From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: a prophecy come to pass . . . maybe
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:05:22 GMT

In article <2AF89FC8.7156@news.service.uci.edu>
   cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>Maybe it has . . .
>
>I just heard on the news that Perot and his group of hangers-on (I'm not
>crazy about the guy, but I like him fine) are pondering perhaps forming
>their own party.
>
>Looks like the schism may have come to pass; TMM has been predicting this
>along political lines for a while now, and you guys have stated it along
>religious lines.  The two appear to have met nicely.  If Perot starts
>his own party and it catches on (as all signs appear to indicate), the
>Republicans will be left to the fundie-anti-everything crowd, and the
>moderate conservatives will go for Perot.  
>
>Religion and politics are rarely if ever separate; if this comes to
>pass, it will amount to the religious schism you peepuhlz have been
>predicting, I'm sure of it.
>
>Blessings, huh?
>Janis  

One of the things we all forgot about George Bush was that he started out
as a moderate, and began embracing the ultra-right as their power grew.
Remember also that the Republicans, while not holding a majority in
Congress, still hold a large number of seats, and that there is still a
growing conservative (I chose that word deliberately) movement in this 
country. The rabid right have proven their unwillingness to work within
the Republican party, as evidenced by the Republican platform of this
campaign. Rather than assume that the moderates will all go to Perot
(who IMHO is not a viable candidate), look to '94 and '96 to see people
like Quayle, Buchanan and Robertson break off on their own schism, while
more moderate Republicans like Kemp (!) push into the primaries with
much broader support. It is in the best interests of the party to see 
this happen. The message of this campaign for the mainstream Republicans
would seem to be that they were hurt more than helped by the imposition
of the rabid right.

As for Perot, I would hope that a sane government would legislate against
people buying their way into office, as this guy tried to do. While much
of his message makes perfect sense (deficit reduction, jobs, etc.), I 
fail to see how he could possibly implement his programs unilaterally,
short of creating an unchecked executive branch. This bullshit of him
being "an employee of the people" only feeds his ego, not reality. He
demonstrated very clearly that he doesn't listen to anybody, not even
his own advisors. A consensus of one is not a consensus, it's a dictator-
ship.

As for Clinton, we all better be willing to see the austerity measures
(if fairly implemented) that are necessary as part of a recovery process,
otherwise it'll just be another Republican administration in four years.

BTW, on the issue of trust, exit polls after the election showed that
people trusted *Bush* less than Clinton (as regards "character"), and 
were more worried with Clinton's spending plans than his past.

And on that issue, I really doubt it possible that Clinton could spend
MORE money than Reagan/Bush, who were the biggest spenders in our history.

Murray
  
-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."