Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:17:25 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> In article <BxEw0H.6yo@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> >marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> >> In article <1992Nov5.224301.15140@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
> >> Please answer how the ACTIONS taken by the Bush administration follow this
> >> with:
> >> 1) large % increase in white house staff
> >> 2) "read my lips no new taxes"
> >> 
> >> If the "issue" was less taxes and less government then why did the 
> >> Libertarians NOT win?  I will maintain there is little differance between
> >> Rebublicans and the Democrats in the big picture of things.  Big Govn.
> >> assures their survival.  And big gonv takes big $$$ to run.
> 
> >Look at it this way; Bush's easy win over Dukakis in 1988 was a stunning
> >AFFIRMATION of Reagan's lower taxes-less government policies.  Clinton's
> >win over Bush this year is an overwhelming REJECTION of Bush's REPUDIATION
> >of Reagan-omics. 
> 
> Have you thought of running for office?  You quote #1 and #2 and
> don't bother answering, instead ask your own question.
> Or are you avoiding that tough question because it can not be
> simply answered?
> 


Marc, it's simple; I can't defend Bush's actions, because to a true
conservative, Bush's actions were indefensible. His "budget deal" was a
failure; his appontments to the federal bureacracy only STIMULATED
regulation instead of reducing it, and his "go along, get along" attitude
with Congress resulted in the American economy getting run over by a
steamroller. He couldn't have done any worse if he'd TRIED, and I often
suspect that he WAS trying.  How else can you explain the idiocy and
incompetence of his campaign other than a sincere effort to throw the
election? 



And no, I HAVEN'T thought of running for office; I hate Washington, and my
wife would divorce me. Maybe a local office, perhaps the School Board;
probably not even that.

 > 
> But lets look at your premise...... And look at your text below.
> 
> >note that Slick Willie got less than 44% of the vote. This election is
> >simple; it's George Bush, yes or no. The "No'es" took it. The only people
> >in this election who were at ALL excited were the Perotistas; every
> 
> Give It's George Bush Yes or No can not this also apply to
> Ron Vs Jimmy
> Ron Vs Fritz
> Bush Vs Dukais
> 
> Why the double standard?
> Why is Bush Vs Dukais a vote on reganomics and not a yes/no on
> the two men?   Sounds like your making excuses.
> 
> 

Reagan V. Carter; Jimmy C. had driven the economy into the dumps far worse
even than Bush did.  Reagan said, "Are you better off now than you were
four years ago?" and enough people answered NO! that Reagan walked in
easily. 

Reagan V. MonDull:  Same thing. Reagan said, "Are you better off now than
4 years ago?" and enough people said YES that MonDull carried only
Minnesota - and that barely!!

Bush V. Dukakis:  Bush said, in essence, Reagan can't run again, so if you
want to continue what he did, then vote for me!  Dukakis said, "I'm going
to raise your taxes", and the people spoke loud and clear.

Bush V. Clinton:  After campaigning in '88 on "No New Taxes" and "heir to
Reagan", Bush turned around and distanced himself just as far from Reagan
as he could - and didn't start to come back until it was time to start
campaigning again. The people said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on ME!" and voted the rascal out. 

If this is beyond you, I'll try to explain again in smaller words. 


Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush