Where things stand

William Kanninen WKanninen at AOL.COM
Fri Feb 16 11:15:39 MST 1996


Responding to my feelings that 4 years of Clinton could be better in the long
term for the country than 12 years of Bush-Powell, Steve Laib wrote:

<<This is true, historically, but things may be changing.  If we have an
activist>>
<<conservative body in the legislature, it may be enough to change the
trend.>>
SNIP

<< if congress can take the lead with new strong and activist blood, we may
get the>> <<same result.>> (as we would if we had a conservative President)
<< (I guess we  >>
<<will have to wait and see>>

We had activist conservative Republicans in Congress under Eisenhower, Nixon,
Ford, and Dole, and they were in the majority during the first half of
Eisenhower's first term.  These rosey scenarios of a Republican Congress
setting all of the policies and expecting that a moderate GOP President will
not oppose them, expecting that a President of the United States, and his
entire 1000 member appointed administration leaders in the White House and
the Cabinet will be content to be political ciphers and just follow where
Congress leads ignores not only the direct evidence of what has happenned
within the GOP over nearly 50 years, but displays a conspicuous ignorance of
the entire relationship between Congress and President's of their own party
since Lincoln.  A Republican Congress will never stand against the policies
of their own President.

'Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.' -- George
Santanyana(sp.)



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list