From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:57:06 GMT

In article <92310.210742KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <40551@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
>says:
>
>>Rush is such a bad loser. He now claims victory for conservatism
>>since the democrats had to shift to the center to be elected. Well,
>>I think conservatism has lost since people didn't support Bush and
>>the ultra right wing, wacko religious right present at the
>
>"Bush and the ... right wing?"  What you call the 'ultra right wing' does
>not include Bush.  Many (including Rush, of course) would say that Bush
>lost because he -deserted- the 'wacko religious right,' as you call it.
 
  What have you (and Rush :-) been smoking?  You certainly must have
  inhaled deeply!  Besides the economy (which was certainly the number
  ONE reason Bush lost), he also lost because of exactly the OPPOSITE
  reason: the convention embraced the "wacko religious right" and Bush 
  did nothing to stop it.  Millions of people watching the Republican
  convention were horrified to realize that the right-wing had indeed
  taken over the party (represented by Buchanan/Robertson/et al).  Pete
  Wilson from California, a Republican moderate, implored and cajoled
  his California delegates to the convention to NOT try and stage a
  floor fight over the anti-abortion plank and some of the other "wacko
  religious right wing" planks.  And, against their better judgment, they
  agreed.  And how did Bush reward this loyal fellow Republican?  By
  cutting bait in California, giving it up to the Democrats and letting
  two Democratic women waltz into the Senate.  I mean, really now, 
  there is simply no way anyone looking at the facts can honestly
  suggest that Bush walked away from the religious right.  He had his
  point man Danny out there bashing poor Murphy Brown, for heaven
  sakes.  

  What's amazing is that he didn't realize that Reagan's popularity
  was DESPITE his right-wing fervor, mostly because people just LIKED
  him personally.  And Bush won in 1988 because his opponent simply
  sucked rocks when it came to running a campaign.  Bush didn't so
  much win in 1988 as Dukakis self-destructed.  But when Bush found
  himself up against a master politician (which Bush himself is
  clearly not, he may be a reasonable leader, but he is no politician),
  he and his aides simply couldn't figure out that the way to win was
  to toss the right-wing of the party on the ash heap and revert to
  what Bush was pre-1980, that is, a moderate Republican.  Of course,
  with the economy in the dumpster, its not even clear that that would
  have been enough, but there is no doubt it would have been much
  closer if Bush had waffled himself and come out pro-choice (as he
  once was), as well as backing off of his anti-gay bashing.    

>Look for a true conservative, like Kemp or Bill Bennett (or, dare I say
>it... Dan Quayle?!?) to be nominated, and win, in '96.

  Kemp or Bennett, sure, they are sharp men and at least have something
  that Dan Quayle probably couldn't even spell: convictions.  Bush on
  the other hand, may have convictions by 1996.  Criminal convictions.
  Quayle is a political hush-puppy who will, IMHO, disappear into the
  woodwork highly unlikely to ever be heard from again.  How many people
  remember William Miller?  
>
>>California is sending to female senators to Washington, one of them
>>was running against a true conservative, Hershenson. And she carried
>>the State.
>
>Hmm, I forget.  Was it 51-49 or 52-48 that Boxer won by?...
>
>She -barely- won... in a state where Clinton dominated.  What happened to the
>coattail effect?   (Ditto for Yeakel here in PA)  Seems to me that a lot
>of people who voted for Clinton must have also voted for Herschensohn.  Hmm,
>imagine that... couldn't be because Clinton convinced a lot of conservatives
>that he was one of them, could it?

  Hmmmm, 52-48 is a "bare" win but getting 51% for a Republican is a 
  mandate... interesting indeed :-)

  Jon Rosen

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh