From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:49:51 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <17duv6INNr77@agate.berkeley.edu>, jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu
(Joe Buck) wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-200892095115@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> >Certain congressional leaders ADMITTED that they were NOT going to allow
> >Bush any legislative victory since they smelled blood in the water.  On
> >PBS, I watched as one senator (I can't remember his name) even admitted
> >that even if George Bush put forth the Clinton play, they WOULD not pass it
> >just to spite him.  It is, after all, an election year.
> 
> They could only get away with it because Bush is a weak, ineffective
> president.  If Congress attempted to play those kinds of games with
> Ronald Reagan, Reagan would simply go on national TV and get the public to
> put pressure on Congress until it moved.  The blood is in the water
> because people want a change.

Not quite.  We now have a biases news media who won't put the President on
when he wants.  Bush's last attempt at a speech on TV was only carried by
CNN and CSPAN.  The other networks decided that it wasn't worth it.  Short
of taking over the media, there's not much control he has over that.

> >So, Oh Great One, what would YOU do if the Congress would not pass your
> >plan?  Attack with the Army?  There's not much you CAN do other than
> >complain about it.
> 
> This is only a hypothetical question, since it's not true that Congress
> has refused to pass Bush's "plan" because Bush does not have a plan.  But
> let's say this is what has happened.

Are you high?  Of COURSE he has a plan.  I've read it.  It's in congress. 
They passed some of it and tacked on a tax increase with it, so he vetoed
it.
 
> >Or, if you're smart, you do what Wilson has done in
> >California.  You hold them hostage, veto everything, and refuse to accept
> >any compromise.  
> 
> That's not smart.  Wilson's intransigence has ruined California's credit
> rating; this has already cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in
> extra interest payments on bonds, and will cost billions in the future.
> And for what -- out-machoing Willie Brown?  I say a curse on both their
> houses, and I expect that many of the voters will say the same thing.
> I predict that Wilson will lose his re-election bid in 1994.

I don't blame Wilson at all.  I DO blame Willie Brown.  Wilson has good
points:

* No tax increase.  We can't afford to lose even more business.
* No deferment of debt.  That's a tax increase on the future.

After that, there's not much more to dick with.
 
> There's a reason why voters split their tickets, voting for Democratic
> legislators and Republican executives.  They WANT divided government, with
> each guy keeping an eye on the other.  They don't want a president or
> a congress to have carte blanche power to do whatever they want.  We
> don't pick presidents and governors to be dictators.

Explain Carter.  Explain FDR.  Explain Clinton if he wins.  That's EXACTLY
what you'll be getting.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics