From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization:  I'm part of a massive Blonde Conspiracy
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:28:59 GMT

rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>>(W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>>
>>>   Weren't the election results great.  The old-fashioned, social intrusive,
>>>hyprocritical pro-life Republicans lost.
>>
>>Okay...clarify something for me...(if you can do it politely, that is...) As
>>I understood things, it was James Baker III, not Bush that apporved the 
>>keynote speaker for the convention. If this is the case, why is the hate and 
>>bilge spewed by that *idiot* being laid at Bush's feet? 
>
>     I will attempt to reply politely, although that is a bit difficult. :)

I have this very amusing picture of you sitting in front of your computer,
sweating profusely as you typed this out...I'm suitably impressed at the
results though. You *can* be civil, can't you? ;)

>     I am not sure who approved the speakers, but I believe that the 
>Republican National Committee did.  For this response, I will take your
>assumption that Baker approved the keynote speaker.  If one delegates
>work, then the delegator is ultimately responsible for that work.  Because
>Bush delegated the work of approving the keynote speaker to Baker, Bush is
>ultimately responsible for the keynote speaker approval.  Therefore,
>the hate and bilge is laid at Bush's feet.  As I recall, the whole convention
>was dominated by people's speeches about "family values", gay-bashing,
>women directed to stay at home, fundamentalist Christian values,
>abortion-bashing, etc.  I think that Bush had a lot to do with it.

But what about Buchanan and Marilyn Quayle? I know that Bush made a speech 
taking all the blame for the loss, but shouldn't some of the criticism of
the convention happenings fall on their shoulders, as the ones rattling off 
a litany of hate, misinformation, this-and-that bashing, back to the Stone
Age rhetoric? To this day I'm not sure who bothered me more, Buchanan or 
Quayle. 

Similar case, different place. Some club in Palo Alto is catching flak for 
booting a band that burned an American flag during one of the songs in their 
set. The owner of the club responded saying that he had no idea such a thing 
was going to happen, and had he known, he would not have booked this band in 
the first place. 

Should the club owner be held responsible for the actions of this band, even
though he had no idea they would do something that to at least some of the 
people present, including the owner, was offensive? I don't know how bands
get booked for club dates, but I'd be willing to bet that this band, when 
they auditioned or sent in their demo, gave no inkling that they would 
burn a flag during their set.

Likewise, although I would allow that George darn well should have had an 
inkling of what was on Buchanan's mind to at least some degree after the way
he ran his campaign in the primaries, should he have known that Buchanan
would make such an (almost) uniformly offensive, ignorant, racist, sexist
speech? I dunno about that. Perhaps if Baker/Bush had known that Buchanan
was going to be so obnoxious, he would not have been permitted to speak.

>>It's distressing that people can't differentiate between one person and the 
>>group as a whole. It is even more distressing that Republicans for Choice
>>and other such groups within the party as well as Bush himself didn't speak
>>out against such extremist views. Had he, he might have been returned to 
>>office. 
>
>     As I recall, the far right wing of the party muzzled any attempt
>of pro-choicers to bring the the abortion issue to the floor.  If the
>party would just respect the privacy and freedom of individuals, and
>put forth a credible deficit reduction plan, then Bush may have been
>elected.  Since the party did not, you saw what happened.  By the
>way, I am not defending Clinton at all on his so-called deficit reduction
>plan.

As I understood things, the pro-choice Republicans were told to can it because
the platform and planks thereof had already been up for review, wangled over
and voted on. I was rather taken aback at how vociferously  Pro Life the
paltform was, given that the vote on dropping it from the platform was 
supposedly so close.

>>As for the senate critters, I take comfort in the fact that I will be able to
>>vote against Feinstein again in just two years. We'll see who crows then, eh?
>
>     We shall see what happens.

Well aren't you bothered at least a little by someone who is very much for 
government involvement? Also, I know a lot of men that were more than a wee
bit miffed by Feinstein's comment, hacked and paraphrased above to the effect
of, "The roosters crow all night, but it's the hens that get the work done."
Well this is one hen that *ain't* voting for *that* hen.

>>Well, we seem to agree on the measures anyway...:)
>
>     Good. :)

Indeed...:)

Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
Newsgroups: soc.singles