From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:19:14 GMT

In article <1asq96INNgtv@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.173200.20409@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>#the public.  Before every major election the local Democratic party sells
>#"cheap" (1$) tickets to thousands of prospective voters for admission to a
>#"meet the candidates" party.  Several of these are held around the county,
>#with tens of thousands of people attending.  For your 1$ you get all the
>#beer you can drink and a couple of (hot dogs, kielbasi sandwiches, corned
>#beef sandwiches - fill in the ethnic group you're catering to's favorite
>#food).
>...
>#As the alchohol makes the
>#crowd more maleable, hit men move through the crowd asking for campaign
>#donations.  Around midnight the local, state, or national candidate shows
>#up, says hi, tells everyone to vote for him (or her), and leaves.  No talk
>#of his experience, record, or his stand on the issues.  The ironic thing
>#was that as teenagers we'd go to these things as a cheap form of
>#entertainment and then vote Republican.
>#  Now the Republicans may be just as corrupting, but somehow I find the
>#"I'll support you if you protect my interests" stand taken by the
>#Republicans to be less distastefull than buying the votes of poor slobs
>#with a couple of cheap beers.  They're holding these rallies for Clinton
>#now, trying to project him to the mass of voters around here as someone who
>#is just like them, someone who could be your "best drinking buddy".
>
>Let's compare this to Bush's big fundraiser for the GOP. The tickets
>were quite a bit more: a minimum of $1000 a crack, wasn't it? The biggest
>buyer turned out to be a scofflaw who was in arrears with alimony and
>child support (family values guy) and had outstanding judgments against
>him from suits by his former business partners,
>whom he had swindled. It took days for the GOP to
>relinquish the ticket money. Another big buyer had threatened his
>employees with dismissal if they didn't buy too. (That's against the law,
>and if a union were to do it for Democrats, Mulac would throw an A#1
>tantrum.)
 
  And you're saying the unions don't pressure their members? HA!  I was a
member of the Teamsters while working summers in college.  I could tell you
a few stories.  For every questionable Republican contributor, I could
match it with a Democratic one.

>My understanding is that expensive wine was served instead of cheap
>beer. I don't know which ethnic group's food was served, probably
>WASP's. After everyone was plied with alcohol, Bush spoke. Discreet
>envelopes were left on the tables for contributions. So much more
>genteel than working the crowd, so civilized, so Republican.
>
>Same idea, really, just less heartburn.

  I agree, both parties are corrupting.  Republicans are just more HONEST
about it.  They'll vote for anyone who will support a common interest.  A
lot of Democrats (at least around here) sell their vote for a beer and a
hot dog.
  Hey! Why don't we start a THIRD party?  One that would address the issues
and wipe away corruption.  If only we could find someone to lead us on to
victory.  {:^)

>#One of the things I really can't stand about Clinton (and it may seem
>#trivial to you) is the subtle mind games he plays with locals, trying to 
>#persuade them that he's one of them.  For example, when Clinton was in Ohio,
>#he made sure he was wearing his Cleveland Indians baseball cap.  At a
>#later stop in Michigan he's wearing a Detroit Tigers cap.  Are the voters
>#really that stupid that they'll allow a candidate to subtlely influence
>#them and get away with it?
>
>Real major issue here. If we find Bush wearing athletic paraphernalia
>from different teams, can we get you to stay home?
>
>Who is more dangerous: Clinton, who wears both a Tigers and an Indians
>cap, or GWHB, who supported military assistance to both Iran and Iraq!?

  It's just that Clinton's pandering is so OBVIOUS, to the point where it's
sickening.  People used to complain about Reagan's flag waving rallies,
Clinton's overly slick campaigning makes that pale in comparison.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7489 alt.politics.clinton:8156