From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 08:51:06 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

[Actual interview deleted]

> *************
> 
> I'd much rather see an interview by someone less sympathetic to Dan's
> political viewpoint.  I doubt such a reporter would have let Dan slide
> on so many important questions.

I don't think Dan would allow himself to be interviewed by a reporter
who was less sympathetic to his political viewpoint, someone who wouldn't
toss him softballs so he could appear to hit home runs. But then again,
why should he? With the pasting his side took in the election, why would
he want to get yet another dose of reality?

> Stick around for Dan's upcoming address to the Republican National Conference!

Like everything Dan says to sympathetic audiences, this will be totally
irrelevant.

> Oh, and for more kicks, here are a few of Cal Thomas's ideas on why Bush
> lost the election.
> 
> "The Reagan Revolution ended on Tuesday, not because it was overwhelmed by
> a superior army of counter-revolutionaries, but because the fight had gone
> out of its soldiers, and its heir, George Bush, did not truly believe in it.

This is of course totally incorrect. This election was decided quite
some time ago, when it became obvious to a large number of the working
people in the electorate that the "Reagan revolution" had failed to
provide the economic security that it had promised them.

Also, the Republican line that Bush was sunk by Walsh's indictment of
Cap Weinberger a few days before the election is pure bunk. I doubt that
most people even heard about this, and of those who did I think very few
changed their votes over it.

> ...Conservative Republicans didn't lose on Tuesday.  Moderates did.  They
> will blame the "far right" and their visibility at the Houston convention
> for torpedoing GOP political hegonomy, ignoring that it was the conservative
> presence and their "social issues" in the 1980s that made victory possible."
> <What a curious theory.  I thought it was a disgust with high taxes.>
> "It was the moderates' embarassment with those issues that made defeat
> inevitable."  <Hmmm.  Most voters said it was the economy.  What do
> they know, anyway?>

The standard right-wing line these days. I hope they go on believing
it, because as long as they do they will not be able to mount an effective
challenge to the Democrats; they will continue to be a right-wing minority
party.

> "...If the social issues are what dragged Bush down, why is it that his
> approval ratings increased whenever he, and especially Vice President
> Dan Quayle, focused on "family values"?  <I don't know, Cal.  Maybe
> it's because those approval ratings were among "far right" Republicans?>

Totally false. The "family values" Convention disgusted, angered, and
even shocked a very large number of Americans who had been more sympathetic
to Bush, hardening their resolve to vote Democratic this time.

> "...Republicans will not regain the White House and they have little hope
> of new congressional victories if they abandon the moral issues that are
> uniquely theirs."  <Uh, Cal, wake up.  The GOP GAINED 7 seats.>

Like I said, I hope they go on believing this line. It will sink any
chance they have to rebound quickly.

> What a curious world Cal lives in.  He's entitled to his opinion of how
> the world should work, but it doesn't line up with how the world does
> work.  Does Cal really believe that if the Republicans across the nation
> wholly endorsed the current platform, that they would win more elections?
> He must be smoking something awfully strong to deduce that.  Does he
> care to explain why, in the most blatantly ideological race this year, it
> was the LIBERAL who won (Boxer over Herschensohn for Senate, in CA)?  Has
> he noticed that, for the most part, the electorate doesn't care a fig
> about ideology and is looking for pragmatism and compentence?

Well, he also predicted the Bush would *win* the election, so we can
judge just how correct his take on the situation is.

> As long as we have extremists on either side, we at a.f.d-q will have
> plenty to laugh about.
> 
> Anyone consider starting alt.fan.robert-davis?  He's even more amusing.
> Must be doing the same drugs Quayle did at his debate; the sort of
> interrupting, giggling disease of mediocre frat boyhood, right down to
> the sexist remarks that only he thinks are funny.  Must be something
> about those conservatives, they sure enjoy showing up where they know
> they aren't welcome (like Danoe in San Fran, and Herschensohn in
> Berkeley).  Maybe they think they'll get extra martyr points.

I don't think Robert Davis is worth spending any more time on. I say
we completely ignore his xenophobic ravings. Unlike Dan Quayle, they
really aren't anything to laugh at.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle