Reflections on 1992 election

N

NGIB

New member
About 16 years ago we were in an election year where neither mainstrean candidate was very appealing - in my opinion. I was in my mid-thirties then and much more idealistic than I am now. For the first time in my life I wanted to vote for someone and not against someone so I decided to vote for Ross Perot. This was what my conscience told me to do as I felt we needed to send a message that the regular politicians just weren't who we needed running this country.

Flash forward 16 years. I'm older and I hope wiser and this election really reminds me of 1992 all over again. For sure don't want Hilbama elected, don't care for McCain either and he'll probably be the Republican nominee. There's a lot of fervent Ron Paul supporters here on these types of forums and many say they're going to vote Ron Paul no matter what.

Well folks, I did vote my heart once and all it did was help Bill Clinton serve two terms in the White House. My personal rebellion had no effect other than hurting myself with 8 years of Clinton. Personally I am going to vote to keep Hilbama out of office - period. While I don't think McCain is great, I know Hilbama will hurt us - especially with the ultra-liberal judicial appointments that WILL happen in the first term. Nope, can't afford the federal bench, and possibly the Surpreme Court to swing that far left so I'll swallow my pride and vote against someone again...
 
I made the Perot mistake in '92 also, and regretted it.
The only way to get someone who totally agrees with you is to run yourself. Going through issue by issue, I would have liked Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, in that order. If it comes down to McCain vs. Hillbama, the strategy of not voting for the lesser of two evils is the same thing as voting for the greater evil. If she wins, you own the result. "Don't blame me, I voted for Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Elmer Fudd, etc." might make you feel good, but the fact is you did not do the one thing you could do to attempt to stop her.
 
Hindsight is 20/20, but if all of us Perot voters had voted Republican maybe Clinton would not have won. If Clinton had not been President, would Hillary ever have been elected to the Senate and run for President - highly doubtful. Just goes to show how one action can have long standing consequences....
 
Aren't you jumping the gun a little?

Well folks, I did vote my heart once and all it did was help Bill Clinton serve two terms in the White House. My personal rebellion had no effect other than hurting myself with 8 years of Clinton.
Click to expand...

That analysis could be oversimplified. A good book on the topic of third party movements: http://books.google.com/books?id=hc...erot"&sig=t5Z-hcf8PGZDlzsP9FU_oeaTH8Y#PPP1,M1

At this point in the primaries, no actual third party bid has materialized. Its interesting that advocates of certain candidates have used the "wasted vote" thesis, to promote their candidate, but more so as an excuse to heap derision on followers of other candidates. From day 1 in the primary process.

What the heck is the primary system for, anyway?

If the eventual nominee wants to unite the party, the ball is in his court. Once again, certain hecklers take another opportunity to poke a stick in the eye of the losing candidates, to alienate them further.
 
I'm certainly not a heckler and as it stands right now I really don't care for any of the candidates. My simple point is that I know who I DON'T want in the White House and will not waste a vote on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning.

I'd bet everything I own that Ron Paul will not be the next President - even though I like some of his views. I would not bet a nickle that Hillary or Obama won't be. Realistically, voting for a candidate with no chance is like not voting at all - and that's just fine with Hilbama...
 
Hindsight is 20/20, but if all of us Perot voters had voted Republican maybe Clinton would not have won
Click to expand...
.

Were all the Perot Voters Republican? A percentage likely would have gone to Clinton had Perot not been in the race.

I liked Perot until after he picked his running mate when he started to implode. About the time Admiral Stockdale said "Who am I....". I voted for Bush 1.

The trend in America is simply to vote the checkbook. The public's money is just too inviting to the TAX-EATERS. The amount of entitlements is simply staggering. Obviously there is NO WAY repeat NO WAY to reverse this. Every democracy will fail. Ours is no exception.

I'm putting these last lines on my signature for a while. While we debate who's the best chance for the republicans to run against the Dem.
 
"Well folks, I did vote my heart once and all it did was help Bill Clinton serve two terms in the White House. My personal rebellion had no effect other than hurting myself with 8 years of Clinton."


Bush I thought that everyone who owned a gun would vote for him because he was the lesser of two anti-gun evils. He also thought that folks would forgive him for his "no more taxes" lie. Bush I was wrong on both counts.

Yes, I held my nose and voted for Bush I. Will also hold my nose and vote for McCain. However, holding my nose will not kill the anti-gun stench of Mitt Romney and I will not vote for him.
 
I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he's the only GOP candidate I could vote for in this election. Since he won't get the nomination, I'm going to vote third party (Libertarian).

As I've said many times, if you keep walking toward a cliff, whether quickly or slowly, eventually you're going to take a fall. If America keeps voting for the lesser of two evils, then eventually our government will be nothing but evil. And this is exactly what's going to happen. By continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils and resisting a radical change in direction, we are continuing to destroy our Constitution. At the rate we're going, one day we're going to be asked to vote for either an openly fascist candidate or an openly Marxist candidate. We're not that far from that scenario right now.

If Hillary or Obama gets elected because too many people like me didn't want to vote against the Constitution, then I will not accept blame. The blame will lie squarely with the GOP and its primary voters for not nominating a candidate who isn't hostile to the Constitution, who doesn't want to bankrupt the country through endless war in the Middle East, and who can be trusted to seal the borders.

Regarding guns specifically: If American gun owners comply with any future gun bans, then they don't deserve their guns anyway. Only people who are brave enough to stand up to a tyrannical government deserve a Second Amendment.
 
I liked McCain in prior elections. But I view him now as a war monger (Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran) with ZERO chance of victory in November.

Ann Coulter may be correct. Vote the Democrat in, then republicans in congress will know what they're supposed to do!
 
Well folks, I did vote my heart once and all it did was help Bill Clinton serve two terms in the White House. My personal rebellion had no effect other than hurting myself with 8 years of Clinton."
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat.

On the other hand, I have watched my Texas Governor (P)rick Perry state that he would be "tough on the border" just before the election, to snuggling up with his Austin buddies almost immediately after he won re-election and state that no, we need not build a fence, because these are our neighbors.

I have watched both of my Texas Senators vote against the Shamnesty Bill as recently as last July, but vote to gut the Fence Appropriation just a month ago.

None of them will ever get my support or my vote again.

John McCain was wrong on Campaign Finance Reform. He was wrong on immigration. He is wrong on global warming. He is wrong on Gitmo.

He is a RINO. He has betrayed the Republican Party and has betrayed his country. He is not alone, but I will certainly not reward him for this. He will not, under any circumstances, get my vote.

I may write in Ron Paul. I may write in Mickey Mouse. I may buy a good bottle of scotch and drink myself into oblivion on the first Tuesday in November.
 
Regarding guns specifically: If American gun owners comply with any future gun bans, then they don't deserve their guns anyway. Only people who are brave enough to stand up to a tyrannical government deserve a Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

And from my point of view regarding guns specifically: Since '94, we've been steadily winning on the gun issue. We've regained lost rights at an unbelievable pace lately. As gun owners, we've done that by voting smart.

I also voted for Ross Perot. In hindsight, I can't blame our losses in the 90's to anything but my (and other idealists') lack of political acuity.

Unless you're talking about picking up a rifle, you recover rights piecemeal, just like you lost them.

Those that ignore the lessons of history...
 
I'm confused.

For the last six months, some of you guys have been telling us Ron Paul supporters how insignificant we are statistically. We've been insulted repeatedly and characterized as the lunatic fringe.

Now suddenly, we have become important? How could this be?

And how could you possibly even want someone as deranged as us Ron Paul supporters to vote for your Republican candidate? We'll just soil his reputation when we start babbling incoherently about things like liberty, small government, civil rights, an end to illegal immigration, and de-federalization of things like welfare and education.

You guys won. Your candidate is on top. Good for you. Let me be the first to say I am jealous.

Just ignore us. Statistically and politically we don't exist. We are OK with that.
 
I'm gonna have to go with steel core and unregistered on this. I voted for a Libertarian in 92 just like I have been doing since 1980. I thought Ross a wacko. I see no reason to encourage either the R's or the D's with my vote. I voted the lesser of two evils in 2000 and 2004, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and causes a twitch in my voting hand. The doctor prescribed a rigorous rehab therapy of voting my principles and participation in the electoral process as the only sure cure (that was not intended as a RP plug even though it worked out nicely in retrospect).
 
Sure...you have a choice.

You could vote for the Bolsheviks, or their radical opponents the Mensheviks.

In simpler terms, you could vote for the Leninist Socialists, or the Fabian Socialists.

Which one do you think has your liberty and constitutional rights foremost in mind?

Trust your feelings, Luke!
 
If Bush had been reelected in '92, would we have welcomed back Speaker Foley in '94? I think so. There would never have been a Speaker Newt.
 
The Perot vote wasn't a mistake. If Ron Paul were to run third party, voting for him wouldn't be a mistake either.

Politicians must EARN their votes.

Voting for the lesser of two thugs still sees a thug into office.
 
The Perot vote wasn't a mistake. If Ron Paul were to run third party, voting for him wouldn't be a mistake either.
Click to expand...

If you don't consider those 8 years of Clinton to be disastrous for gun owners, then I can't help you. Perot voters (like myself) put him there. In hindsight, it was a terrible mistake.
 
My bottom line is this:

A protest vote is only valuable if it achieves a result. You Ron Paul folks can stick to your guns and it will only help put Hilbama in the Oval Office. Yes, I'll hold my nose while I vote Republican but that's because the alternative is much, much worse. At least we can all agree to disagree, we're still a relatively free country...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top