GOP Promises Revisited

Bruce Norbeck madtom at IX.NETCOM.COM
Tue Sep 5 19:56:04 MDT 1995


>Well, we all make mistakes.
 
    You knew George Bush had done these things I mentioned -- so voting
for him was not a mistake. You made the choice to vote for what you de-
cided was the lesser of two evils. That's a calculated decision. As it
turns out, I think voting for either one of them was a bad decision; I
voted for Clinton, in the belief that he really WAS a different sort of
Democrat. Obviously, I was wrong -- & if I'd thought about it, I'd have
know from the get-go that I was wrong.
    However, under no circumstances would I have voted for George Bush,
nor will I ever. I just wish I'd know more about the various other can-
didates in the race; I might have chosen differently, if I had.
 
>In any case, I knew Clinton would have been worse
 
    No, you thought he'd have been worse. Had you known, you would not
be saying that he's the best thing to happen to conservatism.
 
>Again, 20/20 hindsite, Clinton was the best thing that has happened
>for conservatism. He singlehandledly has defeated 40 years of
>distructive liberalism.
 
    Something Reagan & Bush couldn't do. I also find it interesting
that, in those 40 years of failed liberalism, we find that the majority
of the Presidents were Republicans, who apparently saw fit not to exer-
cise their veto pens.
    So far as those GOP PResidents are concerned, you obviously can't
blame them for what happened -- politics took it's toll, as it always
will. By the same token, you cannot possibly blame what's happened in
this country since 1992 solely on Clinton; unless you wish to do the
same to all those other Presidents since 1955. Lemmee see, we had Eis-
enhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, & finally
the Bill-thing. That's 9 Presidents since 1955, 5 Republicans, 4 Demo-
crats. Since 1970, we've had 6 Presidents, 4 of which were Republicans.
    They can begin taking their share of the blame, instead of reaping
political points by blaming it all on the Democrats.
 
>>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?
 
    I'm implying that your taking broken promises into major account
only seems to be applicable to Democrats -- that you apply no such
standard to Republicans.
    I would vote for Reagan again -- I voted for him in '84 -- but it
wouldn't be because I've forgiven him for the Iran-Contra scandal, or
for sending those Marines into Beirut -- I'd vote for him again, be-
cause he's a leader who commands respect.
    BTW -- curious, that 19 Rangers get killed, in combat in Somalia,
& the Right Wing immediately begins taking shots at the President who
"sold us out to the U.N.". 273 U.S. Marines were murdered in their bar-
racks by Iranian terrorists in 1982, but I don't recall a peep of pro-
test from the Republican stalwarts. They were on a U.N. peacekeeping
mission, & President Reagan ensured that all Americans joined him in
paying tribute to our dead soldiers. When those 19 Rangers got killed
in Somalia, I didn't see a lot of GOP-sters joining with Clinton to
honor them -- I saw a lot of GOP-sters lining up to blast him for put-
ting them there in the first place.
    Except he didn't put them there in the first place -- Bush did.
    Now, not only did the Reagan administration send the Marines into
Lebanon virtually unarmed (the gate-guards at the compound had no bul-
lets for their rifles!), they then turned around & sold weapons to the
same terrorists who murdered those Marines. I don't blame Reagan for
that fiasco -- I blame him for not running a tighter ship, effectively
allowing his subordinates to do what they wished. Those responsible for
selling weapons to the Iranians should, IMHO, have been tried for trea-
son. Oliver North was guilty of not blowing the whistle, as he should
have done. If he was guilty of actively aiding the conspirators, then I
withdraw any further endorsement of the man.
    But, I digress.... :)
 
>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 don't think Bob Dole would be any worse than Clinton. But I don't
think he'd be any better, either.
    Not that it matters to me. I refuse to vote for either one of them.
 
regards,
bruce
madtom at ix.netcom.com
Libertarian, pagan, pot-smoker, patriot -- DON'T TREAD ON ME!



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list