X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:05:52 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Negative Campaigning

Dear listmembers:
>  What is clear is that the JohnsoN/OlsoN campaign is directed toward
>the intelligent and educated voter.  We believe that the listmembers
>are capable of grasping what the important issues of the day are, and
>that it is enough that we address those issues, not that we offer
>patronizing explanations of why the listmembers should be concerned about
>the issue.  If you, the bitnaut, feel that you need to be told what
>is important, by all means, join the Kerry/Kerry Campaign.  The mandate
>for the JohnsoN/OlsoN campaign will come from an electorate which *is*
>educated on the issues.

Although the JohnsoN/OlsoN campaign disavows the necessity of explaining
the relevance of the issues to the educated bitnaut, we note that they
did, in fact, offer such an explanation.

>  There is only one campaign which has, to date, offered the vital
>position of Logic Czar.  The Kerry/Kerry campaign apparently rejects
>the relevance of logic to a political discussion list.  Draw your
>own conclusions.

The Kerry/Kerry campaign recognized immediately that logic is too critical
a facility to be reserved to a single individual.  Far from rejecting the
relevance of logic, we prefer to offer equality of logical opportunity to
all members.

>  There is only one campaign which has, to date, found it necessary
>to wage a campaign not based upon the strength of their platform, but
>based upon unfounded attacks and smear tactics.  If that is the sort
>of list you envision for the future, then by all means, the Kerry/Kerry
>ticket is for you.

The membership is quite capable of drawing the distinction between
unfounded attacks and reasoned criticism.  One campaign has offered a
combination of clear position statements and informed discussion of the
opposition views.  One has offered little more than false accusations.

>  There is a campaign with more that 5 years of cumulative list
>experience.  The JohnsoN/OlsoN ticket brings all of that experience
>to bear on the vital issues that rock this list.

And the members can decide whether the quantity of list experience
outweighs the quality of such experience.

>  And with all the current uproar about shoes, I challenge you, as
>the listmember, to recall who was instrumental in the very origins
>of the debate.  Who has been working on the controversial issue of
>shoe control since its first appearance on the list?

And who brought the issue from its burial site in the list archives to its
current centrality as a focus of debate?

>  Finally, excepting the phantom ticket of J1/J2, there is no single
>ticket better capable of handling the list lore and inside jokes than
>the JohnsoN/OlsoN campaign.  We fought hard to bring about the golden
>era, when scads of ilk roamed the ether.  We were there when Stimely
>was posting.  Where were the Kerrys?

We would never deny the importance of the cumulative history, lore, and
inside jokes of this list.  But which ticket is capable of bringing us
forward, of forging a new future?  Who drove the recently-departed Sultan
into silence?  The Kerrys are not content to rest on our virtual laurels,
but offer a vision of new virtual heights to conquer.

>  This outright misinformation is astonishing.  But no listmember can
>be fooled when the archives of who first brought Mrs. Smith into the
>discussion are a matter of public record.  No listmember will be deceived
>about which candidates first distinguished between KAT scans and CAT scans.
>And no listmember of any stature can fail to recall which candidates were
>responsible for raising the shoe consciousness of the list.

Misinformation?  I think not.  Of course, our opposition would not
knowingly distort our position, so we leave it to the readership to recall
the original point we raised.

>  Such a campaign of lies and half-truths is for those who can tolerate
>it.  The JohnsoN/OlsoN ticket believes that the listmembers deserve more.

Lies? Half-truths?  Harsh words from a ticket that has promised to eschew
negative campaigning.

>>their endorsement of Copenhagen suggests a more-than-
>>passing acquaintance with the special interest snuff lobby.
>
>  Can their be any more evidence of an astonishing unfamiliarity
>with Stimelyism than this?  To fail to grasp the implications of
>Denmark and the Stimelyists is a recipe for failure.

Inasmuch as our earlier response never mentioned Stimely or Denmark, we are
left to wonder about the relevance of these remarks.

We deeply regret that our opponents have failed to appreciate our role in
the current campaign.  Ready, willing, and able to turn our full attention
to the issues, we eagerly await a real statement of our opponents' goals
and objectives.

Until then,
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU