From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Waiting for Perot (Was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:47:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <13948@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.061022.1855@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
># leftist rhetoric about special interests perfectly.  Perhaps, like Pat
>
>He did?  He was OPPOSED to special interests.  The left is nothing
>but special interests (not including, however, corporate special
>interests).
>
># Buchanan, you think anyone more liberal than Adolph Hitler is a leftist, 
># but you're wrong.  Brown *was* the left.
>
>I think of Adolf Hitler as a leftist.  He believed that individuals
>didn't matter, and unlimited state power is a good thing.
>
># ## Anyway, we now have the claim that, despite the fact that the media was
># ## unable to defeat Clinton in the primaries, it somehow managed to defeat
># ## Bush in the general election.  This is getting sillier and sillier.
>#  
># #Not at all.  Unable to defeat one of the more conservative Democrats
># #in the primaries, they closed ranks behind the more leftist of the
># #major candidates.  It's the same reason that leftists who vigorously
># #attacked Clinton in the primaries voted for him in the general
># #election.  Do you really not understand this?
># 
># As usual, Clayton, you missed the point.  I wasn't questioning the
># ideological aspects of your absurd claim.  I was questioning the
># logistics.  The press was unable to defeat Clinton, despite the extreme
>
>Yes, because of the reorganization of the Democratic Party by more
>conservative factions, such as Gore and Clinton.  After the 1988
>debacle, a decision was made to try and move more of the Southern
>Democratic primaries early enough in the game to influence the results
>more.  Did you miss that?
>
># measures they utilized, and yet they managed to be responsible for the
># defeat of a much stronger candidate, Bush?
># 
># David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
>
>Bush wasn't strong anything.  Large numbers of conservatives (about
>1 in 5) voted for Perot because of disgust with Bush's leftist politics.

	I shudda known - after George Bush wiped Pat Buchanan off the
electoral map in all 50 states, Clayton the Libertarian sadly and with 
a heavy heart, turned his back on the Republican Party and turned to the 
"Great White Hope", Ross Perot.

	CLAYTON is the reason why Bill Clinton carried California, and  is now
in his third day as the 42d President of the United States of America.

	This point should not be forgotten - after all, elephants never
forget.

Bill R.

--

"When up a dangerous faction starts,         "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts;     those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound,          any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound;             - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religions.misc