From: gannon@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (Mark Andrew Gannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: You people...
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:34:01 GMT


tsovar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Thomas Sovar) writes:

>Is it any wonder the Republican party has brought up 
>the issue of values in this campaign year?  When I 
>subscribed to this newsgroup to see if any of you
>people out there had anything intelligent to say on
>behalf of the Democratic party, every post was titled,
>"Bush is a M.F."  and there was no sign of tasteful,
>intelligent discourse.

>I would encourage those posting to think how an 
>unbiased, open-minded person would react.  If some
>of you people are typical Democrats, perhaps the 
>vice president is correct in his opinions of you.

>Tom

What do you mean by "typical Democrats?"  If you'll just check, you'll
find that there are more registered Democrats than registered
Republicans.  Also, judging by the Republican fear of the "Motor-voter
Bill" and of voter registration in general, there are many more
potential Democrats than potential Republicans among the non-voters of
America, a group that threatens to become a majority this year.  
So maybe by "typical Democrats," you mean "typical Americans," a group
of which I am proud to be a member, and of which I do not consider J.
Danforth Quayle a member.  Mr. Quayle comes from the most powerful
newspaper family in Indiana, the "media elite," if you will.  
     I have never understood Mr. Quayle's attack on this group.  As for the
"cultural elite," we need look no farther than the
Massachusetts-Connecticut-Texas-Maine-Wherever home of the Republican
Predidential candidate.  Mr. Bush comes from a rich family.  He talks
about working for a living in the private sector, attempting to contrast
himself with Bill Clinton, but I can't help noticing that Mr. Bush has
not had to work for a thing in his life.  He invested his father's money
in oil companies.  That's not "working for a living."  If ever there was
a person who could be considered part of the "elite," (except
intellectually) it's George Herbert Walker Bush.  So why is JDQ
attacking that group?
     I see Bush and Quayle as hypocrites, attacking their political
opponents, real or imagined (the "Liberal Media," etc.), in whatever way
they think will "play in Peoria," even if it means calling their
opponents by names that might better be applied to Bush and Quayle
themselves.  
     The point of this is that I reject Quayle's attacks as cynical and
desperate attempts to draw attention away from the fact that the
Republican party under Bush-Quayle is becoming the party of the wealthy
and priveleged, and that their policies do not represent the interests of the
nation as a whole.  These attacks on an ill-defined enemy also give
Quayle something to talk about, since real issues are a no-no.  Also,
since it's not clear exactly who the "media elite" and "cultural elite"
are, if JDQ blows one of his lines here or there, it's not as obvious as
if he were to blunder on economic issues.  (Imagine the embarrassment if
one of the Republican candidates were to slip and promise "No new taxes"
or 30 million jobs in 8 years!)

     I honestly can't say much about how a Democrat feels about the "Bush is
a MF" titles.  As a Clinton Republican, I can tell you the whole thing
looks pretty silly to me.  There are many legitimate points on which one
could intelligently attack Mr. Bush and his failed presidency.  I agree
with you that saying "Bush is a MF" really hinders intelligent
discourse.  I hope that this subject header will disappear, to be
replaced by informative headers indicating in some way the content of
the postings.  
     Please try to understand that people are frustrated, and that leads
to nasty language like "Bush is a MF."  Why are they frustrated?
Because the economy is sick, and the White House seems unwilling to take
any action to help the American people (or "Typical Democrats," if you
prefer that term).  
     I will end this long posting by answering an anticipated question:
If these are my views, why am I a Republican?  I have been a registered
independent for some time.  I re-registered as an independent when I
moved to California.  I watched the primaries in the Winter/Spring, and
I saw the Democrats choosing a candidate whose values and opinions
seemed to reflect the "mainstream" of America (in contrast to 1988, when
they nominated a man WELL to the left of the average American (or
"Typical Democrat," if you still like that term)), and I watched Bush
and Quayle doing nothing for the country and openly lying in their
campaign for "four more years."  I saw Jack Kemp, the only Republican
who seems to have "vision" or an idea for the future, swept under the
rug when he started to overshadow Bush.   I noticed that the incumbent
congressman from this district, a Republican, would be running in the
Republican primary against a man I really don't like.  I saw some scary
out-of-the-mainstream right-wing candidates for Senator from the
Republican party, and I hoped to get some of the reasonable ones
nominated.  So I registered Republican to try to shape the future of a
party I felt was going too far to the right.  
I DID NOT vote for "joke" candidates (e.g. Sonny Bono);  I voted for
the men (no women running) I felt would do the best job.
     The Democrats seem to be moving in the right direction (toward the
"center"), and I hope to help move the Republicans the same way.  I will
support men like Bill Weld (Gov. of Massachusetts) and Jack Kemp, viable
candidates who I feel better represent "Typical Democrats" (or
"Mainstream Americans," if you like) than the religious right, which is
now threatenting to seize control of the second largest political party
in the most powerful nation on Earth.  I will support men of vision like
Kemp, who could make the Republican Party what it now pretends to be,
against men who just want to hold office and who, if they do anything at
all, only work to give their friends and contributors tax breaks, like
George Herbert Walker Bush.
     I also believe that enough people will register as Democrats
without me, and I don't want the Democratic Party taking voters like me
(thinking Americans, or, in your language, "typical Democrats") for
granted.  To get the votes of "Clinton Republicans" like me, the
Democratic party will have to be on its toes, doing only those things
that are good for the nation as a whole.  They will have to go beyond
the old "Tax and Spend" policies, investing only in programs that will
give returns in the form of a healthier economy and a stronger America.
I think we can agree that those things are better than rhetorical wars
against imaginary enemies for you, me, and all the "typical Democrats."

--Mark 
gannon@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never do second order perturbation theory."  --Toby Falk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------