From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: If character isn't an issue ...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:12:36 GMT

In <1e64trINNeka@spool.mu.edu>, Marc Rassbach writes:

>In article <Bxqsoo.Cy8@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) write
>>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.

>Reminds me of the clowns that are making excuses about how BAD Clinton
>is going to be.  Like, "He didn't have a mandate."  or "If the
>Republicans had run a REAL conservative."  or  other such tripe.

Well, Clinton *didn't* have a mandate, but he's still president-elect, isn't
he?  That should be enough.  The Constitution only requires a majority of
electoral votes, and he got that.  It's not a perfect system (I'll elaborate
later), but it's our current law and that's all that matters.

And as far as the "REAL conservative," that's open for debate.  What is a REAL
conservative, and who judges?  *My* definition of "conservative," for example,
is from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party and is perhaps better
called "Preservationist."  We seek to preserve the spirit of the Constitution.
We don't fight progress, but we would like to see the Constitution upheld along
the way.  Too many federal programs don't do that.

To me, REAL conservatives don't preach messages of intolerance.  REAL cons *do*
speak of hope and prosperity for all while advocating free markets and lower
taxes.  Of these, I feel that Jack Kemp is probably the best example of true
conservatism today.  He advocates lower taxes, less government intervention,
hope for the inner cities (though some of his urban renewal proposals have been
more progressive than conservative) and encourages all people to succeed.  I
haven't ever heard Kemp say anything disparaging about alternative lifestyles
like I heard from the Buchanan-Robertson camp in Houston.

That's my $.02 on conservatism.  But then again, I'm a Bill Weld-style
Republican--the kind that the Libertarian Party has been picking up since the
speeches of right wing intolerance in Houston.

And now about the electoral college:  I think it sucks.  I don't think anyone
should be president with less than 50% of the popular vote.  I believe that
the top two vote-getters should have a runoff in early December.  The current
system can award the presidency to candidates who don't have a majority, and
has even awarded the presidency to candidates without a *plurality*!  The
current system discourages third party voting, too.  I knew many people who
would have voted for Marrou except that they feared Clinton.  So they would
vote for Bush instead.  If a runoff system were held, these people could have
voted for Marrou in November, without hurting Bush in December.  If Clinton
got 50% + 1 anyway, then the vote was meaningless either way.  A runoff would
allow third party supporters to excape the "lesser of two evils" mentality
and vote their desires rather than against their fears.


Tim Irvin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh