From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:15:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202000.3122@nic.csu.net> you write:
>In article <1992Nov4.145200.17852@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafav
>e@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <Bx6C05.DE3@ns1.nodak.edu> Carl Smith, csmith@plains.NoDak.edu
>>writes:
>>>I have, all my life, and I still don't fall for the NONSENSE that spews
>>>out of the mouth of Bill Clinton.  But at this time it looks like we
>>>are stuck with him.  But there is a good side to this.  After Bill
>>>Clinton totaly screws over the country, the democrats won't get another
>>>candidate in office before I am old and gray...
>>
>>Well this is a great attitude...... Well you have two choices 1.) You can
>>continue to sit there and pout and spew doomsday predictions OR 2.)
>>You can help to make the process work by supplying your ideas and
>>talents. It's up to you.
>>
>>Norman
>Well nice hedging of the point......

  Why is this hedging?  Both the original post and your sig suggest a
  combination of sour grapes and a very naive immature view of the
  electoral process.  First, minority presidents have NOT been rare
  in the country, and indeed several significant ones have been
  elected including Nixon and Lincoln (I am NOT suggesting they are
  comparable :-)   Norm LaFave merely pointed out that one can be
  part of the problem or part of the solution.  Right now Carl seems
  to want to be part of the problem.  

  If you have studied history you know that the electoral process is
  a pendulum with the country exerting a constant influence towards
  the center.  There has rarely been a long uninterrupted period of
  rule by one party.  In this century, party rule has gone:

    12R 8D 12R 20D 8R 8D 8R 4D 12R

  The longest period of rule was the 20 years of FDR and Truman.  With
  the limit on presidential terms this is unlikely to happen again.
  This period brought us out of the Great Depression, through WWII and
  through the tough post-war period into one of the most significant
  growth periods the country ever had.

  The next three longest periods have been 12 years of Republican rule 
  each.  The first brought us to the brink of WWI.  The second period
  brought us Teapot Dome, Prohibition, the Wall Street Crash and the
  Great Depression.  The third period of long Republican rule brought
  us a trillion dollar deficit, an S&L crisis of immense proportions,
  the second Wall Street Crash and the Serious Recession.  The R's have
  not exactly been hot stuff on their watch, IMHO.  
  
  Basically, Americans have a distrust of entrenched Executive power
  (although they seem to be satisfied with entrenched Legislative power,
  why I don't truly know, except maybe it helps grease the pork barrel).
  I am personally opposed to term limits, feeling that the ballot box
  is an adequate term limit by itself.  It certainly has worked for 
  the Presidential office for the most part (only one President has
  ever been elected 3 times or more).   

>Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."

  I don't blame you or anyone.  The people voted, its time to accept their
  judgment even if you don't like it.

>Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
>we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
>this, I still don't understand how he got elected.

  This is like Rush Limbaugh's survey which showed 80% favored Bush.  So
  what?  I don't know whether "you" are gonna win in '96 anymore than
  you do.  Most of the country clearly didn't like Bush.  They voted
  him out of office.  Can't you accept that? 

>mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
>landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.

  Ummm, this is exactly what the Reagan supporters and Reagan people
  said in 1980.  And they acted on it.  It remains to be seen if 
  Clinton will do better or just the same.  Fine, I'll grant you that
  there is no so-called "mandate" for Clinton, although I don't think
  any President in recent years has had what I would consider a mandate
  (to me a mandate would be a 2:1 trouncing of the opponent showing
  that not only a majority, but a veto-proof majority supports the
  view of the candidate).  But there is almost a mandate (a 62% one
  which is very close to the 2:1 number I posted) for kicking Bush 
  out of office.  Its quite obvious how Clinton got elected.  There
  were more people voting for him than any other candidate.  True?
  Or am I reading the election results incorrectly?  That is the way
  we elect people in this country, by plurality vote (okay, in some
  cases we require a majority, but NEVER in the Presidential election
  has a majority been required of the popular vote).

  Interesting question, hope you give me an answer.  You probably think
  the electoral college is screwed up, right, and that we should have
  popular election by the people.  Well, then, do you think we should
  eliminate states and their relative independence as ensured by the
  Constitution?  It was the conservative states' rights' framers who
  advocated the use of an electoral college to ensure the protection
  of the power of the small states.  Popular vote means that a candidate
  can concentrate just on the states and even cities where the majority
  of the voters live.  The electoral college at least nominally forces
  a candidate to pay attention a little bit to every state.  In a close
  election, the electoral college can enhance a victory or can even
  turn a victory (popular) into defeat.  Most conservatives think there
  is TOO MUCH power in the central government.  Well, eliminating the
  electoral college is tantamount to saying that, for the President
  at least, the states' rights' are meaningless and that only the
  total vote count is important.  I am not so sure that's a good idea.
  Your opinion?

  Jon Rosen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush