From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:03:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.010922.11400@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>(W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>>>
>>>Bush/Quayle
>>>Seymour/Herschensohn
>>>
>>>So there.
>>>
>>
>>     Weren't the election results great.  The old-fashioned, social intrusive,
>>hyprocritical pro-life Republicans lost.
>
>Okay...clarify something for me...(if you can do it politely, that is...) As
>I understood things, it was James Baker III, not Bush that apporved the keynote
>speaker for the convention. If this is the case, why is the hate and bilge
>spewed by that *idiot* being laid at Bush's feet? 
>

     I will attempt to reply politely, although that is a bit difficult. :)

     I am not sure who approved the speakers, but I believe that the 
Republican National Committee did.  For this response, I will take your
assumption that Baker approved the keynote speaker.  If one delegates
work, then the delegator is ultimately responsible for that work.  Because
Bush delegated the work of approving the keynote speaker to Baker, Bush is
ultimately responsible for the keynote speaker approval.  Therefore,
the hate and bilge is laid at Bush's feet.  As I recall, the whole convention
was dominated by people's speeches about "family values", gay-bashing,
women directed to stay at home, fundamentalist Christian values,
abortion-bashing, etc.  I think that Bush had a lot to do with it.

     In the San Jose Mercury News, today, Sunday, Nov. 8, there was a
story about Bush taking blame for his defeat.  Part of the story said,
"Seeing how Republicans have begun pummeling each other over who was to
blame for for the president's defeat, Bush sought to snuff out the 
intraparty warfare.  'I captained the team, and I take full
responsibility for the loss,' he said.  'No one else is responsible.
I am responsible.'"

>It's distressing that people can't differentiate between one person and the 
>group as a whole. It is even more distressing that Republicans for Choice
>and other such groups within the party as well as Bush himself didn't speak
>out against such extremist views. Had he, he might have been returned to 
>office. 

     As I recall, the far right wing of the party muzzled any attempt
of pro-choicers to bring the the abortion issue to the floor.  If the
party would just respect the privacy and freedom of individuals, and
put forth a credible deficit reduction plan, then Bush may have been
elected.  Since the party did not, you saw what happened.  By the
way, I am not defending Clinton at all on his so-called deficit reduction
plan.

>
>As for the senate critters, I take comfort in the fact that I will be able to
>vote against Feinstein again in just two years. We'll see who crows then, eh?
>

     We shall see what happens.

>  Tyger
>Republicans for Choice, Santa Clara
>
>>       /  Voting For: Perot, Boxer, Feinstein, 161 (Dr. Assisted Death) /
>>      /  Voting Against: 164 (Term Limits), 165, 166                   /
>> /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
>
>Well, we seem to agree on the measures anyway...:)
>

     Good. :)

-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+