IF THEY WANT TO PLAY ROUGH DON'T FIGHT WITH WITH THIS PIG CUZ WE WILL ALL GET DIRTY AND I WILL LOVE IT

-- roy (nannoookcs@cs.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

There is a real problem with the political process when either side of an issue gets so frustrated over what they perceive as the inequities of the system that they turn in frustration to a "scorched earth" policy where the innocent are held hostage by EITHER side.

George Bush (the elder) lost to Bill Clinton in part because his conservative base deserted him to vote for Perot, mainly over breaking his "Read my lips," pledge. Basically, Bush was outvoted in the Congress, and either had to accept tax increases that he'd pledged to not allow, or let the government come to a standstill and innocent people get hurt. About five years later, presented with a virtually identical situation except for a Republican controlled Congress holding the line on spending (not even a decrease in spending, merely a decrease in the rate of increase), Clinton invoked a scorched earth policy, shut down the government, and blamed it all on Newt and company.

This precedent MAY come back to haunt the pro-government people, if those people who would like REASONABLE restrictions on the growth of government become sufficiently frustrated that they decide to bring the government to its knees by such initiatives as the one suggested, or blanket voting of no on all school and other levies, regardless of their merit, as a form of protest.

Although Clinton and Carville certainly didn't pioneer the "take no prisoners" style of politics, they have pushed it to new heights. If their tactics were to be generally accepted, it becomes a slippery slope to where politics in the US could come to resemble politics in Bosnia in a short period of time. Win at any cost is a dangerous game to play.

the craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 16, 2000.

"George Bush (the elder) lost to Bill Clinton in part because his conservative base deserted him to vote for Perot,"

Sorry Craig, but that contention is 100% pure horse-pucky. Exit polls from '92 show that had Perot NOT been on the ballet, nearly half of his supporters would have voted for Bush, and a little OVER HALF said that they would have voted for Clinton. In other words, Perot hurt Clinton more than he hurt Bush...but Clinton still won. "conservative base deserted him to vote for Perot"? sorry Craig, but like Tim Eyeman, Bush Sr. was just a loser.

Dont get me wrong. Clinton is a total gimboid too, and I'm proud to say that I've never voted for the Gutless wonder, but dont try to make the "Perot screwed us" argument...it just doesn't hold water.

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

"Although Clinton and Carville certainly didn't pioneer the "take no prisoners" style of politics, they have pushed it to new heights"

Care to mention the 20th cen. pioneer of this tactic? I'll give you a hint: He WAS a crook!!

Don't try to make "the end justifieth the means" political tactics a partison issue. Like your last argument, it just doesn't hold water.

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

"Yawwwn!!! Ever get the feeling that you've wasted your life reading something? "

Yes, another comment from Nate the Great.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.