bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (10/26/84)
Listen, if you are REALLY for Mondale, your best bet is to vote for Reagan. No, REALLY! --- If you really believe that Reagan has been screwing up the country for the last 4 years, the shit should hit the fan within two years, no matter WHO is elected. BUT - if RR is in the white house, and there is a Republican Congress, they will take the blame! If Mondale IS elected then not only will he be blamed with things he (possibly) had nothing to do with, but the political backlash may make things even MORE conservative afterwards. This isn't really my thoughts on the subject, I overheard some others talking about it. Personally, I'm for Ronnie anyway, but now there's a reason for EVERYONE to vote for him!! Brad Miller -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/26/84)
Actually, there really is reason for voting for Mondale/Ferrarro even if you don't like them or their positions. Interviews with heads of all major factions in the GOP (NYTimes Magazine, 9/10/84) reveal most believe that Reagan will die in office due to a collapse of health. They also agree that, beginning Nov. 7th, a furious allout fight for control of the Republican Party will begin. The Republicans are divided far more bitterly than the Democrats & only the personality of Reagan has provided an illusion of unity, something which will cease on reelection: most GOP leaders believe Reagan will take little or no interest in party affairs after the election. The self-avowed crazies of the New Christian [sic.] Right (Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, etc.) are (as usual) talking bloodily about purging the supporters of Reagan the "hypocrite" (note the Khomeini-ism) and capturing controp of the party. Altho' the NCR lacks voter appeal, they have vast resources of $$, minions, & mail for effec- tively waging a successful power struggle in an organization like the GOP. Moderates & traditional Republicans seem relatively demoralized & altho' not saying much they're probably anxious about their future (if they have one). Even worse, a symposium of moderate & liberal political observers (see NYR, "The Election & After", pp. 33-38, 8/16/84) believe a reelected Reagan-with-a-"mandate" will even try to enforce Reaganomics again; they expect economic disaster will result but disagree about timing (2nd or 3rd year?) and impact (will it favor Democrats or "radical populists" on the far right?). In other words, a vote for Reagan won't likely be for Reagan but for Bush and/or the extreme right. Despite the chaos within & without the GOP that may result, it doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats will gain, but it may considerably strengthen the hand of the lunatic fringe. So even moderate, traditional, & thoughtful Republicans should seriously consider voting Democratic on November 6th: a vote for Reagan has little to do with Republicanism as they know it. Finally, don't be fatalistic! The "majority" isn't behind Reagan. Voter turnout has progressively declined for 20 years. Only 27% of eligible voters voted in 1980; that election was a particularly strong example of the American habit of negative voting, not for a candidate but against an opponent (see any standard political science text). Opinion polls aren't very credible: the two major polling organizations have been politically biased for some time now (Gallup's is pro-GOP, Harris's pro-Democrat). Besides, voters elect, not polls. As a novelty item, here's an "abberant" polling result. 2/3rds of the Harvard University undergraduate body (4,000 people) were polled this week. The findings were: Mondale 61% Reagan 28% Among black students, Mondale won 85%-8%, among women, Mondale got 72%, & 58% of the men favored Mondale. The poll was conducted by the Institute of Politics. What possible relevance does Ha-vuhd student opinion have for the electorate? The Institute explained the surprising results as due to the fact that the students are issue-oriented. The poll then gives us a glimpse of the kind of verdict the general public is capable of deli- vering on November 6th if they decide to vote on the issues. In its own way Harvard's a crosssection of the country with more than a few conserva- tives in its midst. So, VOTE! & vote well! on November 6th! "Ronnie Reagan is no good, Send him back to Hollywood!" Ron Rizzo
semreb@ih4ep.UUCP (Waz Nardbill) (10/26/84)
Ron,
A statistical correction: 53% of the eligible voters voted in
1980, 27% of the eligible voters voted for Reagan. What a mandate!!
Terry Bermesmedin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/28/84)
As a self awowed crazy, and a republican, I'd take issue with that B.S. you are spewing out. Reagan is in fine physical shape. He works out an hour a day on a nautilus machine. I am in good shape, but I serously doubt if I could do that. And if we want to talk about healt h problems, mondales high blood pressure would probably knock him out, since he isnt near the shape that reagan is in. Remember reagan was shot and recovered and is better than new. As for us conservative crazies taking over the party, well we've been there for some time. It's just that the media hasnt noticed. I'm sure it was the eastern liberals who nominated goldwater back in '64. And besides, if next term we come out with a real crazy, well, so much easier for you liberals to vote in one of your turkeys. Thats is after all what democracy is all about. Milo
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/28/84)
> Actually, there really is reason for voting for Mondale/Ferrarro even > if you don't like them or their positions. Interviews with heads of > all major factions in the GOP (NYTimes Magazine, 9/10/84) reveal most > believe that Reagan will die in office due to a collapse of health. > They also agree that, beginning Nov. 7th, a furious allout fight for > control of the Republican Party will begin... > -- Ron Rizzo (rrizzo@bbncca) Mr. Rizzo's analysis concludes that Reagan's death is likely to strengthen the far-right Republicans. I disagree. George Bush has never liked the ultra-conservatives, nor they him; their influence in the White House would diminsh. The rest of the party is not likely to give up the advantage of an incumbent candidate in 1988 -- the Democrats didn't give Carter the boot, and Bush could hardly do worse -- and so the influence of the ultra-right would diminsh in the Republican party as well. I think there is some reason for voting for Reagan/Bush even if you don't like Reagan or all of his positions. The only possible favorable outcome from this election is if Reagan wins and dies soon in office. The other outcomes give you Mondale (blech!), Ferraro (blech!), or Reagan (well, let's face it, blech!). Anyone know where I can get a "Bush in 85" bumper sticker? Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
ix127@sdcc6.UUCP (ix127) (10/29/84)
LINE-EATER As a Mondale supporter, I do agree with that logic, to some extent. Those of you who are voting for Reagan because the economy is doing better right now (everyone's forgotten about the recession in the middle of Reagan's term) should really be writing in Paul Volcker's name instead. He has more to do with the recovery than Reagan. The economy has been having more rapid up and down cycles for the last few years, and the next downturn is going to be made worse by Reagan's deficits and the "strong" (boy, talk about your loaded words) dollar. If people are going to give Reagan credit for the current upturn, I want to see him get the blame for the downturn, too. Assuming that I am right (I don't expect everyone to assume the same), It's also important that Reagan not win by a landslide. If it's reasonably close, more people will question their wisdom in voting for Reagan. McGovern lost so badly that there were very few people who could say, "Don't blame me; I voted for McGovern." John Mercer, UCSD Biology "Don't blame me; I voted for Mondale."
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (10/29/84)
As to the President being gathered during 2nd term: My "political research" indicates a widespread belief that Ronald W. Reagan will be giving liberals nightmares well into his 90's. Suggest liberals move to Canada, no, England, no, Germany, well, The Netherlands is always a good bet.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/29/84)
Mr. Medin, Re Reagan's health & a 2nd term, the "BS" is in fact the candid & apparently considered opinion of most GOP leaders, whether right, left, or center, or fringe, as it was elicited in a series of detailed talks with these leaders by a NYTimes reporter. Your gripe is with the GOP itself, including the "crazies" (Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, etc.) Again, to corroborate what I said, see the article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine for Sept. 10, 1984. I don't know WHY they believe this (or anything else, for that matter) and apparently ignore the "hard cold facts" about Reagan's health that you present. Maybe they're paranoid? "Toto, I do think we're in Kansas! See the missile silos!" Ron Rizzo
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (11/01/84)
R. Rizzo writes: > ... Your gripe is with the GOP > itself, including the "crazies" (Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, Richard > Viguerie, etc.) Major correction is required. Paul Weyrich (Heritage Foundation) may well be a Good Republican, but H. Phillips (Conservative Caucus) and R. Viguerie (self-proclaimed Populist) are most definitely not. This is demonstrated by their opposition to Senator Percy, and will also be apparent in 1988 when they won't even give George Bush the time of day. Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (11/02/84)
In article <1068@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: > .... The self-avowed crazies of the New Christian [sic.] >Right (Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, etc.) are (as usual) talking >bloodily about purging the supporters of Reagan the "hypocrite" (note the >Khomeini-ism) and capturing controp of the party. Altho' the NCR lacks >voter appeal, they have vast resources of $$, minions, & mail for effec- >tively waging a successful power struggle in an organization like the GOP. >Moderates & traditional Republicans seem relatively demoralized & altho' >not saying much they're probably anxious about their future (if they have >one). > Either the NCR is powerful enough to get control of a political party right now, or it isn't. Reagan has been in for 4 years, and is far less beholden to them than he was 4 years ago; he has been a popular president who has not needed the backing of extremists to get his policies thru. No matter what flak his administration has caught, Reagan has lived up to the nickname of the "teflon" president; almost nothing seems to affect his personal popularity. Consider that the last debate had virtually no effect on his standing in relation to Mondale, despite his slip in saying that he would give the "Star Wars" technology to the USSR. I think that the NCR's supposed clout vanished one day after the election. In 1980, one could point to the NCR "slate", and its "hit list" of moderates and liberals. In 1984, you can't. Even their strongest candidate, Jesse Helms, is facing a great deal of opposition in what is one of the closest of the Senate races. >In other words, a vote for Reagan won't likely be for Reagan but for >Bush and/or the extreme right. Despite the chaos within & without the >GOP that may result, it doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats will >gain, but it may considerably strengthen the hand of the lunatic fringe. > Whether Reagan dies in office or not makes no difference to the NCR; in case you haven't noticed, George Bush is considered a part of the old eastern liberal wing of the party. If Bush is President the NCR has even less of a claim on the White House when it comes to getting favors. I think your fear of and/or distaste for the NCR is making you see them as a much more potent force than they really are. (For the record, I doubt that the NCR would approve of the people I'm voting for, either). -- "We start bombing in five minutes...say, is this microphone on?" Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick