HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whare@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Views on Debate Just Passed
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:22:08 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

	How does Perot feel about the environment? What plans 
does he have to stop the ever worsening of our planning?
	Also, during the debate tonight whenever Perot was asked
a question on how he would solve a problem he would always say 
that he's going to dig deep in the trenches and find out the 
solution. He didn't for the part of the debate I saw ever be 
specific in WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO!
	George Bush 17%
	Bill Clinton 33%
	Ross Perot 51%	- Final tallies from election.

		Steve, would vote for Perot if was old enough
			and lived in States, Hare.

	P.S.-Clinton attacked Bush's views on patriotism by saying
	that Bush's father even agreed with Clinton's opinions.
	Bush should've respomded by saying that since Clinton's dad
	was an alcoholic his point on family views held little water.

	Surprise reason for Perot's winning election, people are sur-
	prised by John StockDale's brilliant debating and realize he's
	probably better thab Perot.-- 
----                               
                                                  ...Richard*GRAPHIC*Design...
                                                  ...Antony R Hare............ 
                                                  ...President................
                                                  ...whare@ac.dal.ca..........
                                                  ...image is almost..........
                                                  .......everything...........
From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct13.153749.13597@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.190253.3381@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct9.143053.5160@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:

>Well then go ahead and vote for a less qualified person.  Vote for
>someone who you think will hurt the country in the long run.  Vote for a
>candidate who will raise your taxes and then let congress raise spending
>even more.  Why not vote for the best man for the job?  Did you get your
>feelings hurt?
>
>Vote with your mind this year.  It is the first time we have been given
>this opportunity.  Look at the resumes.  You are on the Board of
>Directors.  You are voting for a Chief Executive Officer, not head
>politician.
>

Ah, but that's precisely the point: YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR A CEO.
YOU ARE, MOST ASSUREDLY, LIKE IT OR NOT, VOTING FOR A HEAD POLITICIAN,
a man whose job description is to work with other politicians to run
the government.  Perot shows evidence of being a brilliant CEO, and
if the election were for one omnipotent politician, I'd more than 
likely cast my vote for him.

But it's not!  Perot can't simply declare his budget, and magically
shall it become law!  There's this little technicality called CONGRESS,
and until Perot shows signs of being able to work *with* them, playing
the political game that by definition must be played by the President
of the United States, I can't vote for him without thinking that what
I'm really voting for is four more years of gridlock.

Bill Clinton may not have all of the best ideas of this campaign.
I willingly admit that I like Perot's better.  But given the complete
job description, ideology simply doesn't make Bush or Clinton 
"lesser candidates."  

Rob L.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:18:59 -0400 
From: "Donpaul C. Stephens" <deathbird+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: on the VPs

Well Stockdale might not be the *best* person, but he seems more in tune
than Quayle.

I heard a rumor this summer that H. Ross talked to Colin Powell about
being his running mate. That i would have *loved*. Apparently, either
General Powell decided that it wasn't 'politically correct' to run
against his 'commander in chief' when thew boat is sinking, or it never
happened

anybody else heard more on this thread?


as per the debate, it appeared that Quayle & Gore were reading cue cards
all night. Stockdale seemed to respond, or say he 'didn't have any more
ammo on it'
 
Donpaul C. Stephens
Grader/Lab Assistant 18-240
Fundamentals of Computer Engineering
Electrical & Computer Engineering Dept

 	"Live now.  There'll be plenty of time to be dead later."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant)
Subject: Re: New impressions of Adm Stockdale
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 20:21:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.123923.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, edmondse@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>Obviously, Adm Stockdale knows he is not an effective public speaker and 
>this knowledge must have made his trip up to that podium all the more daunting.
>I feel he acted admirably (no pun intended) in accepting this challenge. He 
>did it not for glory or personal gain. Quite the contrary, he did just as he
>has everything in his past: he did for his country and because of a loyalty
>he feels towards Mr. Perot.  

I agree with you completely.

>
>Now that people have had time to sit back a think about the choice or Adm
>Stockdale, I would be very curious to hear if his suitability for the job is
>is in question or if like myself they feel ashamed of rashly dismissing this 
>man based upon superficial and ultimately trivial terms.

For a public figure I can not agree that communication ability is 
superficial and ultimately trivial. A leader is not an island unto himself.
He/she is required to interact with others both individually and in mass.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: phesse@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Peter Hesse)
Subject: Volunteer Work for Perot's Campaign
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:14:44 GMT

I wish to volunteer for Perot's campaign for maybe next weekend.  I was 
wondering if somebody had a phone number of their Northern Virginia offices...

Thanks for your help!

|> <  -  <
|  <  |  <
Pete Hesse
phesse@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: Re: C-SPAN POST-DEBATE POLL
Followup-To: RESULTS OF PRE-DEBATE POLL FOR PRESIDENT for USENET ers 
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:34:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.012442.5562@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu 
(Larry Watanabe) writes:
> kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
> 
> >Frankly, with the number of people voting Perot, I'm wondering
> >if my posting of the poll made it to all sites with alt.politics.clinton,
> >and alt.politics.bush.
> 
> >My personal belief is that the Perot people are more enthusiastic about
> >their man.
> 
> >-- 
> >Ken Waletzki Consulting, 2525 Arapahoe #E4-107, Boulder, Colorado  80302
> >303-494-8953, email kenw@csn.org
> 
> Last night on C-span almost all of the people calling in were
> Perot supporters.
> 
> I wonder if this difference in enthusiasm will translate into 
> a difference in votes -- Perot supporters may be more likely to
> actually go out and vote on the day of the election, in contrast
> to Clinton and Bush supporters.
> 
> -Larry Watanabe

I noticed the same thing, so I began a tally.  As it turns out,
callers were in favor of Perot by a 2:1 margin over either
Bush or Clinton.  Roughly 25 calls were for Perot while Clinton
and Bush got about 10 a piece.  Marou got 2 and 5 or 6 were
still undecided...interesting...

Does this say something about C-SPAN watchers or does it say
something else?

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: on the VPs
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:20:21 GMT

In article <4er82ne00VomA8pW1s@andrew.cmu.edu> "Donpaul C. Stephens" <deathbird+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Well Stockdale might not be the *best* person, but he seems more in tune
>than Quayle.

>I heard a rumor this summer that H. Ross talked to Colin Powell about
>being his running mate. That i would have *loved*. Apparently, either
>General Powell decided that it wasn't 'politically correct' to run
>against his 'commander in chief' when thew boat is sinking, or it never
>happened

>anybody else heard more on this thread?

No, sorry.  Of course, you did hear Schwartzkopf (sp?) mention that
Perot asked him, didn't you?  Now THAT would have been interesting!  Too
bad he said no...  I think he would have made an excellent running mate
for Perot.  Yet another man who will get down in the trenches and get
the job done.

>as per the debate, it appeared that Quayle & Gore were reading cue cards
>all night. Stockdale seemed to respond, or say he 'didn't have any more
>ammo on it'
 
Certainly we expect this ("cue cards") from the pros.  I think Gore and
Clinton are MUCH better at doing it, which I take as a negative.  If I
can TELL that you are giving me a prepared statement, how am I to know
if what you are saying is what you really believe.  Again, I cite
Clinton's response to the Family question the other night.  He
temporarily forgot the programmed response, and was thus unable to
answer until he remembered.  With a candidate like Perot, you get out-of
-the-heart answers.  He can give his answer anytime, anywhere, because
it's what he really believes.  He doesn't have to pause and think "what
am I supposed to be telling the audience?"  I just prefer a candid
candidate, like, say.....  Perot.  Even though do not agree with all his
policies (though a vast majority I do agree with), I don't feel any
hesitation in believing that what he is saying is really what he means.
In this respect, he is the candidate that most of us have always
wanted.

Dewey
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Is Perot serious?
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:35:55 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <koenig.719171668@hydra>, koenig@convex.com (Mark Koenig) writes:
> Since when does the Chairperson of the Senate have to be a good debator?
> Have you ever had the priveledge of watching Dan Quayle debating in the Senate?
> The Chairperson's job is to open/close the sessions and vote in case of a tie.
> This person is never involved in a "debate".

  And this is parliamentary...

  The chair is NEVER supposed to be allowed to debate an issue, and must remove
himself from the chair and a pro tem chair appointed if he wishes to engage in
debate...

  Good example:  End of "use of force" debate with the Speaker of the House.

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: A farfetched scenrio for Perot victory
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:53:19 GMT
Distribution: U.S.A
Reply-To: rjn@FC.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

Junho Whang (whangj@aix.rpi.edu) wrote:

> Bush, seeing that there is virtually no chance of his winning the election
> ...  then he might withdraw, throwing his support behind "patriot" Perot
> and "war hero" Stockdale.

