From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 23 Nov 1992 05:16:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <92327.214816MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1ep7hcINNscv@agate.berkeley.edu>, Don Bromley sez                  )
>>In article <92327.160414MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs sez

[text deleted]

>Well, it's encouraging that you're looking at your bright side. Nevertheless,
>fact remains that this allegedly "in-touch" party has a minority in the House,
>and lost even more seats in the Senate. See, if they were REALLY "in-touch"
>they'd be WINNING... perhaps there's some different definition of the term
>I was not previously aware of.

  I think you're being a little unfair in this.  I DO believe that the
  Republican Party is the party of the "average" American person.  I
  believe that it represents the feelings, ideas, and values of the
  American people.  The fact that a Republican president lost his
  re-election bid does not mean that Republican principles have been
  defeated.  George Bush lost because under his leadership the economy
  was driven into the ground, due in large part to his "going-along"
  with the Democrats in Congress and world-economics at large.  I
  don't understand why Democrats fail to understand what's wrong with
  this country.  Bush went along with their massive tax-increase
  in 1991 and what did it do for us?  Are we doing better as a result?
  Do you liberals actually think that we can tax ourselves into
  happiness?  Conservatives ARE winning!  Here in California Bruce
  Herschensohn, a staunch conservative, came within a few percentage
  points of beating Barbara Boxer, a wacko, left-wing, tax&spend liberal.
  This is in a state that considers itself liberal!!  In Washington
  voters BARELY approved a pro-abortion bill.  Bill Clinton is the most
  "moderate" Democrat I've seen in a LONG while... we ARE winning.
  
>>                                                   the only reason
>>  Bush lost (by a mere 5%) was because he abandoned the policies of
>>  Ronald Reagan, which the people thought they'd be getting in Bush.
>
>It's an interesting theory, I'll grant you, but it seems somewhat
>improbable. Let me get this straight: What The Great American People
>REALLY want is more Reagan-like policies, so they turn out in droves to vote
>for...
>
>...Bill Clinton?

  Because George Bush let us down... Yes...  I don't think people realize
  what they'll be getting with Billie.  There's NO way Bill will be
  able to keep all his campaign promises... I just saw a 60 minutes
  piece about the deficit, a group got together and cut programs left
  and right... the Defense budget, Urban Aid, Social Security, Farm
  subsidies.. you name it... and still had trouble getting the budget
  down to a level which would eliminate the deficite in 5 years.  Bill
  WILL break a LOT of his promises, and I don't think you'll see 
  another Democrat president in a LONG while after that.

>
>No, no, I don't see it. Sorry.
>
> "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.

				-Don Bromley
				don@ocf.berkeley.edu

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8845 alt.rush-limbaugh:10022