GOP Promises Revisited

Dennis Putnam putnamd%atlodbs1 at DRAGON.COM
Tue Sep 5 09:09:11 MDT 1995

>       I didn't say anything of the sort. You said that you took broken
> promises into high regard, when you step into the voting booth. I asked
> you what effect the broken promises I cited had, or would have, in your
> voting. In your reply, I find:
I guess I thought you were implying it by the way you worded the statements.
>       You voted for Mr. Bush, a man who broke a direct promise not to
> allow new taxes, & the man who signed the first nation-wide ban on semi-
> automatic firearms. Obviously, his promise not to raise taxes -- not to
> mention his betrayal of gun owners everywhere -- didn't play a big part
> in your decision. You say you held your nose, you say you weren't happy,
> but the bottom line is you voted for the man.
Well, we all make mistakes. In any case, I knew Clinton would have been worse
so it wasn't an endorsement of Bush as much as a defensive vote against
Clinton. Again, 20/20 hindsite, Clinton was the best thing that has happened
for conservatism. He singlehandledly has defeated 40 years of distructive
>       But, of course, since no-one knew about it until late in Mr.
> Reagan's second administration, you didn't have to worry about whether
> or not to vote for him again, after he broke that major promise.
>       I assume you voted for Mr. Bush in '88?
Since I already made one mistake interpreting your implications I will only
respond to this with the question: What are you implying?
Your assumption is correct. Again, what are you implying?
> >I'm not a Calfornian thus Wilson is a non-issue.
>       Ah, but what if he becomes the VP-nominee in a Dole-Wilson tic-
> ket? What then, Dennis?
>       That's my point.
I can't answer because I really don't enough about him. Dole-Wilson? I would
have trouble getting past Dole, let along considering Wilson. If '96 turns
out to be Clinton/Dole it will be a 'hold-your-nose' vote again regardless
of who Dole's running mate is (also assuming no viable 3rd party runner).
There are very few potential candidates that I can think of that would be
worse then Clinton (Hillary comes to mind, but thats it).
>       I understand your point... & you're probably right, too. But I
> think you can understand the serious double-take I did when I read this,
> & the near-spasms of laughter.
>       I guess that, going by your logic, I voted for the right guy in
> '92, after all! :)
That you did, but without realizing the real effect it would have. :)
Dennis Putnam, Manager
Technical Planning and Services
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
Opinions expressed are mine and should not be viewed as an official positon of
Hayes or its management.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list