If Bush were that clever, he wouldn't have kept Quaylebrain as his running
mate.  Bush is bullheaded, and will bet everything on anything he considers
himself to be "loyal" to.  He put his loyalty to Qualye over his loyalty to
his party.  He will probably value his loyalty to the party over his
antagonism to Slick Willie.  It's an interesting scenario, nonetheless...

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: cermak@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Rob Cermak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: US MAILING ADDRESS/ISSUE!
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:55:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Is there a mailing address that I can use to send
mail to Perot?  

----------------------------------------------------

Sidebar Issue: 

Constant media attention is of the general opinion
that Perot is too late to win the election.

This is absolutlely NOT true.  It goes back to the
famous saying -- NEVER SAY NEVER!

----------------------------------------------------

IF you want UN-BIASED MEDIA coverage obtain C-SPAN!

Nuff said.
-- 
Rob Cermak			        EMAIL : cermak@gandalf.rutgers.edu
Programmer NJ Climate Center &		USMAIL: Rutgers University
Prog/Tech Rutgers Meteorology-COOK              Department of Meteorology
FAX             :908 932-7922			Cook College  PO BOX 231
Meteorology Dept:908 932-9387                   New Brunswick NJ 08903-0231
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws19.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Perot won the debate!!!!
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:15:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.024319.27943@ee.rochester.edu> jerry@ee.rochester.edu (Jerry Seward) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.015752.19994@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> maos@nyx.cs.du.edu 
>(Mike Aos) writes:
>>
>>Well as we all know by now Perot won the debate and is going to be the 
>>next president.
>
>I think that all the candidates handled themselves very well, but it was
>clear to me that Perot had the best answers and delivered them with panache.
>
>I'm looking forward to the next debate on Thursday evening to see if he can
>maintain the 'lead' I believe that he acquired this evening.  It was obvious
>that Bush and Clinton were polished and rehearsed, and that Perot spoke from
>his heart.

	Clintn was like a video tape recorder - SVHS or high end BETA. Bush 
was like a whining little boy, and Perot spoke with an awareness towards
human beings.



-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: PEROT TV SPOTS (16/17 OCT)
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:12:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.182544.7978@news.acns.nwu.edu> skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta) writes:
>f435@cs.utexas.edu (Fall Class Account) writes:
>> Here in Austin, TX (central time zone) the Friday, Oct. 16 info-mercial
>> airs at 9:30 on NBC.  I can't find a lising for one on Saturday (probably
>> since I'm looking at a paper printed Oct. 11).
>
>A recording at 1-800-685-7777 claims that the 30 minute spot on Friday
>is on at 8:30pm CDT, "just before 20/20", on ABC.  Perhaps this ad will
>be repeated at 9:30 on NBC...?
>
>It also mentioned that Perot would be on Good Morning America on Friday
>at 7am.
>

It is the half-hour preceding the 20/20 show. That should be 9:30 P.M. 
for those on the east coast. Otherwise, check your local listing.

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:56:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.172444.2736@news.columbia.edu> rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:
>>
>>Vote with your mind this year.  It is the first time we have been given
>>this opportunity.  Look at the resumes.  You are on the Board of
>>Directors.  You are voting for a Chief Executive Officer, not head
>>politician.
>>
>
>Ah, but that's precisely the point: YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR A CEO.
>YOU ARE, MOST ASSUREDLY, LIKE IT OR NOT, VOTING FOR A HEAD POLITICIAN,
>a man whose job description is to work with other politicians to run
>the government.  Perot shows evidence of being a brilliant CEO, and
>if the election were for one omnipotent politician, I'd more than 
>likely cast my vote for him.
>
>But it's not!  Perot can't simply declare his budget, and magically
>shall it become law!  There's this little technicality called CONGRESS,
>and until Perot shows signs of being able to work *with* them, playing
>the political game that by definition must be played by the President
>of the United States, I can't vote for him without thinking that what
>I'm really voting for is four more years of gridlock.
>

Oh, but it is!
The U.S. Government is THE biggest business in this country. Every single
U.S. citizen and permanent resident does business (whether they choose to
or not) with the government by paying 20-40% of their income in taxes.
We better have a damn good businessman heading up this organization,
otherwise as share holders we are all doomed. The "little technicality"
called the U.S. Congress is nothing more than our proxies sitting in the
capital making decisions uncorrelated with our welfare. If we all have
an active voice, instead of PAC money, the proxies would play a different
tune. The question is not whether Perot will be able to work with the
Congress. The question is whether we, as the public, will be able actively
tell what we want from them. If both Perot and the congress hear the same
instructions from the public, there is not too much of a problem. Thus,
we need effective leadership AND active participation. 

