Why George W. Bush??

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Fri Jul 2 22:13:46 MDT 1999


At 07:32 PM 7/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>At 12:44 AM 7/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Because Polls don't mean squat.
>>
>>Bush will be the reason I will vote third party.
>>
>
>Why don't you kick him out in the primary instead?

        Allegedly (and this comes from a rather reliable source) that G.W. is
fulfilling a "deal" that his pop brokered in 1992. The essences of it was
"take a dive in this election and get your progeny to succeed Clinton in
2000." FWIW....

> It takes a lot less time to reform an exsiting party then to start a new
one. > You may be willing to give the Whitehouse to the left for another
couple of
>decades while working to start a new party but I am not. Once again we
>are avoiding reality. Bush (assuming he wins the nomination) is
>unarguably to the right of Gore or Bradley.

        Depends on what you ask him and when........

> Agreed he is to the left of Forbes, Buchanan, Keyes, et. al. but what >
legislation do you think Gore will veto from the Republicans in congress
and > what legislation do you think Bush will veto? Should the Dems regain
the > majority the same question is repeated.

        Let's simply look to what Clinton was able to get from the so-called
"majority party"........folks, it's not a death sentence to a Democrat
President to get a legislature full of right-wingers. The DNC is poised to
cleverly spin to get whatever they want while we sit on our hands, afraid
to object.

>On the other hand let's assume a third pary candidate does get elected
>by some miracle. What kind of cooperation do you think he will get
>from Republicans and Democrats in congress trying to save their sorry
>asses?

        That's worth some contemplation.......

> Neither side will cooperate to any great extent because their
>mission will be to make that president completely impotent so the
>voters will restore the status quo in the next election. The way you
>have to build a third party is NOT to elect to the Whitehouse first
>but rather to get a significant number in congress THEN put one in the
>Whitehouse.

        The year was 1849 and the Whigs had met their demise. An upstart party of
elephants quickly filled the void and before you could wind your watch,
they ran one young attorney, Abraham Lincoln, for the White House. Dennis,
I know where you're coming from, but 'taint necessarily so!


JAQ



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list