-=> On 04-09-98  21:48, Robert Plett did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning Dufus' Waterloo? <=-
 
 RC> RP> Well, lessee... Bush Sr. virtually destroyed Reagan's
 RC> RP> legacy by the end of his first term. It was Bush who
 RC> RP> pushed the idea of a Republican "big tent", the fruits of
 RC> RP> which we see still ripening. Both Bush Sr. & Bush Jr.
 RC> RP> pushed for continuing party support of pro-PBA candidates,
 RC> RP> as did Dole, BTW. Near as I can tell, Bush Jr. is just
 RC> RP> like his Dad.
 
 RC> ::sigh:: There is a considerable difference between
 RC> "supporting" someone and refusing to ban them. Let's not
 RC> confuse the two. Just because I don't agree to the
 RC> deportation of Jesse Jackson hardly means that I support
 RC> his platform. It just means that I believe he's entitled to
 RC> the same due process as someone with whom I do agree.
 RP> Nice spin, but let's be clear about what it was they
 RP> lobbied for, Robert. It wasn't about banning someone; they
 RP> lobbied for continued party funding and support of
 RP> political figures who favor the PBA. 
"A rose by any other name..." The fact is that a minority
faction of the party attempted to sanction members who
supported an item which 1) was legal and 2) was not a plank
of the party platform on which opposition was required.
 RP> The resolution they opposed did not involve kicking anybody
 RP> out of the party, merely the withholding of support, an
 RP> action more mild than the party's actions with respect to
 RP> David Duke and others like him who have cropped up since. 
Straw man. David Duke never had funding and support which
could be removed. The fact of the matter is that
withholding of funding and support does indeed consitute a
political death sentence. Few, if any, Republicans can
successfully oppose an nationally-funded Democrat when they
are limited to local funds and denied national suppory.
 RP> As far as I'm concerned, there's a real moral problem with
 RP> leaders who cannot comprehend the PBA as at least equal in
 RP> outrage to racism, a failing not just of the Bush family,
 RP> but the entire Republican party leadership as reflected by
 RP> the RNC vote they lobbied to achieve. 
Then either make it illegal or enter it as a plank in the
party platform. To otherwise hector and pursue those
supporters places you on a par with the tobacco fascists of
the nanny state.
 RC> RP> IMO, we have people like the Bush family to thank for the
 RC> RP> Republican party's retreat from conservatism and its turn
 RC> RP> to embracing ideas long fought against.
 
 RC> Hyperbole and histrionics. Were the Bush's crowned?
 RP> Your response is more hyperbole and histrionics than my statement. 
 RP> Read it again.  I said people *like* them, not just them.
You ignore the point of the matter:
1) the PBA is legal
2) opposition to the PBA is not a plank in the party
platform
Until one of those changes, any requirement that the PBA be
opposed is extra-legal, nanny-state hectoring on a par with
that of Schumer and Waxman.
 RP> Perhaps you're a proponent of Bush's "big tent", embraced
 RP> from the start by the Republican leadership, and find
 RP> contentment with the track the Republican party is on, but
 RP> I sure don't. 
No, I'm a proponent of law. 
A responsible citizen who opposes a law works to change the
law; he doesn't rush out and form a vigilantee lynch mob.
... Chaos in the universe always increases. -- The General Law
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------