Posted on 06/24/2003 4:11:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The year was 1992.
America was in the midst of an economic recession, and a presidential election was looming. The two major parties produced a pair of candidates that had the electorate issuing a collective yawn -- a sitting president who seemed aloof and clueless on how to turn around the sagging economy and a slick-talking governor from Arkansas who seemed to have only a passing familiarity with the truth.
Out of nowhere rode a brash little Texas billionaire who ran one of the most successful third-party presidential campaigns in history by spending a great deal of his own money and by broaching topics that the two "legitimate" candidates were afraid to touch.
Perhaps most significantly, Ross Perot introduced the average American to hazards of runaway deficit spending and the looming financial disaster that was going to bring the government to its knees when the Baby Boom generation began retiring and collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Democrats seem committed to play their part in the Reagan redux by producing an updated version of Walter Mondale to play doormat to G.W. in his 2004 re-election bid. None of the nine announced Democratic challengers seem to possess the stature or the charisma to present a serious threat to the incumbent next year. Floridians can breathe easy - there is little chance that the next election will be decided by swinging chads.
What is truly surprising is the conservative nature of the campaigns the Democratic candidates are running to this point. When I say "conservative" I am not referring to the political connotation of the word, but rather to the more traditional definition - something that is marked by moderation or caution.
The Democratic contenders seem wary of questioning the president's policies or activities in any meaningful sense. Perhaps they are awed by his consistently impressive approval ratings, but they aren't going to unseat him by being polite. When one is facing an uphill battle, the only chance of success lies in getting a running start, not in shuffling one's feet.
To have any chance of giving Bush a real contest, the Dems need to give Americans reason to re-evaluate their impression of the job Bush is doing as president. And that shouldn't be all that hard to do.
Although few would question the necessity of the Afghanistan campaign given the obvious terrorist activities there, Iraq is another story. The main justification for the invasion of this country and the overthrowing of its government - their possession of weapons of mass destruction - seems to be losing credibility with each passing day. Therefore the Bush administration has shifted gears and framed the Iraq campaign as an altruistic effort to free the Iraqi people from an evil regime.
The problems with this explanation are obvious. There are many bad governments in the world - exactly how many of them do we plan to invade and overthrow? Also, it would be worthwhile to know how the Bush administration plans to ensure that democracy flourishes in Iraq so that it does not end up as another fundamentalist Islamic hotbed of terrorism without turning the country into a U.S. colony and establishing a permanent military presence there.
The tax cut also presents an opening for Democratic challengers. Although it is risky to question tax cuts during an election year, polls show that most Americans favor long term fiscal discipline over short-term personal financial gain. Alan Greenspan and many independent financial analysts agree a tax cut at this time is financially irresponsible given the need to finance overseas military operations and the looming insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs.
The game is winding down and the Democrats are way behind - it's time for them to stop playing footsie and start delivering some licks to their opponent. And if Democrats lack the fortitude or the intelligence to do so, then it may be time for them to fade from the scene and allow a new political movement to fill the void.
Bill Ferguson is a columnist for the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph. Readers may write to him at: The Macon Telegraph, 120 Broadway, Macon, Ga. 31201-3444.
...right up until he announced that if elected, his first priority would be to triple the budget for the IRS.
Good for you, but very few americans care about american jobs, and Perot and Buchannan did not get very many votes. There is no candidate who will get any votes by promising to keep american factories and american jobs. It is a lost cause.
I dont see any support out there for candidates who want to save american factories and jobs. Most everyone wants american factories to close and our stores filled with cheap chinese junk.
"...the economic burden we are poised to place on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
Nice try, Charlie, but it isn't we who are doing that, but our so-called "representatives", who seem to forget about all their promises as soon as they move to DC.
Sorry, but I won't accept any of the guilt for what is happening to our country.
Why do they get away with repeating this crock over and over! The justification for invading was the continued refusal to abide by the terms of the previous (gulf war I) cesasefire. The fact that they had weapons of mass destruction was the urgancy to invade now, but not the justification for invading. Also, NO ONE ever doubted that Iraq posessed WMD's, not the French, not the Germans, not the Russians, not the UN, not same pathetic liberal democrats that are crying foul because we haven't found them yet.
As Rumsfeld said at a press conference, "We haven't found Saddam yet and I don't see anyone running around claiming he didn't exist!"(paraphrased)
Manufacturing, my a&&. Not just that sector. We were all supposed to become computer programmers, but now that won't happen cuz all those jobs are going to Bangalore, India.
I voted for Ross Perot the first time around. The town I live in gave Ross Perot a plurality the first time round. I challenge anyone to find anything in Perot's concerns about the after-NAFTA future that has been incorrect.
The Reform Party is still in place, isn't it? A third party candidate party that ran smart on the issues that both parties are avoiding...the porous borders, jobs being lost to foreigners here or going overseas, how difficult the economic situation is, real unhappiness over the Patriot Act and Iraq not just being a get in-get out situation, and the loss of middle-class confidence in the future, etc., would get a lot of votes.
I'd go for something like Tancredo-Ventura.
I ain't gotten any in a few days now. >:o(
LOL! By voting for Perot you put a person into the Presidency(Clinton), who did.
BTW, It is my contention that Perot was a Clinton ploy. The first time he dropped out, he stated IIRC, that he was not needed since Clinton was ahead in the polls.
Then Clinton started to slip behind Bush 41 by 7 points or so and voila, old Ross is back on Larry King.
They're praying for a Perot to split the vote.
Ralph Nader did that job pretty well last time. I hope he is up to the job in 2004.
Why do they get away with repeating this crock over and over!
Because they need to discredit a popular president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.