The present gridlock is the result of the past and present lack of participation 
of citizens in the way they are governed. Due to this, PAC and special interests
have effectively taken over our government. The professional politicians and media
would all like us to believe that the government is not like a business and 
that only politicians have the magic powers and skills to govern. And, look at
the gigantic mess they have created. I say, screw them all (excuse the expression).
And, for those of you who still believe in the special skills of politicians,
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: New impressions of Adm Stockdale
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.202130.6628@kodak.kodak.com>, bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct15.123923.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, edmondse@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> 
|> >Obviously, Adm Stockdale knows he is not an effective public speaker and 
|> >this knowledge must have made his trip up to that podium all the more daunting.
|> >I feel he acted admirably (no pun intended) in accepting this challenge. He 
|> >did it not for glory or personal gain. Quite the contrary, he did just as he
|> >has everything in his past: he did for his country and because of a loyalty
|> >he feels towards Mr. Perot.  
|> 
|> I agree with you completely.
|> 
|> >
|> >Now that people have had time to sit back a think about the choice or Adm
|> >Stockdale, I would be very curious to hear if his suitability for the job is
|> >is in question or if like myself they feel ashamed of rashly dismissing this 
|> >man based upon superficial and ultimately trivial terms.
|> 
|> For a public figure I can not agree that communication ability is 
|> superficial and ultimately trivial. A leader is not an island unto himself.
|> He/she is required to interact with others both individually and in mass.
|> 
|> 

I disagree htat the debate was a good measure of a persons public
speaking ability.  Most public statements by the VP or any other
politicians are prepared statements.  Once every four years a debate
happens.  And when the results are what we saw in the VP debate, the
people lose.  I think the Admiral won.

Doug
From: jjast7+@pitt.edu (James   J Alles)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot won the debate!!!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:38:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh: it's an oxymoron thing.

In article <ldi0hgINNm3f@kalahari.cs.utexas.edu> f435@cs.utexas.edu (Fall Class Account) writes:

>
>Peeve: Why did they bother to ask the questions about family values and the

>
>                     -Wade

They did not ask a question about family values.  They were asked to give 
a definition of the family unit, I believe.

In any case, the question was not answered by any of the rhetoric.
I was surprised, I thought that Perot would have paid more attention
to detail (i.e. Listen).

--
From: tvega@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: Mr President Perot
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:02:40 GMT

I am greatly satisfied that Ross Perot has returned and decided to finally
run this country where it should go. This country needs a leader who doesn't
have to follow intrest groups or political parties making decisions for them.
Ross Perot is a strong person and means what he says. His political background
isn't as big as Bush or Clinton but that is what we need, somebody who
hasn't been corrupt in the present political system. Perot is the man for the
job and my vote is for him
      Tom
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Next 30-minute Perot spot?
Organization: Rational
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:03:03 GMT

Does anyone know when the next 30-minute Perot presentation is going
to be?

This is one thing I wish he'd do better - put on some 30-second spots
telling when the 30-minute one is.

While I'm asking questions ...

Anyone know the Fax number for Perot's campaign HQ?

	-MSM

________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: mansona@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Hai Bonds Manson)
Subject: Re: Poll of Perot Supporters
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 05:40:00 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:08:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
writ:

>    When all the votes are counted, Clinton will win, Bush will lose, and
Perot
>will have wasted his time.


"The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings."  Bush is at real risk of finishin
finishing *third*, imho, and Clinton had better watch his rear.

BTW--I am *not* a Perot supporter.  But I *can* read a balance sheet.  Perot
is going to spend more money in the next three weeks than the other two
major candidates *put together*.  Overnight polls show him as the hands
down winner of the first debate (47% of those polled, vs 30% who thought
Clinton won.  We won't go into Bushlip's numbers).  And 62% of those polled
have much more positive feelings about Perot than they did before the debate.
My interpretation of this is that the people who supported Perot in June have
now given themselves permission to consider abandoning Clinton and going 
back to Perot.  This is going to be a two way race, with Bush the odd man
out, and Clinton in the fight of his life.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot