On 01-22-98, MATT MUNSON declared to ROBERT PLETT:
MM>RP>  That "lesser of two evils" approach, along with the "big tent"
MM>RP>  philosphy, has produced a party that, like Coors says, stands for
MM>RP>  nothing, and which increasing numbers of folks of principle find
MM>RP>  themselves no longer able to stomach being associated with.
MM>But they are trying not to loose their seats, and if the republicans
MM>loose, else will be in goverment?
MM>and it will be much worse.
Worse?  I seriously doubt that.  As a minority party, the Republicans
applied the brakes.  As the majority, they've let up on the brakes and
occasionally hit the accelerator.
In any event, while their strategy may appear to help them maintain that
majority in the short term, if they continue, I believe they'll soon
lose it.  They are rapidly alienating a group of voters that comprises
at least 30% of all votes they get.
MM>RP>  In the name of political pragmatism, the Republican Party has decided 
t
MM>RP>  embrace all of its "friends" who advocate the most heinous forms of
MM>RP>  infanticide.  In trying to stand for everything, you have made a 
mocker
MM>RP>  of the platform and sent a clear message that the Republican Party
MM>RP>  stands for nothing.  What's next:  Republicans for Socialism,
MM>RP>  Republicans for Ethnic Cleansing, Republicans for Pedophilia?  I am 
too
MM>RP>  ashamed for words to express how I feel about my long association 
ith
MM>RP>  the Republican Party.
MM>RP>
MM>RP>  Sincerely,
MM>RP>   - signed -
MM>Well Republicans are against Partial Birth Abortion.
At the moment, that case isn't so easy to prove.  If they really do
oppose it, they shouldn't be fielding candidates who favor it, like
Christine Todd Whitman, who vetoed a PBA ban passed by the NJ
legislature.  They actively opposed Republican candidate David Duke
because of racism, so why is it suddenly improper to impose a litmus
test when it's PBA that's the issue?  Do you think they would fund a
candidate that openly supports pedophilia?
Sorry, but that supposed opposition to PBA gets weaker the more one
examines it.  IMO, it isn't so much that they oppose it as it is an
issue they thought they could gain points against the DemonRats with.
When push came to shove, they clearly showed it doesn't really matter to
them whether the PBA is ever banned.
They've shown the same two-faced character on other issues too, like gun
control, for example.  Just as with the PBA, they spouted lots of
rhetoric about repealing the assault weapons ban, but that ban is still
there and likely will soon be broadened with their help.  They've been
preaching against Slick & Hillarity's designs for government health
care, but in their budget deal they implemented parts of that same plan,
as folks are finally beginning to learn to their dismay when they find
doctors refusing to care for them lest the government forbid those
doctors care for medicare patients.  They preach tax simplification at
the same time they enact legislation that complicates the tax code more
than has ever been the case in our history, with tax and budget
increases they were also preaching against, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
MM>And unlike The United Kingdom, anyone could run as a republican or
MM>a democrat or even a libertarian.
Would the Republican party support a Marxist?
What you're saying is that nothing in the Republican party platform has
any meaning whatever.  To me, a party's platform amounts to a pledge, a
contract between the party and its supporters stating those things it
and its candidates will actively support or oppose.  When the party
platform says it will oppose abortion, then funds pro-abort candidates,
AFAIC, that's breach of contract.  The Republican party has and is
continuing to break faith with its supporters on every hand.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * If they can do a PBA, they can kill at any time.
---------------