From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Name calling (Was: If character isn't an issue ...)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:41:32 GMT

In <9680@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, David E Joslin writes:

>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Have you noticed the clowns that supported Clinton so rabidly still haven't
                      ^^^^^^
>>heard the election's over?  They still keep up the childish namecalling like
>>a bunch of spoiled brats.  Come on children, you're supposed to be more
>>mature than that, at least discuss your objections like adults.

>I see.  Now that Clinton has won, the liberals should stand back
>and let the conservatives do all the name calling?

>But what about those of us who, although Republicans, were so disgusted
>by Pat Puke-cannon and his ilk that we voted for Clinton?  Can we be name
>callers or not?  What about those of us who are conservative without
>being followers of Pat Rawburpson and the Coercion Coalition?  What about
>those Republicans who just couldn't stomach a President Dan Quayle?  Or
>those of us who listen to Retch Lymphnode, but are not Limbots?

You mean people like me.  Houston turned my stomach...so much so that I voted
for Marrou.  I could *never* support Clinton, but the Righteous Right made me
sick.  I refused to bow to the "lesser of two evils" mentality.  I voted for
the man I wanted--not against the one I despised.  I happen to feel *very
good* about my vote, and I don't feel that it was wasted.  I voted my own
conscience.  Nominate Bill Weld, or even Jack Kemp, and I might support the
GOP again.  Until then, I'm a Libertarian.

The garbage at the convention (in my opinion) showed that the Republican
coalition fractured this year.  In the past, they were united by the Cold War.
Now that it's basically over, they can't find a common enemy.  I have been
a registered Republican since my 18th birthday, and re-registered as a Liber-
tarian the day after the Buchanan speech in Houston.

And your "I had to vote for Clinton because I couldn't take the new GOP" line
is common, and is the reason why I think the electoral college needs to be
abandoned.  The state-by-state "winner take all" nature means that the
challenger can get 50% in California and get 100% of its 54 electoral votes,
while another candidate can take 65% in Utah and get 100% of its 6 (?) votes.
Thus the overall "winner" of these two states--the one with 54 EVs--has *less*
popular votes than the candidate with 6 EVs--yet it's an "electoral landslide!"

The winner-take-all nature discourages the creation of third parties and
independent candidates.  I, for example, would love to see the Libertarian
Party taken from the anarchists and given to the more rational libertarians,
including some of the more socially progressive Republicans and fiscally
conservative Democrats.  This is a dream party to me--socially progressive
and fiscally conservative--and a dream which has virtually *zero* chance of
occurring in the current system.  For this "dream party" to ever materialize,
there needs to be a system in which people don't feel like they are "wasting
votes."  Once enough people did that, it would be like a snowball going
downhill, picking up momentum as it gains wider acceptance.

If no candidate gets a majority in November, I'd like to see a runoff of the
two leading vote-getters in early December.  I personally know many people
who are fed up with the current two parties, but are bound by the "lesser of
two evils" vote under the current system.  We could see several third parties
arise with a runoff system.  Many people wouldn't be afraid to vote for
Marrou, Phillips, Gritz and so on, knowing that they could still vote "lesser
of two evils" in December.  Heck--perhaps even a few parties could get 5%
under such a system, gaining major party status and making it easier for them
to use their money for campaigning and not just to gain ballot access.  The
current system encourages two-party voting.  Don't expect our politicians (who
are empowered by such a setup) to change this anytime soon.

>You can see why I'm confused about whether or not I am allowed to indulge
>in name calling or not.  I'm anxiously awaiting your clarification.

Do we really *enjoy* name calling?  Seems perverse to me, except as a response
to a direct attack.  I'd rather talk issues.

>David
>Anagrams:
>Presiddent Dan Quuaaiyl ==> End USA Quality and Pride.
>Rush Limbaugh Fans ==> Laugh, F------ Mush Brains!

I still think that the best one is:
  George Herbert Walker Bush ==> Huge Berserk Rebel Warthog


Tim Irvin