From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:15:20 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1992Aug16.041711.26909@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <36875@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:
>}
>}Has Herschensohn actually said he wants *more* defense spending?  As I
>}understand it, he just wants to keep the levels the same.  He opposes
>}the radical cuts proposed by the more "dovish" Dems.

>My libertarian understanding is that he does indeed favor greater defense
>spending.  Lets face it, our military must be deregulated and privatized in
>order for us to have a strong, effective defense.  The cost would come WAY
>down if this were done.

I'm not disputing your claim about costs and privatization, but why do
you feel that our defense is not currently effective?

And isn't the Libertarian position that defense is one of the few
responsibilities of government (as provided for in the Constitution)?

>}Most of Herschensohn's views are compatible with the suburban voters
>}he's counting on to put him over the top, particularly Orange and San
>}Diego Counties, as well as the Inland Empire.  This is how he won the
>}primary, and this is how he hopes to win the general election.  I
>}consider Herschensohn the second-best candidate of all the Republicans
>}running (for either seat) in the primary.  Media-unknown Bill Allen
>}(eek!  another black conservative) was tops.

>Not really.  How many suburbanites want to abolish the Department of Education,
>FDA, EPA, and many of the rest of the alphabet soup of Federal agencies?  They
>may buy it if it's sold right, but it's not at the top of the agenda of many.
>Moreover, Herschenson's fiscally conservative, but terrible socially.  Put
>aside the abortion issue, which most suburbanites are pro-choice on: he's
>a flaming drug warrior, while most suburbanites value their privacy, liberty,
>and even their property!  They don't want to live in a world where their
>neighbors can have their house seized by making a false anonymous tip that
>they're in possession of drugs!

Reagan also wanted to abolish the DOE, both of them, and he drew the
suburban vote.  Reagan was also pro-life and he drew the suburban
vote.  Reagan was anti-drug and he drew the suburban vote (do we see a
trend here?).  Herschensohn is merely targeting the same suburban
voters that voted overwhelmingly for Reagan in '80 and '84.

And suburbanites aren't as socially liberal as you make them out to
be.  They are anti-porn, anti-drug, tough on crime.  They are opposed
to the increasing trend of schools to usurp the powers of parents.

>}for Seymour (why does everybody misspell this name?  not a flame,
>}just an observation), he was using his absence of name recognition to
>}his advantage in the primary.  This whole campaign has been portrayed
>}as "Who is the outsider?"  Because Seymour is not well-known as the
>}incumbent, he "out-outsided" Dannemeyer, the known congressman.  And
>}of course, Seymour was treated to all the rewards of incumbency by
>}state and national party leaders even though he was never elected to
>}the post.  The GOP would have been better suited to sit out the
>}primary as they do when the seat is either empty or held by a Dem.

>Don't forget Dannemeyer's intolerance, either!  Sheesh!  Why do so many
>conservatives only value economic freedom to the exclusion of personal?
>They'r not mutually exclusive!

Who said anything about Dannemeyer?  I'm just saying that the GOP
should not have granted Seymour the privileges of incumbency, that is
the war chest of funds, since he was not approved by the voters.

And conservative v. moderate, aside, the media portrays this election
year as the "Year of the Outsider".  Seymour used his "invisibility"
to his advantage.  And the fact of the matter, is that given a two-man
race, Seymour, the former state senator, vs. Dannemeyer, the
multi-term congressman, Seymour probably does edge out Dannemeyer for
title of "outsider".

But, it wasn't a two-man race, it was a four-man race.  And then the
"outsider gradient" is:  Jim Trinity, dentist; Allen, US Civil Rights
Commissioner, but never held elective office; Seymour; Dannemeyer.
However, Trinity and Allen were largely ignored by the press, so the
mantle fell on Seymour, more or less by default.

>}"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
>}    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
>}      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider

>Pheh.  If you want to elect a fiscally conservative outsider who isn't a
>social disaster, then you should be working for the campaign of the Libertarian
>running in this race, June Genis.

Sorry, some of us don't believe that pro-life is a social disaster.
Remember Ron Paul?

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3601 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4455