HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:55:03 GMT

jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Comet Kahoutek) writes:

>Is it just my imagination or has Speaker Dole turned quite sour of late?
>All of a sudden he's revering the late George Bush as if he were the
>Messiah--and Bush is the guy who knocked Dole out of the 1988 contest
>with more of his dirty campaign tactics. Dole has hinted of his interest
>in going after the 1996 nomination, but his bitter disposition would
>make him appear as a long shot to rally public affection.

(I tried to respond to this earlier today, and only now discovered that my
 reply seems to disappeared into another dimension, probably due to some
 mistake of my own.  Having deleted all copies of my original reply, I'll
 try to reconstruct it from memory.  Apologies to the group in advance if
 both this and the original eventually show up!  }8-|)

Dole's had this problem for years.  It probably cost him the nomination in
'88.  There was a great editorial cartoon that year -- I can't remember the
cartoonist but I'm guessing Mike Peters -- showing Dole as Darth Vader, with
Obi-Wan Kenobi (I think) pleading for him not to give in to "the dark side".
Earlier, in '76, Gerald Ford chose Dole as his running mate, mainly to serve
in the role of hatchet man; Dole's meanness turned off enough voters to
contribute to Ford's defeat.

Too bad about Dole.  He definitely has his good side.  He's extremely bright
and able, and has on occasion shown an ability and a willingness to put aside
petty partisanship to help pass legislation in the public interest.  Also, as
a GOP leader in the Senate during the Reagan years, I think he served us all
well by getting RR to compromise on some of the nuttier parts of his program.
But considering his temperament, I don't think I'd want to leave him in charge
of The Button.

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:35:43 GMT

Edward J. Branley writes:

>llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine) writes:

>> Edward J. Branley (elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us) wrote:
>>
>> : Danoe is history, and will most likely never hold another national
>> : office.
>>
>> i've been wondering about this. people seem to be assuming that dan'll
>> just hop right back into elective office, but it doesn't seem like too
>> many ex-veep's have done that (i haven't researched it; does anyone
>> have any stats about what vice-presidents generally *do* when they
>> have to leave office?). once you've held the second-highest office in
>> the land (well, in theory it is), can you really go back to a lesser
>> office without losing face? assuming you have any left to lose, that is.
>>
>> it must be weird for quayle to be kind of obsolete at such an early
>> age...
>>
>> --
>> sine nomine | debbie martinson
>> what's red and invisible?
>> no tomatoes.

>I think that a senator who becomes veep could probably easily return to the
>Senate without losing face, since the Senate is regarded as the 'world's
>greatest deliberative body.'  However, I just can't see Danoe getting elected
>to anything ever again, not because he was veep, but because he's Dan.  After
>the revelations of just how stupid Our Boy is, he'll probably do better on the
>right-wing lecture circuit.

As a matter of fact, Hubert Humphrey, a former U.S. Senator from Minnesota,
returned to the Senate a few years after serving as Lyndon Johnson's veep and
then losing the '68 presidential race to Nixon.  The Senate even created a
new (strictly ceremonial) position for him -- Deputy President Pro Tem, I think
it was.  I'm not aware of any other Vice Presidents, at least in recent times,
who later returned to lesser offices (though I think there's room for debate
as to whether a Senate seat, which can actually carry considerable power,
really is a "lesser" office than the vice presidency).  As for Danoe, I tend
to think you're right; he'll probably try running again, but unless the good
people of Indiana generously decide to supply the rest of us with some more
laughs, I don't see much of a future for him in it.

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
From: matthew@spica.bu.edu (Matthew Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Why Dan ?
Keywords: the veep
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:25:42 GMT
Organization: Information Technology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: matthew@spica.bu.edu



  We do seem to have received a few new posters recently who feel
obliged to defend Dan as well,

   conservative/believer in small government/champion of trad. values

   or whatever. What puzzles me is the following. Even if I myself was
a pure Republican conservative (which I'm not), why would I feel that
Dan, still the VP, is actually worthwhile as VP. 
    Yes, he has on various occasions, clumsily made statements declaring
things that he "believes in", but
	1. How has any of this belief structure been put into practise ?
	2. What has Dan actually done (other than speak, which is not
            his strong suit, let's face it) for the conservative causes ?

    Personally, I think the disrespect shown Dan in this group is as much
a result of his apparent lack of substance, as what he claims his substance
actually is.

    Also, some posters praise Dan for standing up to media abuse. Well, fine,
but what is it they feel a lesser man would have reacted with, that makes
the deer-in-the-headlights approach so appealing ?

	cheers
-- 
Matthew W. Fox        :          Exile from the Wide Brown Land
Center for Space Physics,  Boston University
matthew@spica.bu.edu  : Another walnut-sized contribution to the Brain Drain

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu (cindy davies)
Subject: Re: Re. Integrity
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:30:47 GMT

In article <carlson.722007837@cwis> carlson@cwis.unomaha.edu (Brian D. Carlson) writes:
>
>	The one thing I don't understand is this. If liberalism is the
>ultimate anser to all of our countries ills, why are the majority of
>liberals I have met bitter and seemingly miserable people, while the
>majority of conservatives I have met are easy going people who seem much
>more happy with who they are in life?
If Conservatives are those who are opposed to change, and liberals are
those in favor of change, of course conservatives are happy and liberals
are unhappy.  (I've got mine and leave things as they are) v. (I am a have not
I am not happy)

However, I don't think such a simple definition works, and I have seen a
lot of unhappy conservatives around here in the past few weeks.  (I hope
and expect to see a lot more) 


--

TNSTAAFD -- There's No Such Thing As A Free Dog.

cldavies@silver.sdsmt.edu        cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: gillon@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: U2 and almost-ex-vice-president-Qualyle
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:23:59 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1992Nov13.175121.1001@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> I believe in the NYC concerts, Bono tried to call the White House as
> part of his act.  Of course, Bush didn't answer, and Bono'd say
> something like, "Figures.  He's not AVAILABLE!"  To be fair, he called
> Little Rock once.  He actually got through to Clinton, and they had a
> little chat on stage (or so I'm told).  I believe one of Bono's
> comments was, "If Clinton is everything he's making himself out to be,
> he could be alright."  An endorsement!  Yup, that's why I voted for
> Bill.
> 
> 
> In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
> total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
> total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
> palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office


Bono did this in many of their concerts. In Foxboro, MA he called & 
said in dismay, "the presidet won't talk to me?"
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: The real Dan Quayle
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:58:27 GMT

In article <crb2.722101553@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:

>I don't think you should hope for the incompetent (being safe..they
>have to lose), we republicans did that this year.  We thought surely
>that a draft-dodging adultering waffle king with a bad record on 
>raising taxes on the people of a small state that happens to rank
>about last in all positive measures would be a sure thing for us.

Well, it might have been a sure-thing for the RepubliCons,
except that the RepubliCon candidate was a pathologically lying
adultering waffle king with a bad record of raising taxes on
the entire nation.  Let's not forget that this same
candidate spent most of his term telling the American
people that we were not in a recession.  This candidate
also thinks that Dan Quayl is qualified to be President,
and that Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a lifetime
member of the US Supreme Court.

The RepubliCon spin/apologists are already
propagating the line the Bush could have won if
(choose one) (a) he had stuck to pure conservative
Reaganite principles  (b) the Republican Convention
had not been such a hate-fest  (c) the campaign had
been run by a pit-bull like the late Lee Atwater
(d) Perot had not been in the campaign
(e) Perot had not left the campaign in July.
They can keep believing any fantasy they choose.
Bush lost because he was the worst President 
since Coolidge.

>I actually worried that Paul Songass (sp?) would get nominated and
>give us a run for the money.  Don't underestimate the gullability
>and naivity of the voter.

After 1980 and 1984, I no longer underestimate the gullability
of the voter.  The 1992 campaign will be notable as the first
one in many years in which there was high voter interest
and knowledge of the actual issues that separated the
three candidates.  Stripped of the slick feel-good advertising
and the wild distortions of recent presidential campaigns,
the national Republican ticket simply had little to offer
the American people.

If Quayl is a serious candidate in 1996, and especially
if he wins the nomination, it will show that the Republican
party has learned nothing from this year's defeat.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The real Dan Quayle
From: murthy+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Sesh Murthy)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:32:31 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University


In article <D2150056.ir917o@erics.infoserv.com>, erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith) writes:

|> 
|> Okay, I'm stepping back ... I'm looking ...
|> 
|> Add one little bit on the end...  Think of 'potatoe,' how's it spelled?  
|> You're right phonetically, but what else...?  There ya go... all right!
|>                 -- Vice President Dan Quayle correcting a student's
|>                    correct spelling of the word "potato"  during
|>                    a spelling bee at an elementary school in Trenton.
|> 
|> I should have caught the mistake on that spelling bee card.  But 
|> as Mark Twain once said, "You should never trust a man who has only 
|> one way to spell a word."
|>                 -- Vice President Dan Quayle, actually quoting from 
|>                    President Andrew Jackson.
|> 
|> I should have remembered that was Andrew Jackson who said that, since
|> he got his nickname "Stonewall" by vetoing bills passed by Congress.
|> 		-- Vice President Dan Quayle, confusing Andrew Jackson
|> 		   with Confederate General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson,
|> 		   who actually got his nickname at the first Battle of
|> 		   Bull Run.
|> 
|> ... Nope, he's still a brainless twit.
Could any of you with kids in school check on this.  My daughter
started spelling no, as NOE, and claims this is a school joke.  

This is the same girl of course who voted for Clinton (in the school 
mock elections) because he looks handsome and she likes his hair.

She is 6 years old.

Sesh
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:59:02 GMT
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> By the way, the national debt is only about half the GNP (or GDP, whatever),

ONLY?   ONLY?   My goodness, what blatent abject stuidity!

If you earn $24,000   and you "only" have $12,000 worth of credit card
debt, then you think this is OKAY?

A few years ago my wife got sick and lost her job.  We ran up bills and
debt totalling to about 30% of my annual salary.  It's taken me over 2 years
to pay this off.   I got scared because I realized that if it had ever gone
up to 50% of my income, I would never have been able to pay it off.
The interest would have eaten up all of my income, and I would have never
made inroads on the principle.

If you think 50% debt is okay,  then you go in and fill out a credit 
application and tell them you have outstanding debts of 50% of your
annual income.  They will laugh at you.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu ()
Subject: The Repackaging of Dan Quayle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:47:23 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

It's certainly not too early for Quayle spin-doctors and handlers
to start thinking about `96. The question is, how do they go about
repackaging their man and turn him into the Genius of Our Times?
Sure we've seen some of it here on the Net-supposedly objective
Quayle "supporters" whose posts are clearly coming from Quayle
Mind-Control Headquarters (right next to the Republican Dirty
Tricks Headquarters). We've seen it from columnists who are
suddenly putting out articles entitled "Dan Quayle: Hero or
Genius?" at frantic pace. But Dan only slowly ascends in the
polls. Is that enough?

Since everyone here is clearly a FAN of Dan Quayle, hoping to
see him in the White House in '96 (if not sooner!), would it
be too much to ask that you all come up with useful suggestions
for the Repackaging of Dan Quayle? The list of ideas will
be promptly forwarded to CRPDQ.

Brian

Chairman
Committee to Re-Package Dan Quayle.
NOT!
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:24:47 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
 <9JH8TB2w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>

In article <9JH8TB2w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>, popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com
(William C. Barwell) says:

>Bush ended Reaganomics!?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!  What you said!

Right.  You think Reagan would have signed the 1990 budget?  The (as Clinton
-loves- to point out) "second-largest tax increase in American history"?

Damn right, Bush abandoned Reaganomics.  He never believed in it, many
say.  If that's true, then his own ignorance was his downfall.

By the way, the national debt is only about half the GNP (or GDP, whatever),
which is just about par for the past 200 years.  Just a friendly reminder.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:16:25 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fddi-speaker.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov16.150225.29558@uts.cc.wayne.edu>, tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
|> odekirk@math.utah.edu (Elizabeth Odekirk) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >v115r4q5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) posts
|> 
|> >> Did 
|> >>anyone watch the debate and actually believe that Al Gore won? Be real!
|> 
|> >After the debate, NPR had the results from several groups who referee
|> >college debates.  They all gave Al Gore more points than Dan Quayle.
|> >Gore was clear and precise and got the facts across without resorting to
|> >name-calling and finger-wagging.  While being the loudest and most
|> >snide may make you the winner in an argument on the playground, it
|> >does not win you a debate.
|> 
|> NPR is a liberal news show. It would not be at all difficult for them to 
|> find liberal college debate referees that would side with a liberal
|> viewpoint. 

Bull. NPR has a balanced viewpoint. Most of their talking heads are clearly
conservative. They balance off Nina Totenberger's liberal point of view
with Cokie Roberts' kissing of every Republican ass that comes her way.

However, since they deal much more with *issues*, and much less with 
image and controversy, than most other media, it's understandable that 
you would think this showed a bias against conservative points of view.

Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: ralph@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (ralph.winslow)
Subject: Re: Dave Barry & Dan Quayle
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:09:43 GMT

In<1992Nov18.032557.22932@netcom.com>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>And anyone who is so humor-impared (like all of Dan's Fans) to think
>that when a humorist makes a joke it necessarily reflects her/his
>political beliefs does not deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph
>as Dave Barry.
>
>-- 
>Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com

One teensy correction, Maddi; make that:

... doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same UNIVERSE as Dave Barry.

With appreciation,  Ralph

P.S.  I've never before considered that I might be able to add jot nor
tittle to the fine work from Maddi, but I felt that this cried out for
increased emphasis.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: glass@devl.fnal.gov (Michael Glass)
Subject: Re: The Repackaging of Dan Quayle
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4  
Reply-To: glass@devl.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Distribution:  world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:29:35 GMT

[Further Discussion of The Committee to Repackage Dan Quayle]

     I think it can be done, but you have to be indirect about it.
There are a good three years available to rehabilitate his image before
Dan has to start overtly campaigning for the '96 primaries.

     We can start by placing ads in the "Women Seeking Men" personal
classifieds, something along the lines of "SF, Marilyn-type, seeking her
Dan..." and "Stunning Bombshell wants Dan Quayle look-alike...."  These
ads are fake, of course, but they serve to plant the subliminal notion
that Dan-ness is desirable.

     Gossip columns need to be fed Dan Quayle tidbits:  "Is it true that
_The Prime Minister of Belize_ is going to drop by ex-veep _Dan Quayle_
for a tete-a-tete during his vist next month?"  Again, the truth doesn't
matter, it's the subliminal impression that lasts. 

     Next we need a movie, perhaps "Mr. Peacock Goes to Washington,"
starring a D.Q. look-alike.  Coming from a crusading newspaper family in
a down-home midwestern state, Mr. Peacock does battle with the cynical
forces of evil in our nation's capital.

     A spy novel, full of intrigue and high-tech gadgetry, featuring
an unassuming but smart vice-president who hides behind a bumbling public
exterior while he goes about his _real_ work saving the country.

     It's scary, but I think old D.Q can be rehabilitated.  And the
crowd here at a.f.d-q contains just the right level of creative loopiness
to figure it out.


-- Michael Glass             |  No flames, please.  I'm fuelish.
   glass@adcalc.fnal.gov     |


Another one:

     We can plant an article in Readers Digest, thereby reaching Quayle's
core constituency.  Maybe it will contain stories describing individual
white people, giving of themselves without government help, assisting
poor but deserving minority people.  This makes white folks feel good
about themselves, at no cost.  One of the stories can feature our man
Dan in a heroic role, defending the honor of some put-upon black man with
fisticuffs a la George Wallace.  (Rush Limbaugh will repeat this story
ad nauseum.)

     Gad, I scare myself.
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: the real Reagan record
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:47:03 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


<DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:

> From 1977-1980, inclusive,
> Jimmy Carter was in office! At the very least, I would think we would
> agree that Carter had a different philosophy in this regard than Reagan.
> This is very likely a good example of lying with statistics. What we
> really need to address the issue properly is the same statistic for the
> period 1982-19<latest available>.

I doubt that one year of the Carter administration made any difference
in terms of something like average family income over the '80s, if that's
what you're trying to say.

[...]
> My suspicion
> is that the perceived failure(whether real or not) of so-called
> trickle-down economics is due largely to the fact that we financed it
> by running up the debt, thus sucking much of the money which should
> have financed investment in productive jobs at low overhead(i.e., more
> goods/jobs/services per dollar invested) into $600 toilet seats,
> (what I perceive to be needless) research into SDI, and other weapons
> development. It was a wasted opportunity, and now we will pay for it.
> When Reagan took office, the US debt was (just) under $1T, and increasing
> at a rate of 5-10%/year. Now it's $4T, and increasing at 10%/year. I
> don't know by how much the GNP grew, but I suspect it wasn't 300%.

I think you are entirely correct.

> What clearly happened was that the ReaganBush administrations didn't
> believe in supply-side economics, because if they did, they didn't
> practice it. It's kind of like believing in safe sex, but dying of AIDS
> because you couldn't be bothered to use a condom.

I think Reagan believed in trickle-down economic (I'm not sure Bush
believed in *anything*), and certainly Reagan's economic advisors did,
until it was clear that it was a failure. The problem was that in practice
it just didn't work. Politically, they were unable to make spending
cuts in entitlement programs because too many people depend on them,
and they were unwilling to make cuts elsewhere like the defense budget,
because Reagan had promised a strong defense. It was incredibly naive
to believe that Reagan could deliver his triad of campaign promises:
increase defense spending, cut taxes AND balance the budget. Yet many
people believed what they wanted to hear.

> *We* may get lucky,
> though. We might be able to bail ourselves out of it. But I'm not
> holding my breath.

Oh, things aren't that bad. It's possible to recover from this situation,
but anyone who expects everything to be fixed in four years will be
disappointed.


-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 08:21:13 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


v115r4q5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes:

>Did anyone watch the debate and actually believe that Al Gore won? Be real!

Sounds like you're the one who needs a dose of reality. Polls showed
that most people who watched the debates thought that Gore won. More
importantly I thought that Gore not only won, he also was the only one
there who looked like he could handle the presidency.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle