HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Rochester N.Y. Health Insurance "Plan"???
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:31:12 GMT
Reply-To: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)


	During both debades Governor Clinton used Rochester N.Y. as an
example of how his plans could work. I happen to work in Rochester and
according to the local papers, there is no grand plan for health
insurance in Rochester. The low costs and high pecentage of people
insured seems to be a function of the (relatively) low unemployment 
rates. This seems like Bush should be using it as an example. Something
along the lines of "the best way to get health insurance is to have a
healthy economy". The Rochester N.Y. success is a success of the free
markent and a strong local economy. It is not the success of the government
planner or bureaucratic regulation.

Ted Pawlicki
pawlicki@kodak.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.182613.3469@fid.morgan.com>
joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
 
>>>  The ONLY reason Clinton is currently leading in the polls is due to the
>>>fact that a majority of Americans believe that under a Clinton
>>>administration only the rich will have their taxes raised and through this
>>>additional revenue Clinton will revitalize the economy.
>
>But don't trust him....fellow (democratic) governor Jim Florio certainly
>misled us in NJ. When he ran for governor in 1989, candidate Florio said "I see
>no reasons to raise taxes". Less than six months later, Florio pushed through
>the largest single tax increase (for any state) in the history of our country!
( Lots deleted)
>
>Joe
 
Pardon me, Joe, but what the *hell* does Florio's record in New Jersey
have to do with Clinton?  Sheesh...
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16700 talk.politics.misc:51661
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:50:40 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
 <92287.152431MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <67675@cup.portal.com>

In article <67675@cup.portal.com>, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) says:
>>Eh, be fair, anyone who advocates legalization is committing political
>>suicide...

>So the avoidance of "political suicide" is a blank-check excuse for
>hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, and I don't fault Clinton (much)
for his position. FYI, I think legalization is at the very least worth
looking at, it's the only real answer to the drug "problem" I've heard
recently. But The People disagree. If Clinton wants to be elected, there's
no way it'll happen by not giving The People what they want. That's
democracy for you.

I will agree that there are of course limits on how much hypocrisy you can
excuse a candidate for; I just don't think this issue goes beyond the limit.

>And people wonder why things are FUBAR.

It's nothing new, not in the US, anyway. It's been like this for 200 years.

MHO: People in general are smart, but they're also lazy and stubborn. The
conventional opinion on drug legalization probably won't change for a while
for just that reason. But as I pointed out, just the fact that it was raised
at all in the debate is a powerful sign that the idea is no longer regarded
as lunatic as it once was, even if politicians such as Clinton are still
reluctant to embrace it.

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:46:16 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <98626@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.153713.10151@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>
>>Until now, I've kind of joined the opinion that maybe the Democratic ticket
>>is upside down.  Now I know.  Of the six of them, Clinton is the one with
>>the most depth and substance, caricatures notwithstanding.
>
>I have yet to hear a single deep sentence from Clinton, as was the
>case with Dukakis in the last election I hear nothing but feel-good
>abstractions (and that infinitely repeated word ``change'') and
>that bs-master Stephanopoulos dumping his idiot-smirk all over TV.

Clinton acquited himself well in at least one of the primary debates,
one of those 4-way mix-ups.

We'll see how he does in the next two, okay?


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: crittend@bodie.cs.unc.edu (bac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's desperation
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:51:01 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Oct8.230718.12625@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:

>3) Today's accusation from Bush's campaign manager about Clinton's 
>   involvement in the Kennedy assasination (especially when Bush
>   was the one who sent a memo to Kennedy before the assasination).

is this for real?  no, i'm not asking if it's true, but if it is a
real accusation.  could someone please repeat what was said?

man this is getting weird!  it would be funny if it wasn't the race
for the presidency.  who is more to be pitied:  a man so desparate to
spew such silliness or the well-meaning, misled folks who still
support him?

_________brad crittenden_________________________crittend@cs.unc.edu_________

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?  We
might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
	--"Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey
_____________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: aewright@unix.amherst.edu (Anthony E. Wright)
Subject: Debate #1 Review
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:58:38 GMT

[ Article crossposted from amherst.national ]
[ Author was Anthony E. Wright ]
[ Posted on Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:52:14 GMT ]


A few things:

I think Perot did the best, with his humor ("I'm all ears!") and folksy saying 
("the third shift at the Dairy Queen...") that were damn refreshing, if not
very specific on solutions.

Clinton held his own, gave decent answers, and looked like he actually could
be President. When your in the lead, all you have to do is not blow it. He
came off well.

Bush didn't do bad either. He flubbed a couple of lines (" and Dick...
Secratary of Defense Dick Cheney"  "good news, cocaine use went down [as he
put his fingers to his nose]"  "look at my America 2000 education problem!"),
but in general he did OK, answering the questions with no major gaffes.

However, since Bush is behind in the polls, he cannot afford to do "not bad,"
he needs to win, and Bush definitely did not do that. 

Final Analysis: Bush lost.


An overnight CNN poll taken after the debate seems to bear this out. The polls
of voting preference stayed the same, with Clinton at 55%, Bush at 35% and
Perot at 10%. However, when asked, regardless of how they wish to vote, on who
did the best, Perot was sighted 50%, Clinton at 30%, and Bush at 15%. Perot
won, but since voters want to vote for a candidate that can win, Clinton
won in terms of votes.


Final Comment: These guys were actually funnier than the Saturday Night Live
	       parody! At some points, it seemed that Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman
	       and Dana Carvey were up there!

						Peace,
						Anthony

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:23:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.135531.1182@umr.edu>
jeff@don't.want.email writes:
 
>
>The only bad thing about the fact that Bill Clinton will probably win (to
>my great dissappointment), is that Dan Quayle will not really have a
>chance to be president.  If George Bush wins, I think that Dan Quayle will
>be able to turn his image around and be one of the greatest presidents
>ever.
>
>If you look at the beliefs of Dan Quayle and his corresponding actions,
>you will find that he is a mirror of Abe Lincoln in modern times.
>
>Too bad our society buys into the lies and tales of the democratic party,
>and their denial of responsibility of our national debt.  We must remember
>that we have had a democratic congress for a really long time. That is
>were our problem is.
>
>Jeff
 
HAHAHAHAHAHA HOHOHOHOHOHO HEEHEEHEEHEE HAHAHAHAHAHA....
 
Thanks for the funniest posting I have seen in this group!  EVER!
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOHOHOHOHOHO HAWHAWHAWHAW!!!!
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dougc@htbawd.rain.com (Doug Carter)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Organization: Merwin Software Services, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:53:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.015203.13538@eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>Unlike Bush and Clinton, I heard on the news that Perot didn't even rehearse
>for the debate. Yet Perot did so well. This lack of rehearsal made Perot
>appear more spontaneous and genuine than the other two candidates, and it
>impressed me a lot.
>
>I'm going to vote for Clinton, though, because I think Clinton has a better
>chance of beating Bush than does Perot. However, I'd vote for Perot instead
>of Clinton, if I thought Perot had a chance to win.
>
>The person to vote for is whoever you believe has the best chance of
>beating Bush, and that person is still Clinton.

WRONG! The best person to vote for is the one who you think will get the
job done. This is not a horse race or a beauty contest. A vote for Perot
is a vote *for* Perot. A vote for Clinton is a vote against Bush. You
are voting for Clinton only because Perot is ~10% in the polls. What if
all the candidates were even in the polls right now? Who would you vote 
for then? Don't let pre-election polls sway you away from voting your 
conscience.

It's time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils.

Doug.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush - Desperation, Depression, and Danger
Date: 13 Oct 1992 04:44:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () says:

>You missed one. How about coming up with some excuse to issue The Executive
>Orders (Gingrich style) and suspend The Constitution (and the election
>as well). He's the kind of snake who might actually try something like
>that. 

I think Bush'd need a WHOPPER of a national emergency to pull that one off.
It's not unthinkable, though.

-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17353 alt.politics.bush:9523 alt.politics.clinton:11036 alt.politics.perot:2302 talk.politics.misc:52510
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:09:11 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <92276.121746MJNJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <MJNJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>  I think it is too late for Perot. He shouldn't be wasting every
> body's time.

