From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A program for Republicans (was Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party)
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:06:47 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

In article <1992Nov12.212533.20126@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>Please do not confuse the Right Wing with the Religious Right. There
>are many conservatives who either are not part of the RR, or only
>share some opinions with them. I believe that Bush shows that the moderates
>are a disaster... they are still treated as far right by the left,
>and end up standing for nothing. The Republican party needs the conservatives
>to take control. Conservatives can be for (not in any particular order):
>  -cost/benefit analysis and good science applied to government regulations
>  - especially environmental policy

Is that de-regulation or re-regulution ?
And then, how do you weight the benefit of a 'Owl' over jobs.  Forests
over deforestation?  Cleaner air over bigger automobiles?

>  -anti-special priviledges for groups (gay rights, radical feminists,
>   affirmative actions programs, etc)

If it was just anti-special priviledges it would be alright.  However
I got the distinct impression that the RR was anti-anything that does
not fit into their Idea of "family values", and "Christian fundament-
alism".

>  -civil rights (not racial priviledge)

Reverse discrimination?

>  -ending the anti-religious bias of modern government without forcing
>   religion on anyone

Modern government is not anti-religious.  Seperation of church and
state still applies.

>  -MODERATE abortion restrictions (waiting periods, parental notification,
>     3rd trimester prohibition)

I've heard nothing about *moderate* abortion restrictions.  Just
anti-abortion rhetoric.  And because of this, I think that
any attempt to restrict abortion is a prelude to a total ban on
a womens right to choose.


>
>I think that this set of positions is electable, and is morally and
>politically defensible. Furthermore, it is very close to the religious
>right, except that it:

I see relatively nothing different here from the GOP party platform.

>  -recognizes reasonable (and majority, by many polls) restrictions on
>   abortion, rather than prohibitting it entirely.

San Diego, a onetime republican bastion conducted a poll and the 
majority was in favor of choice.  Poll conducted by the San Diego
Union.  An ardent supporter of Bush.  Most anti-abortion polls
are taken at churches, or present the question in an incorrect
manner, like "do you favor murdering beautiful little children"
(example only).  When given the question in a reasonable manner like,
do you favor a womans right to choose etc....the polls show that
the majority favors choice.  

>
>Conservatives will have to recognize, however, that the free market doesn't
>work in all cases because some "markets" do not have the required 
>characteristics. The best example of this is in health care, where government
>intervention will be required in order to guarantee a minimum level of
>health care to all citizens, without bankrupting anyone. Opposition to
>good health care reform will lose elections. Bush had a reasonable program,
>but failed to promote it adequately.
A tax credits doesn't do anything for poor people.  You can't give
a tax credit to somebody who doesn't earn the income.  We already
have a health care tax credit system, your medical expenses must 
be above 2% of your AGI.  Nice health care system huh?

>I also believe that big business should NOT be supported by conservatives.
>Big business has been no friend of conservatives (look at who they contribute
>the most funds to - democrats) and furthermore often operate in manners
>more like government bureaucracies than competitive organizations (look
>at general motors). This is likely due to the fact that widely held
>businesses (with no major stockholders) are run for the benefit of
>the executives, rather than for the stockholders.

You should have voted for H.Ross Perot.

>Conservatives should be for small business, and for entrepeneurs.

Nobody is for small businesses.  I own a small business and I tell
you, not very many government agencies are out there rooting for me.
They are just there to collect money and make sure I pay on time.

>Another thing we all have to realize is that the world is going through
>a transformation from manufacturing to service (because once manufacturing
>gets efficient enough, it doesn't need much labor). 

Then build more "efficient manufacturing industries.  They are the 
highest paying jobs and therfore create the largest tax base.

>That means that policies to support manufacturing
>(ie, industrial policy) is not only not conservative,
>but it is also doomed by the laws of economics to failure!

A confusing statment, yes some policies have been a failure.  But
I think the Japaneses Business, Governent relationship shows that
it can be VERY positive.

Working counter at Mc Donalds is a service industry job.  Being
a Janitor is a service Industry job.  Thanks but no thanks, I
would rather manufacturing be our mainstay, and with the growing
global economy (opening of eastern European markets) where do you
think the most money will be made to support our "service industries"?

>I would also add the decriminalization of victimless crimes:
>  -end laws about deviant sexuality unless that sexuality causes harm
>   (pedophilia, rape, etc)
>  -legalize prostitution, but regulate it for public health reasons
>  -legalize all illegal drugs, but regulate the dispensation
>  -legalize gambling

Strange.....I agree with you.

>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
>idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh