From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: a prophecy come to pass . . . maybe
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:48:30 GMT
	<1992Nov6.090522.19926@csus.edu>
Organization: where_dey_at where_dey_at where_dey_at

In article <1992Nov6.090522.19926@csus.edu> 
altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>One of the things we all forgot about George Bush was that he started out
>as a moderate, and began embracing the ultra-right as their power grew.

He never was much of an ideolog. He was a beureaucrat, the pay is great, the
benifits package is the best and the retirement package is unbeatable.

>Remember also that the Republicans, while not holding a majority in
>Congress, still hold a large number of seats, and that there is still a
>growing conservative (I chose that word deliberately) movement in this 
>country. The rabid right have proven their unwillingness to work within
>the Republican party, as evidenced by the Republican platform of this
>campaign. 

I would say they (Robertson et al) have proven their *willingness* to work
within the Republican party and make it their own. Probably not what you
meant.

>Rather than assume that the moderates will all go to Perot
>(who IMHO is not a viable candidate), look to '94 and '96 to see people
>like Quayle, Buchanan and Robertson break off on their own schism, while
>more moderate Republicans like Kemp (!) push into the primaries with
>much broader support. It is in the best interests of the party to see 
>this happen. The message of this campaign for the mainstream Republicans
>would seem to be that they were hurt more than helped by the imposition
>of the rabid right.

Of course, this is not the message the Robertson republicans see. Robertson
all but controls the party at this point and he has rather loyal followers.
Kemp will probably have to start his own party, perhaps the Lincoln-
Republicans.

>As for Perot, I would hope that a sane government would legislate against
>people buying their way into office, as this guy tried to do.

Hmm, well you know what they say, "US government, the best that money can buy."

>While much
>of his message makes perfect sense (deficit reduction, jobs, etc.), I 
>fail to see how he could possibly implement his programs unilaterally,
>short of creating an unchecked executive branch.

He is not an outsider in the sense of working with government, after all
he built his fortune from government work, some have called him the first
welfare billionaire. And they say welfare doesn't work. Perot comes from the
class that is refered to in the south as cheap white trash, ie bottom income.

>This bullshit of him
>being "an employee of the people" only feeds his ego, not reality.

Well, let's see, he was the employee of the voluteers, well that was until
he started paying them. Hmm. He certainly is egotistical though, but I
believe similar things were said of Pres. Johnson. Maybe it's the Texas style.

>He
>demonstrated very clearly that he doesn't listen to anybody, not even
>his own advisors. A consensus of one is not a consensus, it's a dictator-
>ship.

True, he is a leader in the sense of a war leader. Certainly not a consensus
leader, wars are seldom fought on consensus. Then again, is war democratic?

>As for Clinton, we all better be willing to see the austerity measures
>(if fairly implemented) that are necessary as part of a recovery process,
>otherwise it'll just be another Republican administration in four years.

I doubt we'll see much austerity measure, unless Clinton metamorphesizes
into a R.Kennedy or something. We should know within six months whether
Clinton intends to make change or just serve two terms and retire. Note that
he started as a reformer as Governor but "learned" the trade when he got
voted out and later came back as a changed "keep everybody happy" man. None
the less, I think he's got R.Kennedy potential, but we'll just have to see
what happens.

>BTW, on the issue of trust, exit polls after the election showed that
>people trusted *Bush* less than Clinton (as regards "character"), and 
>were more worried with Clinton's spending plans than his past.
>And on that issue, I really doubt it possible that Clinton could spend
>MORE money than Reagan/Bush, who were the biggest spenders in our history.

I think more than likely Clinton *will* spend more than any other president
in history, not so much due to his actions, but because of the expanding
government budget. The fundamental problems are, uncontrolled growth of the
federal budget, shrinking revenues, expanding deficit causing expanding
interest payments from the total debt, expanding debt. It's not a pretty
picture. I think one day most of us will realize that Tsongas was right.