Replies

I've been saying that over and OVER again - the reason Bush #1 lost was not because Clinton was popular. The reason Bush #1 lost was not because of the economy. The reason Bush #1 lost was not because of the left's ideology.

The reason Bush #1 lost was because CONSERVATIVES AND INDEPENDENTS voted for Ross Perot. Most I know who voted for Perot did so because he seem to be a more conservative/libertarian/pragmatic candidate than Bush #1. Had those people known it would cost conservatives a voice for 8 years, they would never have voted the way they did. Most of them HATED Clinton, and none of them I've met supported anything the left represents.

If there is no real alternative to Bush and his values, he will win - unless the press can convince us to vote for someone else again...

If that does happen, you can say hello to Queen Hillary and her cronies, and say goodbye to the Republic.

You are absolutely correct (#56.) I remember, in my workplace at the time, right in the middle of liberal Utopia City, in the IT department, Perot won the election! A few ditsy females voted for Xlinton and Gee Dubya got two votes - one from an insufferable ass of a consultant programmer and the other from the country club Pubbie the department head. All the rest, as far as I know, voted for Funny Ears.

Plenty of liberals voted for Perot, let's not forget, and also, we should further reflect on the fact that Clinton in '96 and Gore in '00 did a very good job at winning over the moderate Perot voter, the classic Reagan Democrats, who generally distrusted Republicans as the party of the rich, but despised Democratic officeholders as the party of license and profligacy.

Also, I think it is important for us to consider the left. In 2000, the left viewed Bush with disdain, and focused most of their anger upon what they saw as the manifold betrayals of liberalism by Clinton and Gore. Hence Nader, hence a definite lack of enthusiasm among the Jesse Jackson's of the world, etc.

Now, the left hates Bush more than they've EVER hated anyone. More than his Dad by 10x, more even than Reagan. I think that, short of Lieberman being the nominee, the left will rally behind the Democratic nominee as they have for no other past nominee. There'll be no Nader stripping off 2% or 3%, there'll be no hesitation whatever in any segment of the tradtional and nouveau left. Add back the 2% - 3% Nader and 2% or 3% more from the mobilization of every flavor of shrieking radical and the dollars of every limousine liberal anywhere, and that's a hefty hole that Bush and Cheney have to fill.