<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10>
<BR>Lujane et. al.
<BR>
<BR>Regardless of your theory of human development and parental influence, the issue I raised dealing with political propaganda and spin over "family values" regarding Clinton and W. Bush was my main point. The discussion got side tracked with reflection regarding whether or not parents are responsible for their children's bad or good conduct. It does not matter, for the point I am making. I am certain most people DO believe parents are reflected in the good or bad conduct of their children.
<BR>
<BR>No one directly addressed the issue as presented below:
<BR>
<BR>My commentary on Shrub and Clinton was meant as critical analysis comparing attacks on the Clinton's, their lack of "family values," by the right wing Christian robot ditto heads, and how the reality of this might be reflected in Chelsea, and then doing the same with W. Bush and attacks, or the lack thereof, on his approach to "family values," that might also be reflected in his children.
<BR>
<BR>It might be concluded that Shrub gets a pass on how his "family values" are reflected given his children's behavior, whereas the Clinton's appeared to get little credit for their positive "family values" that are reflected in Chelsea.
<BR>
<BR>Do you understand what I am saying? If this analysis is wrong, tell me why!
<BR>
<BR>Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>