From: jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: Rinctereet Puseticlnat Inssolyhe
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.233343.23215@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu () writes:
>In article <Bx96to.EpC@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>>This will be the first time a Democrat has been in the White House since I was
>>10 years old.  I'm looking forward to seeing how things will be different from
>>the Reagan/Reagan/Bush years.  I think the reports of the death of the Demo's
>>were a bit premature.  Maybe they wouldn't have been shut out for 12 years
>>if they had had stronger candidates than a discredited Carter, Mondale, and
>>Mike "Look at me in the neato-keen tank" Dukakis.

Well, I'm going to say the obvious : Bush failed to get across any vision
during his presidency as Reagan did.  He failed to move the campaign
rhetoric away from his own downfallings (or areas in which he and Bill had
downfallings) and towards his positive areas (foreign policy, etc.)  Bill
won by a pretty small margin in the popular vote.  Bush just fell short.
But, if you look at Will-billy's campaign, you'll see that much of his
success can be attributed to HOW he presented his ideas, rather than what
those ideas were.  He obviously used tactics similar to JFK, who went out
and got polling information from which to decide his personal "beliefs."
He knew exactly what to say in the debates, but took the dramatic pause to
look thoughtful.  In the town hall debate, he moved into the camera,
bringing himself "closer to the people" (and eclipsing his opponents.)  So
yes, he was SLICK, and Bush was pathetic (tactically) comparatively.
However, give him 4 years heading an expanding, rotten federal government
and we'll remind ourselves why the Democrats were REALLY put out to pasture
for 12 years -- their piss-poor IDEAS.  Take any two candidates from the
Democratic and Republican party whose tactics are relatively equi-potential
and I guarantee the Republican will win.  The 80/84/88 elections weren't
apropos as Carter/Mondale/Dukakis were each pathetic when it came to
tactics.  Put Reagan up to Willy, he'll win every time.

>>Of course, Rush Limbaugh says the election was a big victory for conservatism,
>>and we all know Rush=God.  I think Rush has been smoking something, and I
>>think he's been inhaling.

Ah, yes.  This from the person who blindly follows Bill Clinton's victory
as something good simply because it puts the Republicans out of office.
I've heard many people who watch Rush Limbaugh and none of them agree
with everything he says or blindly follow his ideas.  Some people I know
who watch his show are hopelessly liberal, but like him for the
entertainment value.  Funny thing is, the same thing was said about Perot,
about Bush, about Reagan, etc.  Simple algorithm :

    1. Choose X, where X is a public figure you disagree with.
    2. Say that "All followers of X are mindless twits who blindly
	follow X even when X is so obviously wrong!"
    3. Respond to any argument which contains reference to X with above
	statement.  Add hand-waving and exaggeration to make point.
    4. Smirk alot.

>As a non Christian and non U.S. citizen myself, I'm scared of Rush
>Limball.  He talks like he can cut anybody's throat, espcially a non
>Christian.  Do you really think he believes in "God"?  His message sounds
>so far away from what the bible said.

I've not heard Rush speaking of cutting throats.  Where do you get this
from?  What would you say his message is and upon what statements of his
do you base this statement?  Perhaps you've misread his sarcasm and satire
at times?  Are you aware that he is sarcastic and satirical?

I find it hard to follow the reasoning of anyone who makes this type of
silly generalization -- "Well Rush Limbaugh is conservative, and Hitler was
conservative, so therefore Rush Limbaugh is a fascist, racist,
hate-monger!"  Where do you people learn logic?  At the Josef Stalin
Institute for Truth (read Pravda) ?  Tsk tsk tsk


-- 
__ __  ____ ______ ______ __  __ 	Keith Jackson
|| // ||    | || | | || | ||  ||
||<<  ||==    ||     ||   ||==||	jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu
|| \\ ||___ |_||_|   ||   ||  ||
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc