From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: GOP to dump Bush, nominate Kemp !!!
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:13:10 GMT

Care to join the Draft Kemp '92 movement?
Send me e-mail. 

In article <l7g411INNoj1@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <Bs7EwC.Ms8@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul29.191823.20305@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>|> >|> What *will* happen is the GOP will see Bush's numbers in two weeks.
>|> >|> His still *way* behind. They know he will lose.  They need a candidate
>|> >|> who has charisma and credibility on domestic problems
>|> 
>|>    I'd sooner vote for Kemp than Bush, I think he has a lot more on
>|>    the ball.   In recent elections I haven't voted for any GOP can-
>|>    didates, pretty much dividing my choices between Libertarian and
>|>    Democratic candidates, (which just goes to prove that the Nolan
>|>    chart, and conventional ideas of the political spectrum are pure
>|>    bullshit) or protest write-ins.  But Kemp on the ballot might change
>|>    that.  (on the other hand it might not; I like what I know about him, 
>|>    but there's lots I don't know).

He has been the real brains behind the best of the GOP's ideas in the last
two decades.

>I don't think that Kemp will win either. But I DO believe that he will
>really energize the GOP faithful, might up the %-age of blacks who vote
>Republican, NOT draw the party's Senate, Gubernatorial and Congressional
>candidates down, and make a real fight of it.

Given that an unknown like Perot vaulted to 30% ratings, based on a series
of talk shows ... I think Kemp could win, because he will have a credible
and positive message about really getting the economy on track.

More than that: I would say Kemp could win *easily*, because
his can-do attitude and willingness to bring in new ideas would
bring many of the Perot supporters to him - Perot supporters
that are now going for "change" in Clinton.

>|>    On the other hand, what would be the reaction of the general electorate
>|>    to a "back room deal" such as this?   The whole concept of having a
>|>    primary is that the voters get some input into the process.   They 
>|>    might reject such a last-minute change as undemocratic. 
>
>Not really. It is pretty obvious that most people who voted for Bush voted
>more out of loyalty and the lack of a serious alternative (Pat Buchanan isn't
>really a credible alternative).

I'm definitely in that category. I voted for Bush in the primary,
because Buchanan was not a credible candidate. I was I guess a "loyal"
GOPer.  But the (undeclared, nonrunning) person who I believe can best
lead this country at this time is Jack Kemp.

Kemp has shown time and again to have vision, energy, and a true
concern for the problems we are facing in this country.
If we want to rebuild America, he is far and away the best person
for the job.

>The figure was something like 62% for BOTH
>Bush and Clinton for the number of people who would have rather voted for
>someone else. The figure has receded significantly for Clinton, but I suspect
>that the same is not true for Bush.
>
>|> 
>|>    A Clinton win over Bush is NOT a given at this point.  Clinton has a
>|>    lot of serious weaknesses, including a well-deserved reputation for
>|>    "slickness" and a truly DISMAL economic and environmental record
>|>    in Arkansas.
>
>And Bush? His record is no better. And everyday a -ve economic report only
>cements the impression (2nd quarter growth was only 1.4% annualized).

Clinton is too good a campaigner to let victory slip away.
He can win a war of attrition on sleaze - just look at the way
he felled Tsongas.

>|>    If Bush would get his campaign into gear, exploit Clinton's record,
>|>    and if he would act like someone who actually has *convictions* about
>|>    *something* he could still win this election. 

Well, Bush and Clinton may *act* like they have convictions, I'd
prefer someone who actually *has* convictions.
We don't need slicksters, we need leaders.

Bush has had several chances over the last year, and it has
been a paining experience to see him fumble it.
I say when your down 3 touchdowns, you've got to do one more thing
for the gipper: bow out gracefully, and let QB Kemp take over.
(Apologies for the football analogy.)

>He would if he could. But then there's that record that his opponent will
>keep bringing up, his numerous flip-flops on serious domestic issues, his
>virtual invisibility on any serious domestic initiatives, his virtual
>inability to articulate a full sentence answer to any question AND the fact
>that his opponent seems serious, credible AND articulate. Clinton is no Dukakis, 

I don't think Clinton is credible, but he is willing to meaninglessly
chant "read my lips" to fuzz that issue. Again, he'll win the war
of sleaze if he needs to.

>as was revealed yesterday when his campaign retaliated promptly to a
>Bush-Quayle '92 press release highlighting Clinton's flip-flops with a 
>release of their own highlighting Bush's own flip-flops. Bush probably won't
>lose by 20 points like he is trailing now, but he could well lose by about
>10 points, in no less of a landslide in the electoral college.

Hmmm, I had been thinking it would be close race, but day by day,
it looks worse for Bush. 10 points could be right.

Why not a *real* change, instead of a Carter retread or Bush II?
Why not someone who really does have vision and concern for
our domestic problems, instead of the status-quo alternatives
of Clinton, who will continue the failed policies of the sitting
Democratic Congressional leadership, and Bush, whose election will
probably leave us with continued gridlock on the domestic front?

We can do better with Jack Kemp.
----------
P. McGuinness		Kemp '92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections