1992 in review: A disaster or an opportunity?

Republicans get a taste of ignoring their base

Published on October 19, 2006 By Brad Wardell In Republican

In 1992, George Bush lost largely because many in his base either stayed at home or voted for Perot in protest of Bush's tax hike that went against his campaign promise.

This week, Rush complained that I was ignoring history -- that when conservatives stay home, the kooks take over and the result we saw in 1992.

But that's not the way I remember it. I don't remember the world coming to an end. Even with the Democrats controlling the house, the senate, and the executive, we didn't get nationalized health care (the closest we'd get to that would be a REPUBLICAN President, house, and senate), we didn't turn commune, in short the world did not come to an end. Certainly Clinton wasn't a great President but as far as the life of the average American is concerned, the 90s were hardly a national nightmare.

After reading Joe's article and comment by deference. You don't have to be a genius to see that Joe and deference are dimowits posing as Conservitives/Republicians. Dimowits just can't be honest about who they are. Think in terms of a team sport. These two guys are on your team, the game is going badly, bad decisions were made (by the manager, coach, quarterback, pitcher, etc.) you go back to the huddle or dugout, and these two guys say " hey, we deserve to loose this game" and they lay down or quit. I for one am no quiter. To sit out this election is to quit. In closing let me just say to the 10 or 15 people who read this blog, get your butts to the polls and lets WIN this election.

The DIFFERENCE isn't with regards to your analogy (i.e. thinking that it's a sports team). The DIFFERENCE is the effect of losing. I don't think it would be the end of the world if Republicans lost. The best Rush was able to give was 1992 and for me and others who feel as I do, 1992 is a case study of what happens when you ignore your base and the long-term benefits to conservatives when conservatives do make a principled stand.

I would never withold my vote arbitrarily. But if my senator, for example, was lobbying for a bridge to nowhere and other blatant pork, I wouldn't vote for him regardless of what party he was with unless his opponent was decidedly worse.

Rush's argument seems to rest on who has control of congress and I simply don't agree that a slim Democratic majority is as huge of a deal as he and apparently you do. And if it such a big deal, then shame on the Republicans for squandering their majority.

Comments

bakerstreet

on Oct 19, 2006

If I recall correctly the result of the 1992 election led to "Rush Rooms" all over the country and a groundswell of conservative affirmation. I dunno what Rush wants. You'll be hard pressed to find a 'dynasty' in American presidential politics that wasn't in and of itself a disaster, whichever side it was dominated by. Usually 8-12 years is a good run. Roosevelt/Reagan-Bush are examples of stretching the attention span of the American people to the limit, I think.

Look at Congress, where dishonest, fat old prunes sit for 40 years ignoring their constituents, drinking themselves into ineptitude and chasing their staff around the desk. That's what you get when there isn't a changing of the guard, or at least the threat of it. We get precious little care and consideration from our politicians, and what little we get is due to the very real chance that they might lose every few years.

So when I see an obviously tired regime closing out 12 or even 8 years by losing an election, I don't think it is the end of the world either. On the one hand it will motivate those who lost to better things and more concern for my wishes. On the other there's the slim chance that the people who win will actually do something worthwhile.

If anything, Rush should be salivating at the idea of a new Clinton era. Maybe he'd make a few headlines that didn't have to do with his prescriptions.

RaHarakhte

on Oct 19, 2006

How about we dig a little deeper into history. Does anybody know how many conservatives sat at home after Gerald Ford beat Ronald Reagan back in '76 for the Republican presidential nomination? Here's why I ask.

What happened after Carter defeated Ford in that general election? Four years of embarrassment and ineptitude from the White House, and a discussion over the kind of leadership that would best serve the country. This discussion eventually gave us the ascendency of Ronald Reagan and, in the 1984 election, a Republican-controlled Senate.

Sometimes having dirt kicked in your eye really can be good for you.

Dr Guy

on Oct 19, 2006

1992 was not the end of the world, but it sure scared me (Hillary Care). Which is your point. I doubt 2006 will be as traumatic since the Democrats do not have the executive, and in truth, there is always the senate to "cool" things with their filibuster.

But one lasting bit of damage that did occur was Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg. That is something we will long have to live with.

Dr Guy

on Oct 19, 2006

This discussion eventually gave us the ascendency of Ronald Reagan and, in the 1984 election, a Republican-controlled Senate.

Uh, Reagan's coattails brought a Republican Senate in 1980. They lost it again in 86, but Reagan had it for 6 years.

RaHarakhte

on Oct 19, 2006

Oops. Sorry, Dr. Guy, and thanks for the correction. I'm suffering from a newborn baby girl, which affects the memory at times.

Still, that makes the point even more clearly, no?

Dr Guy

on Oct 19, 2006

I'm suffering from a newborn baby girl, which affects the memory at times

Congratulations! And if you think you are suffering now, just wait still she starts dating! Signed - Father of 2 girls,

Deymond

on Oct 21, 2006

It's all well and good to complain about the Republicans, but as a member of a collective of conservatives, nominal Republicans, Americans or whatever, we all share responsibility for the candidates who take office in January and we also share responsibility for the candidates who are on the ballot in November. It's all well and good in practice to say 'nobody deserves my vote' and to abstain from voting, but the people who do that owe an apology and an explanation as to why they allowed this to happen.

The argument that '1992 wasn't so bad' necessarily lends itself more to the people who were running the Republican party in 1992 than to those of us who truly believe in smaller government. To say that an election can be sacrificed in hopes that the political pendulum will swing back in our direction is to say that big government and rampant spending isn't a big deal. In truth, November 3rd, 1992 wasn't the tragedy; the fact that prior to 1995 we hadn't had a congress in memory that had even paid lip service to the idea of restraining government growth was the tragedy. It's quite a mistake to suggest that going back to that time won't do real damage to our nation.

Greg D24

on Oct 24, 2007

Well, unlike you I did not vote for GHWB in 1992 (I voted Libertarian). I figured that, in a time of peace and prosperity, we could afford a Dem Pres more than we could afford a lying sack of sh!t "Republican". And doing so got us 1994.

However, it also got us Ruth Ginsberg and one other left-wing weenie on the Supreme Court, and gave Kennedy the power he has to be the Supreme Court "swing voter". Think Kelo for one of the costs of Clinton.

2008 is different. It's a time of war, and the Democrats are singularly unserious and untrustworthy when it comes to fighting a war that is in America's best interests (they're fine with fighting a war that doesn't help the US (Bosnia, Haiti), it's just wars or military actions that help the US that they're opposed to). That makes this a time when Democrats simply can't be trusted with power.

As they've eagerly demonstrated for the last 10 months.

So even if you don't favor replacing one or two left-wing thug SC "Justices" with decent human beings (you know, ones who favor democracy over dictatorship), if you care about America, and don't want to lose the War on Terror, you can't just stay at home, and you can't vote "none of the above". Get out and vote in the primaries, and try to get Republican candidates you can actively support, because the US just can't afford giving power to the Democrats.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!