Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: counterpunch

Yes, you need to let it go. It was 16 years ago and sniping at folks when you have no idea whether or not they voted for Perot is unhelpful. I was 18 in that election and I did support GHW Bush and even wore a black armband when he lost because I knew EXACTLY what we’d be getting with Clintoon and my jackass Senator Gore. Problem is now that Perot reminds me a LOT of McCain. A total kook, arrogant, megalomaniacal jerk. Perot deliberately undermined GHW Bush, NOT the voters. Still, many Republicans rightly believed at the time that Bush had undermined the Conservative movement and squandered Reagan’s capital.

In hindsight, GHW Bush was a subpar President and seemed genuinely disinterested in doing everything it took to win a 2nd term. His greatest mistake in office was doing EXACTLY what McCain will do as President... go along to get along with a corrupt and morally bankrupt liberal rodent Congress. GHW Bush lost 1992 the moment he broke his word on raising taxes.

A more disturbing scenario IF GHW Bush had pulled off a 2nd term victory is that in 1994 there would have been no GOP Congressional and Gubernatorial victories, only a further erosion of the GOP. Vice-President Quayle would’ve lost in ‘96 against whichever Dem would’ve run (either Clinton again, or Gore) and then take a wild guess what President would’ve been in office for 9/11 ?

Sometimes we have to go through those awful scenarios like Clintoon to get to better leadership. Go back even to 1976. If Ford had won over Carter, there wouldn’t have been a President Reagan in 1980, as Carter himself probably would’ve won that year in an open race (since the economy and most everything else would’ve still been in the toilet under Ford). The Soviets would then still exist today, as Carter would’ve followed the path of appeasement, and Eastern Europe would still be under the thumb of the Communists. Would that have been preferable to have kept Carter (and Reagan) out of the White House ?


31 posted on 04/27/2008 3:45:04 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj

I reject your whole premise.
First of all, McCain is McCain, and no one else.
He’s imperfect, but lets cut the hyperbole - he would be infinitely better than either Democrat.

McCain would not be guaranteed a 2nd term, nor would he necessarily seek it. Many times in American history has a sitting president declined running for a 2nd term, or dropped out of the race seeking his party’s nomination, because he was unable to win it. This was the case with both Truman and Johnson in the not too distant past.

I reject the premise that either Clinton or Gore would have gotten the Democrat nomination in 1996. Democrats don’t tend to hand it to losers unless they know they’ve already lost. Hence Mondale in 1984 and Stevenson’s repeat in 1956.
So no, I would say Clinton and Gore would have been out. We have no way of ever knowing whom it may have been instead.

I reject the premise that the GOP wouldn’t have taken congress in 1994 had it not been for Clinton. Once again, we cannot know, but we do know the American people were finally fed up with the congressional Democrats (and obviously not the Clintons, since they won re-election just two years later). They were fed up with the wasteful spending and the corruption of Jim Wright and Tom Foley.
We know that Newt Gingrich orchestrated a national campaign, centered around a powerful theme.
Do I attribute the GOP’s victory that year to the Clintons?
Honestly, I do not.

This whole idea that we have to lose big first to win is a mental disease. The failures of the Republican lead congress was the failure of conservatives to demand better from their leaders. Conservatives cheered on the big government spending of the GOP, declaring it a political victory for President Bush. It was our failure above all.

Now we expect candidates who will give us an easy ride?
There is no such thing. Conservatism will only flourish in government if we demand it of our elected leaders every day.

We will have to fight McCain perhaps 30% of the time if he is president. We will need to be vigilant and keep him on a short leash. But McCain is already on notice, unlike the free pass Bush got for his first 5 years. We can and will do better this time.

But it is far better to have to remain vigilant and fight McCain 30% of the time, than have to fight Obama 100% of the time, and then be called racists for doing so.


34 posted on 04/27/2008 4:19:55 AM PDT by counterpunch (John McCain for President - Because we need VICTORY in Iraq, not RETREAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I love your logic and analysis! Keep up the good work and may God bless.
40 posted on 04/27/2008 5:24:50 AM PDT by ZRicochet (Dem's will stab you in the front, McCain will stab you in the back - your only choice's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson