From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Extremism is a healthy thing
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:14:54 GMT

In article <116@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey Iii) writes:
>>The point is, in this country of special interests and a
>>liberal controlled media, anyone expressing a message with a
>>conservative tone will be labeled an extremist.
>
>That doesn't mean that there are no extremists among
>conservatives.  It just means that mainstream conservatives
>(like myself) are sometimes unfairly lumped together with
>the extremists (like you).

Well, the point is, "moderate" (aka mushy) conservatives won't have
much power anymore in conservatism. 

You're outnumbered in the Republican Party in the elected officials
ranks, in the party representation ranks, and in the activist ranks.
And seeing how badly John Seymour did in Liberal California and how
he, the pro-choice Republican, got less votes than Bruce Herschenson,
the pro-life Republican (note: both lost), I wouldn't say you have a
majority in the voter ranks, either.

They say the moderate Republicans suffered the worst losses, but I
want to see more of the election results before I get into that. 

And then there's PACKWOOD. We could see him go bye-bye if the Oregon
Voters ignore the media and treat him the same way the Women of
America were treating Clarence Thomas, on sexual harassment.


>>The truth is, as much as
>>anyone hates to admit it, what we need in this country is a
>>conservative revolution.  We have already been sucessful in
>>virtually wiping out the liberals from contending in any
>>political election,
>
>You mean not counting Congress and the Presidency?

8 more Republicans went to Congress this year (I should say the
Democrats lost 8 seats to the Republicans). What he is saying also, is
that the Democrats had to shove Jesse Jackson and his merry band of
ultra-left-wing sillies, into the darkness, in order to get Clinton
elected.

America wanted conservatism and they thought Clinton was the proper
conservative. 

Clinton tricked the f#!k out of America - and we all saw it as he
started seeing Jesse Jackson for the first time since the campaign
began. He's got a socialist on his economic staff plans, to boot. And
a woman he's picking from some midwestern state who is an admitted
communist... 

Yeah, Clinton tricked America. He had to come off as a non-liberal,
proving to the world that liberalism doesn't work if it comes out
unmasked. 


>>but now we need the Republican Party to shift to the right.
>
>Further to the right than Pat Buchanan?  You can't be serious.

'ts already happening, though I hope it addresses its strong
conservative stands without the Bible always being attached. There are
reasons for the party's stands that can be stated INDEPENDENTLY of
religious basis.


>>Need Proof that we are not extremists but in the mainstream?
>>Look at the amount of followers Rush possesses, look at the
>>enormous viewership Pat Robertson commands,
>
>You are confusing extremism with unpopularity.  Or do you
>think that a position is no longer extremist if it has a
>certain number of followers? 

I don't know about Pat Robertson's audience but Rush is definitely
popular. 

The problem with your side is that we never hear extremism being
planted on Gloria Steinem when she goes into one of her tirades. With
the libertarians, extremism is good when it's politically correct.
Same with conservatives, except conservatives are honest about it. Pat
Buchanan and co. don't run and hide to "change the look" of the party,
like Jesse Jackson does. 


>>and look at how a non-politican with only a conservative
>>message to bring to the people can rise above the bias of
>>the media and become a challenger for the presidency.  Of
>>course I'm speaking of Pat Buchanan. 
>
>Of course.  Pat Buchanan, who did more than any other person to
>make the Republican party look bad in 1992.  Many Republicans,
>myself included, were repulsed by his extremism.  If you think
>that Pat Buchanan is representative of conservatives, you are
>sadly misinformed.

Well from all the election results and the way you are outnumbered in
the Party leadership, it looks like you don't exactly represent the
majority of conservatives, either. 


>>1996 will illustrate even further, when fellow
>>conservative Jack Kemp is elected as president.
>
>I would prefer William Weld.  But if you really want a
>further shift to the right, shouldn't you be looking for
>Quayle or Buchanan or Robertson in '96?  

NOT A CHANCE. The Republican Party has been watching William Weld
(Gov-Massachusetts) very closely because they know he will try and
take down Jack Kemp. There's no way they'll let William Weld take
his pro-choice stand to the Presidency, over Jack Kemp, who is also a
more popular Republican overall. 

You may have a chance at the Vice Presidency (not likely but still a
chance), but you'll never put a Weld Republican into the Presidential
candidate slot come the RNC '96. Sure, waste your money publicizing
him and puffing him up during the Primary, but Jack Kemp will not only
get the party support but also the votes. 

Now the more SENSIBLE question is:
Since the conservatives outgun the moderates, will the Republican
Party regain power in America when their conservative primary winners
go up against liberal Democrats? Now, THAT's an open question.

One I'm willing to answer personally: I'm a registered Democrat who
voted Republican straight down the line. I'm a part of a group called
CSUS Students for Life, whose President (a woman, for crying out loud,
all you "pro-lifers-are-all-men!" fanatics) is also a Democrat. Half
our group consists of registered Democrats who voted Republican this
year. 

When Clinton f$!%s up, the Reagan/Bush Democrats will hammer the last
nails in Clinton's coffin and probably, there won't be another
Democrat in the White House until, say, the USS Enterprise shoves off
for Mars? (Translation: NEVER.)

Prime conditions for conservatives to become the hottest demanded
politicians in the country.

And we'll throw the media out with Clinton come 1996. I mean, why take
out only HALF the trash? :)


=====================================================================
--Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0--
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton