually, Gore et al. are working hard to create difficulties for
> those
> >who intend to vote for the lesser of two evils.
>
> I hope you're right, but you may be optimistic. Since serious
> arguments
> have been advanced by a significant number of leftists for compromises
> on
> the issues of women's rights in reproductive politics, death penalty,
> etc.
> in the interest of the allegedly larger good, why should they not also
> argue for compromises on the science vs. creationism issue? They may
> very
> well argue, using the same logic, that there are lots of potentially
> "economically progressive" people who are creationists. And, as a
> matter
> of fact, compromises on this issue would create far less hardships for
> the
> working class than the ones periodically suggested on left e-lists.
> Yoshie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> The point of compromise is to get something meaningful in return,
> which in my classification does not include Prince Albert. A more
> interesting case might have been the abortive candidacy of the
> ex-gov of Pennsylvania, Casey (forgot his first name), who had a
> beguiling mix of strong social spending and pro-life sentiment.
>
> Otherwise you are quite right. A concession on this issue could
> be amply rewarded by something much more important in return.
> After all, what's in question is not a national mandate to teach
> creationism, but merely a ratification of what has always been
> the case, more-or-less -- public education is locally controlled.
> In this issue, it comes down to how much trust one puts in
> popular democracy. Follow-up news reports have indicated
> that Kansas teachers are going to go right on doing whatever
> they were doing prior to this flap.
>
> The exclusion of religion from public education, by which
> I do NOT mean from science courses, has gone
> way overboard, leading to profound ignorance of it. I don't
> think this is a good thing. It certainly does not seemed to
> have restrained the popularity of religion in the nation,
> which is one of the most religious in the world, if my
> memory of statistics is correct. Only a week or two
> ago, somebody posted statistics to indicate that the
> percentage of non-believers in the U.S. was between
> 10 and 20%, with 5 or 10 in the "don't know"
> category. The rest believed that god created
> the universe -- either with a bang or over a
> zillion-year period.
>
> mbs