X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:42:38 EST
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Poor losers!
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@Virginia.EDU>

On Nov 9,  6:32pm, "(MICHAEL ISAAC TEDESCO)" wrote:
> >>This is to all you Republican's who are crying about the ass wipping that
> >>George Bush took on Nov. 3, from "Slick Willie."  I'm sick to death of
your whining and complaining.
> >
> >  What about all the whining and complaining that occurred in America
> >in 1988.  I can still remmber all the complaints by the liberals.
> >  Why don't you just let Clinton take office and do his job.  Give him a
chance!  If you don't, America will be in bad shape.  We need unity now, and
the only way to get it, is to support Clinton.
> >
> >  Now, I find this absolutely amazing.  Why should the Republicans
> >stand behind Clinton.  The Democrats in Congress were determined to
> >destory Bush in 1988 and at the same time undermine the Reagan record.
> > Unless you forgot, the leader of the Democratic Party in 1988 said
> >that the American people made a mistake by electing Bush, but that it
> >will be okay because the Democratic Congress will take care of that
> >mistake.  Furthermore, to prove the Dems disgust over Bush's victory
> >in 1988, they destroyed his crime bill and refused to accept several
> >other bills that Bush proposed.  So, before you start lecturing us
> >Republicans, look at what your own party did 4 years ago!
> >
> >
> >  Why can't you just give it up.  Clinton will run the country the best
way that he knows how.  We might as well help him with it.  Whether that
means that you will have to swallow your pride or not.  Maybe you should
follow your fearless leader George Bush's example and accept defeat with
dignity.
> >

> Let's try to live in the present!  There is no need to bring up the wrongs
of the past.  I wanted George Bush to do a good job in office, but he didn't!
> That is why he only will serve for four years.  Now you should hope that
> Clinton helps run the country well.   Furthermore, I personally know many
> Republicans who are accepting defeat with anything but dignity.  Many
> Republicans are responding to Cliton's victory with insults that are truely
> not needed.  No one is asking you to compromise you principles or beliefs.
> I just would like to see some unity in our country.  The only way to
> accomplish this is through listening to each others ideas.  That is all
that I am asking for.

     Asking for unity in the country is a bit idealistic.  Political insults
have always been with us and that is not going to change.  Remember the
Federalists accused Jefferson of being the "anti-Christ" in 1800; if that's
not the ultimate insult, I don't know what is.  Unity of what?  Do you mean
we should pass the Clinton program with bipartisan majorities?  Remember that
our system was based on constant political conflict.  Why do we have
separation of powers?  In Federalist 10 and 51, Madison notes how the system
was intended for "ambition to counteract ambition."  The problem with divided
government is that congressional Republicans did not know how to respond to
it.  They had a partisan interest to support Bush, but did not like much of
what he was doing such as the 1990 budget agreement.  Some Republicans felt a
need to automatically support a president of their own party; however,
confrontationalists argued that efforts at accmodation would only perpetuate
their status as the minority party in Congress.  Now that the Republicans are
truly the opposition party in both the executive and the legislature, they
now have four years to develop alternative programs to whatever Clinton and
the Democrats implement.  It is in their interest to do so if the goal of a
political party is to gain control of offices.  It is not generally in the
electoral interests of Republicans to readily support the Democratic program.
 If there was, there would be no reason for their continued existence and
thus we would have a one party system with little competition.  If you like a
one party system, look at Mexico.

     Now the Republicans could agree to cooperate with the Democrats if
Clinton was seeking things that generally coincided with their platform such
as a balanced amendment or the line-item veto, the latter of which Clinton
does support.  The Republicans would be more likely to support such efforts
by Clinton, especially when large numbers of Democrats oppose them.

     Most Republicans are accepting defeat with dignity.  If anything
Republicans are upset with Bush for running an inept administration.  A year
ago, most Democrats were exceedingly embarrassed by Bill Clinton, but in
modern history, we generally throw the incumbent president out of office when
economic times are tough and give them an advantage when they are good.  Most
Republicans recognize that it is now Bill Clinton's show and they will be
setting their sights on picking up seats in the 1994 midterm elections (no
president since 1934 has picked up seats in the House at midterm) and
agreeing on a strong presidential candidate for 1996.  Now the economy may
improve in the next four years, and this will hurt the GOPs chances in '96.
But in the meantime, the Republicans will prepare for the potentiality that
things will not improve.  The unity of the GOP may not occur especially if
the moderates, economic conservatives, and the religious right cannot reach
accmodation during this time, but it is in their electoral interest to make
the attempt.  In the meantime, they will most likely attempt to draw
distinctions between their policies and those of Clinton.  Nonetheless, they
must watch how they do this.  The 1992 GOP convention was an example of how
not to do it, since most observers saw the tone as meanspirited and unlikely
to appeal to large segments of society.  Why should Republicans want to
support the Clinton administration?  When Bush agreed to the tax increases
contained in the 1990 budget agreement, the Democrats hammered him for
breaking his promises.  Bush thought that the country needed a magninmous
gesture to break a dispute, even if he did not really like part of it.  Based
on these criticisms, why would the Republicans want to support the Democrats
to solve our increasing crisis when the Democrats might turn around and
accuse them of hypocrisy and not standing up for what they believe.

     Now Republicans could support Clinton if he propose policies that
appealled to them, especially the line item which Clinton has supported.  If
Clinton did so, many Republicans would jump at the chance, espeically when
large number of Democrats oppose the idea.  Clinton may have to seek GOP
support if he is unable to control the left wing of the Democratic party,
espeically epitomized by people like Barbara Boxer, Bruce Feingold, and Paul
Wellstone.  Clinton will probably get most of what he wants out of the
Democratic Congress; however, since their is so much pent up demand for
liberal policies, Clinton, who is supposedly a moderate, may get more than
what he wants out of Congress.  Then it would be in his interest to use the
GOP to attempt to limit the damage.  Now the GOP would be placed in a debate
of helping the president or not and this would depend on how high price they
might get out of this.


  Scott W. Fischer
Mr. Jefferson's Resort                  Mary Washington College
University of Virginia                  Fredericksburg, Virginia

                             Home address:
                         717E Mountainwood Road
                    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
              (804) 296-4752
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU