Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxp!esac
From: esac@ihuxp.UUCP (Bill Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Race, Jackson, Reagan and Goodman
Message-ID: <585@ihuxp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jan-84 14:07:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxp.585
Posted: Thu Jan 12 14:07:11 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jan-84 07:06:24 EST
References: <799@ihuxm.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 35

I think Mr. Roger's original remark was racist, perhaps unintentionally.

I also agree that Jackson is to be congratulated for getting something
accomplished that Reagan probably couldn't have.  The Syrians wouldn't
have returned Goodman directly to the US without a "quid pro quo", one
that the US would have been reluctant to give.

The Syrians got their "quid pro quo" through Rev. Jackson, i.e. a lowly
American citizen and political enemy of the administration accomplished
what the great and powerful US government could not.

Jackson's action was humanitarian in outcome, regardless of what his
personal motives were.

Reagan's lack of belicosity is quite explainable in this matter.  A US
pilot was shot down and captured over "enemy" territory.  The Syrians
had no requirement to return Goodman except as a humanitarian act.
Reagan acted as any sitting president would under these conditions.  He
let the sensitive diplomatic discussions proceed with as little fanfare
as possible.  Reagan or anyone else acting as a candidate is under different
constraints than a president in power.

In other words, Candidate XYZ can say things the President XYZ should not.

By the way, I think it would have been equally racist to suggest that 
Jackson would have stayed home had Goodman been white.

Enough for now........
-- 



               Bill Adams     ==>  AT&T Communications  <==
               ihnp4!ihuxp!esac
               (312) 979-6267