X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @VAL, @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:56:55 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      More Comments on the 1992 Election ...
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.BITNET, jwales@iubvm.BITNET, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
              shlyakhter@huhepl.harvard.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com

The Election of 1992, Another View

The American election is now only nine weeks away, and the battle
seems fully joined since the conventions finished. Gone are the days
of waiting through the last of August for the traditional Labor Day
kickoff of the "general campaign," these guys are out on the hustings
in full cry already. THe cries are already pretty nasty.

Governor Bill Clinton is said to have a significant edge, 19
pecentage points ahead in one poll as the week began. President
George Bush gets to look Presidential with his announcements about
aid to the hurricane-ravaged residents of Florida and Louisiana,  in
pronouncing the no-fly zone established by the "Coalition" that
supposedly beat Saddam Hussein in the Six Weeks War, and by reversing
still another pledge he made - now we're going to sell 150 F-16's to
the small nation of Taiwan, not because they need them, but to save
5800 Texas jobs (and supposedly ensure Bush 5800 Texas votes).
Neither of them have said much new, though both claim the other guys
are liars, or worse. What has been said in the past few days are
arguments back and forth on the specious "128 raised taxes in
Arkansas" non-issue, and Bush pronouncememts of bribes - $750 million
for farm aid, $1 billion for farm export sudsidies, and a committment
to rebuild Homestead AFB AND foot the bill for Hurricane Andrew. The
man is desperate, or so it would seem.

Clinton isn't taking any chances though - every Bush pronouncement is
immediately countered, and/or denounced. Gore tromps around in hard
hats, looking a great deal better than Dukakis in a tank. Clinton
went after Bush for claiming the Democrats were "godless," though it
seems that both camps have a rather perverted notion of "G-d." It is
hard to imagine such an entity voting for any of these guys. Quayle
is still railing about "Murphy Brown," now saying winning an Emmy is
not a license to lie. Taking Baker out of State to be chief of staff
does not appear to have helped George Bush one bit.

Many people think this election is like the last, and the one before
that, and so on back to 1960 or 1964, when most voters would claim
that they believe the last election occurred where a genuine choice
was involved. All the contests since are considered by many to be a
choice "of the lesser of two evils." Admittedly, Bill Clinton appears
to be a feistier candidate than the standard-bearers the Democrats
have put up since the last time they won in 1976, but his hoped-for
road to victory still has two months to be covered, and though he's
in the lead, no lead has ever been wrought in stone as permanent.

From the rising tone of the rhetoric, both sides are going to
campaign negatively. This is not news, nor is it an unexpected
phenomena. How much much blackguarding of each other will happen
remains to be seen, and will probably revolve around who is the most
desperate as Election Day draws closer, which at this juncture would
appear to be President Bush. George is a tough, and proven, negative
campaigner, and probably has the edge on Clinton tactically. But,
change is what the voters want, and it would appear that change may
occur - all the way down to the House of Representitives.

For some observers, including this writer, the wild card remains the
same one that existed two months ago, though he allegedly quit the
race - H. Ross Perot. Here's a fellow who claimed to have stopped
running in the race because he did not want to throw the election
into the House of Representitives, which has not occurred since 1824.
However, when he quit, he had already gotten onto 24 state ballots.
Now that number is 35, and petitions for ballot placement have been
filed in ten more. Three questions arise from this unheralded,
largely ignored, behavior. Will Ross Perot run again in earnest if he
gets on all 50 ballots, and let the chips fall where they may? Will
Perot passively sit on the sidelines, and just urge folks to vote?
Lastly, most critically, how many votes will he get regardless of
what approach he takes?

It has been suggested that this election is a generational choice.
Bush represents the values of parents or grandparents, while Bill
Clinton is of the baby boomer era, a younger face. The choice may
well be between the values of another, more simpler time, and the
values of the convoluted, tempestuous Sixties. Will those who feel
this is but another choice between evils vote? Will Perot gain a
significant body of votes and cause what has not happened in over a
century and a half? Will the percentage of eligible voters drop, as
it has for twenty years, or will more people vote than ever before?
Will you vote, and do you like ANY of these guys?  VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU