stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig) (11/09/84)
>Democrat John Kerry, former national head of Vietnam Veterans Against >The War, beat ultra-conservative Republican Ray Shamie, 55-45%, this >despite Shamie's enormous campaign spending (including $1 million of >his own money, a heavily media-oriented campaign, & massive contribu- >tions from GOP & New Right war chests), last-minute visits to Boston etc., etc. Well I don't live in Massachusetts, but I do know some people from Boston, and from what I hear, Shamie was a real jerk anyway. Glad he lost. > >Representative Gerry Studds, who was censured for an affair with a >male congressional page, dredged up from 11 years ago by House prudes, >won reelection easily over Republican Louis Crampton, 57-43%. Studds >is now the FIRST OPENLY GAY PERSON to be elected to Congress. > Maybe you don't think a holder of public office should be held accountable for his actions? A Congressperson having an affair with a page would cause me to question that person's suitability for office. In such a case, I don't think such things should be "dredged up... by... prudes". Such charges should be aired, and the candidate given a chance to make an explanation. Besides, he/she might be innocent, in which case s/he deserves a chance to clear his/her name. >Silvio Conte, the only GOP incumbent in Massachusetts' House delega- >tion, was reelected, but all the other seats went to Democrats, most >of them LIBERALS, like Kerry & Studds. > Hooray for the LIBERALS, our great hope for the future. :-) >Reagan nearly lost Massachusetts, narrowly beating Mondale, 51.6-48.4%, >or 1,117,771 to 1,051,513 with 98% of the precincts reporting. > >There were NO COATTAILS in this state. In fact, Reagan nearly lost his >shirt! > What you conveniently neglect to point out is that Reagan lost this state by a good margin in 1980. I think going from losing by 8-10% to winning by a few points to be a pretty good turnaround, don't you? >Belmont, MA, home of the national headquarters of the John Birch Soci- >ety & hometown of its founder, candy millionaire Robert Welch, favored >Mondale over Reagan. > BFD. Geraldine Ferraro's old district went for Reagan over Mondale by more than 15 points. It's a trend, an honest-to-God mandate, I tell you! :-) >Two New Right kingpins BIT THE DUST in Senate races. Liberal Democrat >Paul Simon took out crazy Chuck Percy (a former GOP liberal, who got >"reborn" & slid to the far right) in Illinois. In Iowa, Tom Harkin, >another Democratic liberal, whipped New Rightist Roger Jepsen, the >principal sponsor of the notorious Family Protection Act. > Jepsen was also hurt by controversy surrounding his personal life-- more questionable conduct. Again, I would seriously consider such things when voting for a candidate. What I am trying to say is that such things probably had a bearing on the race, along with the political leanings of the candidates. >Reagan's coattails proved to be short: at this hour (noon, Wed.) >the Republicans have GAINED ONLY 9-16 HOUSE SEATS (they needed 26 to >restore the margin they enjoyed in 1981-2 when they allied with "boll >weevil" Demo's to pass much Reaganite legislation), and they LOST 2 >SENATE SEATS. The Democrats retain the congressional voting bloc >that has successfully blocked most Reaganite bills for the last two >years. 7 House races are still undecided at this time. > For the Senate, about what had been projected before the election. Presidential coattails are usually short/non-existent in Senate races (1980 was obviously an exception). Democrats expected to pick up 2 to 4 Senate seats, Republicans said the gains would be 2 or less. The result: the Dems got 2 more seats, LESS than their most optimistic predictions, and in fact, no more than expected. In the House, where coattails are usually more of a factor, the Republicans fell short of their hopes of gaining 25 seats when the election began. They ended up with closer to 13, which was about where most of those not connected with the Dems or the GOP expected the gain to fall. As far as crazy Chuck Percy goes, if they put Jesse at the helm of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, you ain't seen nothing yet. I don't like Percy much, but Helms makes just about everyone look like raving liberal fanatics. He is also somewhat of a maverick; a real damaging blow to our foreign policy. >Even worse for the Republicans, who despite postelection euphoria >are beginning the bloody factional battle for party control & are >already casting anxious eyes to the midterm elections, 22 GOP Senate >seats will be up for reelection in 1986. Reagan thus has less than >2 years to sneak major tax increases past voters to reduce somewhat >the massive federal deficit, which the GOP considers the most damag- >ing issue for 1986 & which threatens to become devastating in Reagan's >2nd term. > "Sneaking" bills past Congress will never happen now; America will suffer through at least two more years of conflict in the Capitol and the White House while the deficit gets bigger and our foreign policy image to the rest of the world becomes even more fragmented and contradictory. We needed a mandate, (not necessarily Reagan's either) a concentrated plan for dealing with the problems facing us. Now we are left no better off than we were before the election. I don't think Reagan is solely to blame for the mess we are in. The inability of the executive and legislative branches to agree on anything is the real problem, and that blame rests on both the President and Congress. Nevertheless, I could be wrong about the next two years; I hope so. In any case, the people (a few of them anyway) have spoken. I say let's give their choices a chance. >BTW, I'd like to hear from any netters interested in further reducing >the number of New Rightists in the Congress, & planning for a big GOP >Senate defeat in 1986. Let's continue the momentum & drive reaction- >aries & bigots from office! > >Four More Years should be a windfall for political cartoonists, the >carnival element in politics, & North American surrealism. It's going >to be a wild & crazy time! > Ah, well. The election is barely over and already the lines of battle are drawn. It's THEM against us. Before we condemn the results of the election, I think we should give the government a chance. After all, with all its faults, it is OUR government and the only one we've got. It's a new one with both old and new faces. Isn't it a bit early to start tearing it down? Mark Modig ..ihnp4!btlunix!mom