  The same can be said for George Bush...
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Why no alt.politics.perot?
Summary: Discrimination against large-eared people?
Keywords: Hmmm.....
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:44:15 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Net Digest

Flipping through the alt.politics.* hierarchy, I've noticed....

Clinton has 2 usenet groups, and a big chunk of the polls.
	(alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.democrat)
Bush has 1 group, and a smaller chunk of the polls.
	(alt.politics.bush)

Nowhere do I see an alt.politics.independent, or alt.politics.perot.

Although I'm registered with one of the other parties, I've been seriously
considering Perot since this spring, as "to Bush or not to Bush" isn't my
idea of a choice.

If some kind newsadmin [what? that's an oxymoron? oh.] would be so nice as to
newgroup an alt.politics.perot, I'd be most appreciative.  I mean, how can you
expect a man to get any good ratings in the polls without a usenet group?

-Shag

PS: Yes, I am serious about wanting a Perot group.  No, I'm not serious about
Usenet groups being linked to who wins.  Or maybe I am.


-- 

     Freedom belongs to only those without video screens for eyes and mouth.
		- Queensryche
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:59:33 GMT

I'm still going to vote for him, but give Clinton the credit for the 
silliest statement of the night.  At one point he discussed the impact of
the economy of the people of Arkansas.  He stated that it was a small
state and when somebody lost their job, he probably knew their name.

Since there are over 2 million people in Arkansas, the Guv has one
hell of a memory for names.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush - Desperation, Depression, and Danger
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:31:24 EDT

In article <1bdd7kINNljl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello) writes:
> Time is running out for Bush.  As Judgment Day approaches and the Bush
> juggernaut just sits there like a stripped '72 Dodge Dart, the Bushpeople
> are doubtless feeling the pangs of hopelessness.  According to some
> Republican insiders, Bush himself is getting out of touch with reality.
> As the "bunker mentality" takes hold, we face the very real danger that
> Bush will be persuaded to use the power of the Presidency to save himself.
> 
> In order to prepare the reading public for the worst, I would like to invite
> discussion on the following scenerios:
> 
> 1.  Bush creates or exploits an international crisis.  I think that no
> "Desert Storm II" is possible, given the time constraints, but a sudden
> replay of the Panama invasion in some part of the world is likely.  We
> may see a "pre-dawn vertical insertion" in Bagdhad, so that Saddam Hussein
> ("The Dictator", as Bush so cleverly named him) can be brought to justice.
> 
> 2.  Initiatives against the persons of Clinton and his people.
> 
>   a.  The Frame-up.  It shouldn't be too hard to plant a big bag of heroin
>   on Clinton or someone near him, there to be discovered by an alert DEA
>   agent.  Frankly, the a-page-is-missing-from-Clinton's-passport-record
>   miniscandal stunk to high heaven.  Prepare for more of the same.
> 
>   b.  Psych-ops.  Clinton, Gore, Hillary, and top functionaries are
>   harrassed by the IRS, FBI, etc., in an effort to impede their effectivness.
> 
>   c.  Assassination.  God forbid, but remember, Bush is ex-CIA.  It would
>   be so much easier for him if Clinton would drop over dead, no traces,
>   no fingerprints, the medical examiner baffled...
> 
> I hope that Bush would have the grace and good sense to fade away quietly
> rather than use scorched-earth tactics like these to preserve his power.
> We shall see.
> -- 
> Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
> "The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
> secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
> ^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.

You missed one. How about coming up with some excuse to issue The Executive
Orders (Gingrich style) and suspend The Constitution (and the election
as well). He's the kind of snake who might actually try something like
that. 

