Posted on 11/08/2005 7:40:44 PM PST by NorthEastRepublican
Just my take
We should hate Perot more each day. As we all know Bush would have won in 1992 had it not been for Perot. Aside from the horrible presidency of Clinton, he reshaped politics. Clintons win allowed the Democrats to solidify some blue states allowed the Dems to make some states blue. For example NJ, CA, IL, WA, OR were all Republican states until Clinton. Even areas in NY like Westchester and Long Island were all Republican but have become dem because of Clinton. Clintons presidency took away some states from us and we can all point our fingers at Perot.
And, as President, GHW Bush continued every single one of Reagan's anti-abortion policies, including the Mexico City executive order, and supported the Hyde amendment with the threat of a veto if the Democrats tried to overturn it.
You are right, I wrongly got carried away with my statement and I retract Perot from that comment.
Well said! If the republicans refuse to lead when they are "in control" of the senate, house, and executive branch, they deserve to lose! For all you who think you know better, think twice about where we are, and where we need to go... spending like a drunken sailor with an unlimited credit card, is the sign of a rino when it comes to other affairs, other than the war, I expect to have deficit only for war activties.
As I recall a number of studies found that Perot took votes from Bush and Clinton in roughly equal numbers.
No problem there. I kind of figured it was rhetoric, from other things you said. I didn't mean to sound like I jumped so hard there...but there is no denying it was a mistake. Third party candidacies are death for whatever party they siphon voters away from. I will not support a third party candidate again.
No, I deserved it, as soon as I posted I thought twice, thrice and a few more about comparing Perot with the 'toon in that regard.
No, the clinton's and media's lies about the economy is what sunk Bush.
The economy was well into a recovery for over a year before the election, but the media failed to discover this fact until after clinton was inaugurated.
What sunk Bush - in addition to the media's complicity in spreading clinton's lies about the economy - was his failure to veto the democrat tax increase in 1990. That "compromise" with the democrats cost him the election for a second term.
What sunk Bush - in addition to the media's complicity in spreading clinton's lies about the economy - was his failure to veto the democrat tax increase in 1990.
both additional points true. But even so, unless the small business man is truly feeling pain, i don't think they will blindly believe the media characterization of the media and vote that way. If orders are being made, interest rates are relativley low, then they won't buy falsehoods and attribute it to liberal whining. We don't buy it now. but if the inverse is true, though lingering more in perception than reality, then Perot wouldn't have had taken so many votes as he did. Bush's handlers just did a poor job of pushing his agenda.
In 08' coming up--
ANYONE who comes forward as thinking that THEY should be the " Next Perot " should have the RNC do MORE than just " Talk " to them about the damage they would cause!!
They should encase them in Cement and make them listen to Endless-Loop-Tapes of speeches by Cindy Sheehan-Teddy The swimer Kennedy - and Scream'in Dean Rants until they realized the Dangerousness of Losing another Republican in office because of egotist desires or aggrandizing themselves!!
Airborne
p.s.--please--soemone let McShame know about this too!
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.