GOP Promises Revisited

Dennis Putnam putnamd%atlodbs1 at DRAGON.COM
Wed Sep 6 06:47:10 MDT 1995

>     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.
Except, at the time there was not other choice that would have been better.
As I said all along, I had to cast that vote without benefit of hindsite.
Even Bush was a better choice then Clinton at that point in time.
>     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.
That is playing words. Yes, I THOUGHT he would have been worse.
>     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.
True, but during much of that time there was enough liberals (including
Republicans, some of which still need to be weeded out) to override vetos.
Unfortunately it took 40 years for the Republicans to realize the real power
is in congress not the White House. If they had nationalized the congressional
races sooner I think liberalism would have been slowed. However, it really
took a Clinton to bring it down.
>     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.
You are right. The historical reference of the Reagan/Bush years is a
misnomer. Bush's economic policies where more like Clinton's then Reagan.
The correct reference should be Bush/Clinton. In anycase the real blame goes to
40 years of liberal spending and secondary blame goes to the inability or
perhaps unwillingness of conservatives to stop it. Please note I am not using
Republican/Democrat references. The Democrats have a (very) few conservatives
and the Republicans have too many liberals, yet.
>     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.
Wrong. You cannot come to that conclusion from a single data point. I was
hoping that was not what you mean as it is somewhat insulting.
>     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.
That has more to do with Clinton's hypocracy with respect to the military
then anything else. I'm not sure there is a paralell between the two
circumstances but when a war protestor and one who wrote that he 'loathes'
the military puts Americans in harms, it deserves criticism, IMO.
>     Except he didn't put them there in the first place -- Bush did.
True but he did escalate the action into nation building which Bush never
intended. That is what caused the problems.
>     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.... :)
Right, this is another debate and I don't think we would disagree here.
>     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.
I don't think throwing away your vote will accomplish anything. Obviously Dole
has to be defeated in the primaries but you my be missing an important point.
The conservatives in congress will have much more influence with Dole than
Clinton. Also, Dole is not going to govern against the will of the majority
as Clinton does. Finally, you can't possible think Dole will appoint liberals
to government positions (particularly the Supreme Court) as Clinton has. I
simply cannot see how anyone could think Dole would not be better than Clinton.
Actually, I can't even think of any Democrat leaders that would be as bad
as Clinton (either of them) with the single possible exception of Kennedy but
even there I think as president he would move more toward center than Clinton.
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