-Garrett

Remember, it's October. Trick or Treat.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16750 talk.politics.misc:51715 talk.politics.drugs:6787
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 12:26:09 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <67648@cup.portal.com><92287.152431MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
  <67675@cup.portal.com> <92288.035040MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>

>In article <67675@cup.portal.com>, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) says:
>>>Eh, be fair, anyone who advocates legalization is committing political
>>>suicide...
>
>>So the avoidance of "political suicide" is a blank-check excuse for
>>hypocrisy.
>
>I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, and I don't fault Clinton (much)
>for his position. FYI, I think legalization is at the very least worth
>looking at, it's the only real answer to the drug "problem" I've heard
>recently. But The People disagree. If Clinton wants to be elected, there's
>no way it'll happen by not giving The People what they want. That's
>democracy for you...
>
>Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu

I could not have put it any better.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: GEORGE BUSH AND ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:45:38 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             
 October 13, 1992                             

     GEORGE BUSH AND ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH

    (Statement of George Stephanopoulos, Communications Director)

      It is time for George Bush to tell the truth about Iran-Contra.
 For six years, George Bush denied he knew about the arms-for hostage
 deal with Iran.  Today, he admitted he did know.

      For six years, George Bush has acknowledged he knew of the arms
 shipments to Iran, but not of the trade for hostages.  He has
 maintained, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary, that he
 was "out of the loop" and did not learn of the arms-for-hostage deal
 until December 1986.

      In 1987, George Bush was asked if he was comfortable with the
 personal role in the Iran- contra affair.  He replied it was proper
 to reach out to Iran, but "if this includes arms for hostages, that's
 wrong.  I wish I had known something so I could have done something
 different on that."  [NYT, 2/27/87]

      In January 1988, stumping for the Presidential nomination in
 Iowa, Bush said, "I sensed that we were sending arms.  And I sensed
 that we were trying to get hosages out.  But not arms for hostages."
 [news conference transcript, 1/8/88]

      But this morning in the White House, Today Show host Katie
 Couric asked, "You knew about the arms for hostages?" George Bush
 replied, "Yes, and I've said so all along, given speeches on it."
 Bush also claimed on Today that sworn answers confirm his current
 account.  Asked whether he had knowledge of the arms-for-hostages
 deal, he replied, "I've testified 450 times under oath, some of them,
 and our staff 3,500 that yes, but nobody's accused me of not doing
 it."

      But Bush's answers under oath -- given to the Tower Commission
 and to the Special Prosecutor's Office -- have never been made
 public.  Since his current story is now different from his original
 alibi, Bush either told the American people one thing in public and
 told investigators another in private -- or misled both.

      It's time for George Bush to make public the transcripts of his
 questioning by the Tower Commission and the Special Prosecutor's
 office.

      George Bush's statements just don't add up.  Today, Bush yet
 again denied he was aware of the opposition to the deal of Defense
 Secretary Casper Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz.
 "There were two key meetings where they almost got into a shouting
 match, I'm told, that I did not attend."

      Yet, Bush was in the room during a January 7, 1986 National
 Security Council meeting with President Reagan to discuss a
 Presidential finding that authorized the arms for hostage deal.
 Shultz and Weinberger were present at that meeting and expressed
 strong objections to the idea.

                               --30--


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: the debates...
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:32:16 GMT


Even though all who are in the know already realize that Clinton has won
the election, I watched the debate.  Anyway, without watching the spin
doctors:

Bush and Clinton looked good.  I'm not sure which one's performance will
have the biggest effect in the long run.  George probably should have been
a bit more confrontational with Clinton.
Perot looked too much like a flake.  At some points he looked atrociously
unprepared--like the China question, which made him appear a real fool.
I'm not sure who he helped; he made some attacks on Bush but his emphasis
on substance over talk might have taken some of the glitter off of
Clinton's trhetoric.

The other students here (as on the net) formed a virtual Clinton cheering
squad, so it's hard to say what the truly undecided thought.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17150 talk.politics.misc:52190
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:37:14 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1bisf2INN90e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
> ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
> votes than George Bush.  Namely:
> 
> 	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
> 
> This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.
> 
> Stratocaster
> 
> 
> -- 
> 	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
>       strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
> 				   
> There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP

Another example why no one has to vote!!!!!!

Is this also the same ABC who said in 1981 that Ronald Reagan was shot 
and is at this moment undergoing open heart surgery??

Ken