From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:25:44 GMT

Hey, Bob baby--you LOST! Get it through your head: your shot
at the title went down the drain with Bush. You, Kemp, Baker,
and Marilyn are the biggest losers in the entire country,
and you know it (who in the right mind would vote for
yet another corroded old Republican hack in '96?), and
that's why you keep carping this ridiculous "Clinton doesn't
have a mandate" bullsh*t.

Look, Clinton beat TWO contenders. Reagan and Bush barely
beat ONE. Furthermore, this nonsense about needing 51% of
the popular vote to win a mandate is simply cr*p: by that
measure Bush and Reagan didn't have a mandate either--in fact,
neither did Lincoln (he only got about 40% of the vote). The
whole reason we HAVE an electoral college in the first place
is to eliminate this petty second-guessing, and Dole knows
it--it has worked to the advantage of both parties (and, I
argue, the nation as a whole) over the years, and it is
pathetic to see Dole whining about it when his candidate loses.

And make no mistake about it, Bush DID lose--indeed, if you
flip around Dole's logic, then Bush REALLY didn't have a mandate,
other than to pack and get the hell out of town. I mean, nearly
70% of Americans who voted voted for someone besides Bush. Talk
about no mandate. The way I read this mandate it goes: "The
Republicans had better kick the Christian loons out of their party
or we aren't EVER letting them get back in the White House".

No mandate my ass. Hey, Dole--surely you're aware that the only
president to do worse in this century than Bush was Taft? Carter
did better. NIXON did better. FORD did better. And as a matter
of fact, both Mondale and Dukakis did better than Bush. Bush got
37.5%, which is roughly the proportion of mean-spirited right-wing
lunatics to the saner base population. Taft got 23.2%. EVERYBODY
ELSE THIS CENTURY DID BETTER. No mandate? Right. Basically, Bush
and the neo-fascists went down so hard and ugly they're only
claim is that at least they didn't come in dead last this century.
They only came in SECOND to dead last.

Hoover did better than Bush.

Furthermore, the states Bush DID manage to win he did so by the
hair of his chinny chin chin. He won N. Carolina by 1 point. He
won his putative home state of Texas by a mere 2.5 points, to a
guy who not only refused to serve in the military but has been
on record repeatedly saying gays shouldn't be discriminated
against. He won Florida by less than 2 points. If Perot had
been out of the race, there's a pretty good chance Clinton would
have one at least two of those three states, which would have
MORE than made for that magic 51% number. Hell, before Perot
got back in Clinton was at 55 vs Bush's 35. Perot is all that
kept Bush from dead last this century!

A prediction: In '96, Clinton will do as well as Reagan did in '80.
And then, of course, we have Gore waiting in the wings. Nyah nyah
nyah.

At least Bush went down graciously. Of course, he already
got to fly in the Big Plane for 4 years. Dole gets squat-doodly.

And righfully so, of course. I mean, here we are with a vote
for change, a new president willing to compromise and try to
get along with even those who resorted to rifling his mom's
passport files if it will help heal the country, and there's
this Dole-Thing running around shooting off his mouth about
trying to block Clinton's agenda.

Right. I'd like to see him try. How much of a presidential
hopeful is Dole going to be if Clinton goes on TV to announce
that Dole is the only thing standing between the electorate
and health care reform? Dole gets in line or gets out of
politics forever is the way I figure this works out.

Dole. What a cranky old f*art. And besides all that, he speaks
of himself in the 3rd person: "Bob Dole's no quitter!". Kind
of like Sybil, hey?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96