HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Debate Related Questions
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:27:32 GMT

2 questions:

1.  What school did Sen. Al Gore go to?  Just curious.

2.  Who taugt the Admiral to speak?  He is a terrible public speaker.
But what I really want to know is what are his thoughts.
I understand that you dont have to be a perfect speaker
to be good administrator.  What are his thoughts?
He seemed to just plug perot and not speak for himself at all.
I realize that is kind of the point, but it made it seem
like he was just a dummy pulled with strings by perot.
I think that Perot - Gore would have made a damn good ticket,
in either order you put it!


Derek

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: RESULTS OF PRE-DEBATE POLL FOR PRESIDENT for USENET ers
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:24:42 GMT

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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: Stockdale NAILED it!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:06:44 GMT

Mark writes:

  He is not incompetent.  But, he is also not a robo-pol or a 
snickering boy wonder.  No, he is an honorable man doing an honorable 
thing -- reluctantly agreeing to be running mate for a friend he 
respects; entering into an arena where he is clearly uncomfortable.

   Give me a reluctant candidate anytime.  Give me an honorable 
candidate anytime.  Give me an intelligent, thoughtful, sincere 
candidate anytime.


	No kidding, How about George Washington?  Hamilton?  Pick any of the
	early presidents, most were reluctant, but damn did they do a good
	job eh?


	Derek
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:2261 alt.politics.clinton:10913 alt.politics.bush:9456
From: dtiberio@csws20.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: C-SPAN POST-DEBATE POLL
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:40:35 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <1bju85INN1pu@rave.larc.nasa.gov> rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.041811.26790@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, 
>dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>> In article <Bw2Dt0.46K@news.larc.nasa.gov> rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov 
>> (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>> 
>> >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?
>> >
>> 
>> 	Sure, Perot used his financial influence to buy high-speed dialing
>> telephones for his supporters, and they were able to dial in much quicker.
>> As some might say...
>> 
>> 	Obviously the above was a joke; typical response by a Bush/Quayl
>> supporter.
>> 
>
>BEEP!  WRONG ANSWER...I am 100% for Perot!  Don't be paranoid!
>
>Mike Rowland

	I am 101% for Perot, -1% for Bush! Don't be paranoid! I meant
'typical response by a Bush/Quayl supporter would be what I said above,
in that Perot's callers had faster dialing telephones so more got in.'

:)


-- 
      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: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: Debate Related Questions
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:29:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.052732.24498@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>2 questions:
>
>1.  What school did Sen. Al Gore go to?  Just curious.

I don't know, but I'm sure they stressed LIBERAL arts.

>2.  Who taugt the Admiral to speak?  He is a terrible public speaker.

True, but look for my other post relating to this.  (A quick repeat of
that -- some of it was probably from newness to the public eye -- what a
place for a debut.  Some more of it could have been (does anyone know)
physical results of 7.5 years as a POW and the subsequent torture.

>But what I really want to know is what are his thoughts.
>I understand that you dont have to be a perfect speaker
>to be good administrator.  What are his thoughts?
>He seemed to just plug perot and not speak for himself at all.

Well, that is the point (as you state below), but it could just be that
Perot picked him (among other reasons) because they just happen to agree
that much.  Not an unlikely thing...

>I realize that is kind of the point, but it made it seem
>like he was just a dummy pulled with strings by perot.
>I think that Perot - Gore would have made a damn good ticket,

No.  Gore is part of the gridlock (even if just an innocent bystander --
not the case though) which Perot objects to (don't we all?).  Perot, I'm
sure, will work with the Congress if elected, but to run with a member?
I don't see it.  Besides, Gore (and Clinton) seem to need to prepare
every answer they ever make.  Not Perot's style.

>Derek

Dewey

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:40:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.162222.15432@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.145237.11803@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> >
|> >If Perot wins in Nov. This will mean that he has gotten >50% of the
|> >vote.  A true mandate from the people.
|> 
|> Whew, for a while there I though Perot was running for U.S. president.  What a
|> relief it is to find out he's running for some other office where the winner
|> must receive a majority of the vote.
|> 
|> (For the humor challenged: the president is elected by the Electoral College
|> if and only if a candidate receives 270 or more votes.  If no candidate is
|> elected by the Electoral College, the House of Representatives elects the
|> president.  We, the people, don't elect the president directly.)
|> 

Here is my reasoning behind >50% of the vote:  The electors that we send
to the electorial college do not comprise the whole electorial college.
Each Congressman and Senator and a few others, maybe govenors, get to
vote.  Well none of the congresscritters or the govenors are going to
vote for Perot so there for for him to win he must have gotten
significantly more than 50% of the vote.

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: on the VPs
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:50:23 GMT

In article <Bw5Apx.MqC@news.udel.edu>, barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:
> 
>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.

I don't know if they used cue cards or teleprompters, and I don't even
recommend voting for Clinton (or Bush or Perot), but if apparent spontaneity
is your best measure of the truth of a candidate's statement or the strength
of their convictions, you are in *sad* shape.  You're ripe to be taken in by
the first actor that comes along and really, really, seems honest.  Or, just
as bad, the salesman that comes along spouting vacuous truisms.

Witty, candid debate responses are fun, but are they *really* enough to base
such an important decision on?  I think not.  Instead, I suggest evaluating:

	-the candidate's plans
	    do you agree with what he/she plans to do?
	-his/her perceived ability to achieve them
	    e.g., leadership ability, party backing, congressional backing
	-his/her past record (very important with Bush/Clinton/Perot)
	    has he/she been effective in the past?
	    has he/she done good things (in your opinion) in the past?

Of moderate importance:

	-the running mate
	-speaking skills

Of little importance:

	-appearance
	-age
	-financial standing
	-military experience

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: 1-800-bend over STUPIDITY!!!
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:10:01 GMT

In article <BvGCqp.G2n@news.larc.nasa.gov>, rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>_You people_ who want to call the 800-number just to screw up the
>count are a bunch of *** ASSHOLES ***.

While I'd never advocate such an action, I must point out that the
susceptability of this method to exactly these kinds of techniques is a valid
criticism.  Face it, this phone poll doesn't mean a thing, and we shouldn't
pretend that it does.

>While you jerks are playing your silly games with a legitimate political
>activity...

Legitimate, yes.  Well thought out, no.  Robust, no.  Meaningful, no.  If this
kind of blantantly worthless, poorly thought out "poll" tells us anything
about how Perot works or how his Electronic Town Hall would work, then we
ought to consider ourselves forwarned.

>_You people_ are part of the problem--GROW UP!!!

You're taking yourself and this so-called poll too seriously.  Lighten up.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.154712.20208@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct2.193504.27591@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> >
|> >1)  I don't think he will resign.  When he starts something he follows
|> >through.  Cite one example where this has not been the case.
|> 
|> Here're two: his candidacy and his tenure at GM.  Pulling out of the race at
|> the height of one's popularity and re-entering one month before the election
|> is *not* how one follows through on one's pledge to run a world-class
|> campaign.  Accepting a huge sum of money for one's resignation is not how one
|> reorganizes a large corporation.
|> 

Ah, I was hoping someone would take me up on this one.  Great.

Lets take your points one at a time.

1) Pulling out of the race.

Please explain to me how someone who had never ANNOUNCED his candidacy
could pull out?  Also, Perot saw, as I did, the democratic party at the
convention address real issues and actually perform admirably.  I was
quite impressed as was Perot evidently.  Where Perot's assessment and
mine difered is that I realized that the only reason the dems were
acting so rational waas because Perot was in the race.  I realized at
the time that if Perot dropped out of the race it would be back to dirty
politics as usual.  As it was.  Also, I think Perot felt as if his
organization was being taken over by the professional handlers (Ed
Rollins and Hamiltom Jordan and their staffs) and he did not like that,
or the deriction that these people were taking him.  If they had stayed
aboard you would see Perot commercials that looked like Bush commercials
in '88.  Lots of flag waving and such, not commercials which really
address the issues facing this country. 

Enough on that.

2) GM

Perot was forcibly bought out of GM.  His contract stated that if the
Board of Directors voted to buy him out the he had no choice.  Even
after this happened he went to them and said "Don't do this.  You can't
afford it".  

Don't you find it interesting though that all the things that Perot was
trying to change years ago at GM they are finally getting around to now.
Score Perot.

This goes right along the same lines as Perot's stance on the POW-MIA
issue.  All along the govt. has claimed that we didn't leave anyone
there.  Now it  comes out that we did and we knew it, but, they say,
no one is still alive.  Score Perot.



This I believe addresses your points, which, of course, were the exact
issues that I assummed that would be raised.  If you need more info or
can come up with some other attack on Perot, I'll be waiting.

Doug

PS  I would rather hear how you agree or disagree with the problems or
the solution to the problems that he points out.
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Debate Qualifications
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:22:50 GMT

|> I was wondering how many ballots in the 50 states
|> these other candidates are on.
|> 
|> Also, is that some sort of qualification for
|> appearing in the debates?
|> 
|> Thanks
|> ------------------------------------------------
|> 
|> Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord are the *only* other candidates who are on all
|> 50 state ballots plus DC.  They have met *every* objective criteria put forth
|> by the Debate Commission.  The *only* difference between Marrou/Lord and 
|> Perot/Stockdale is that Perot has a lot of money.  If you think personal
|> wealth is an appropriate measure of political legitimacy, then what was
|> done is fine.  If you don't think that money confers wisdom, then you have
|> a problem.

Money is not the only diffrence between Perot and Marrou.  There is also
standing in the polls.  There is also viability of ideas.  But I do
agree that they sould have been invited and allowed to participate.

Are they going to have any commercials or any tv at all?

Doug
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.164751.5807@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>So Perot breaks his pledge, mumbles something about not wanting to interfere
>with the election process, works behind the scenes to get on all the ballots,
>and re-enters the race at the last minute.
>
	I don't see how you can say he worked behind the scenes to get on
all the ballots. When he backed out in July, he encouraged his volunteers
to work on getting him on the ballots. I heard he even bought commercial
time in NY for this purpose. So what if the news media didn't cover it? That
puts his ballot effort on par with the Libertarians, as far as coverage goes.
From: bwest@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Neal West)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot's Pick-a-Plan Plan
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:42:07 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: peaches.cs.utexas.edu

>Mr. Perot does not seem to realize that there are voters who not only care
>WHAT gets does, but also HOW it gets done.  His continual response of 
>"Just pick a plan, any plan and do it" does not allow voters to express any
>ideological basis for their choice.  He should realize that people are 
>interested in the means, not just the ends.

You are right people are interested.  But the the other candidates
only superficially explain their plans.  Lets take Clinton's health
care plan as an example.  I have no idea how this plan will affect me
on a day to day basis.  Do you know?  Should I trust Clinton to look
after my best interests?  Maybe not.

What Perot's pick-a-plan approach does offer me is choice.  Perot if
he is to be believed will have an electronic town hall where all the
possible choices for health care will be discussed and I get to choose
the one I like.  No back room compromises.  No special interest groups
or lobbists.  Done in bright day light for all to see.

Perot's lack of plans is a big plus for me.  If an important major
issue comes up, I'll have an opportunity to make an informed decision
about it and I won't have to solely trust my Congressman, Senators, or
President.

Another Perot plus is that he willing to have pilot programs ("measure
twice, cut once").  In choosing a national health care reform, this
could mean that there would be empirical data to make an even more
informed decision.

Does Clinton (our next President) plan on using electronic town hall
or pilot programs?  If not, I really like to know his reasons.

In a similar vain, I would like to know what Clinton thinks of the
other items in Perot's agenda like :

A balanced budget.  Clinton on one hand promises to half the annual
deficit but on the other refuses to take the Concord Coalition's "Lead
or Leave" pledge.  Perot could make political hay by pressing Clinton
on this issue.

Complete political process reform.  Clinton has been noticeably silent
on this issue.


Brian West
-- 
bwest@cs.utexas.edu
============================================================================
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: No one is responsible. 
My Astral-Projection did this, if you get my drift.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: PEROT TV SPOTS (16/17 OCT)
Keywords: perot
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:43:28 GMT

The next TV spots for Perot will be 

Friday, 16 October  (1/2 hour)

Saturday, 17 October (FULL hour)

Mike Rowland


Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
From: kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: I SUPPORT PEROT, but HE DOESN'T GO FAR ENUF, _NO ONE DOES_
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:28:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.211500.25379@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <BvrDnr.8Aq@csn.org> kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
>>Face it!  Perot is the only canidate for REAL change. 
>
>and also writes:
>
>>Perot is the only canidate that is proposing BIG CHANGES.
>
>These statements are untrue. Half of the six candidates for US
>President on the 1992 California ballot advocate changes more
>fundamental than those suggested by H. Ross Perot.
>
>The Libertarian's Andre Marrou, the left-wing Peace and Freedom's
>Ron Daniels, and the right-wing American Independent's Howard
>Phillips just don't have $3 billion with which to buy media
>attention.

Let me rephrase:

  FACE IT!  PEROT IS THE ONLY CANIDATE, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ELECTED,
  that is proposing BIG CHANGES!

Hooray for Andre Marrou, Ron Daniels, and Howard Philips, but as you do point
out:  "[they] just don't have $3 billion with which to buy media attention"

If Jesus Christ were on the planet again, he wouldn't be able to affect 
change unless he had the financial power to buy TV time (Although, he'd
only get a 20 share against 'Rescue 911' or 'Full House').

-- 
Ken Waletzki Consulting, 2525 Arapahoe #E4-107, Boulder, Colorado  80302
303-494-8953, email kenw@csn.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: I SUPPORT PEROT, but HE DOESN'T GO FAR ENUF, _NO ONE DOES_
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:15:00 GMT

In article <BvrDnr.8Aq@csn.org> kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
>Face it!  Perot is the only canidate for REAL change. 

and also writes:

>Perot is the only canidate that is proposing BIG CHANGES.

These statements are untrue. Half of the six candidates for US
President on the 1992 California ballot advocate changes more
fundamental than those suggested by H. Ross Perot.

The Libertarian's Andre Marrou, the left-wing Peace and Freedom's
Ron Daniels, and the right-wing American Independent's Howard
Phillips just don't have $3 billion with which to buy media
attention.

-- Brad Pierce --
From: richard@TIS.COM (Richard Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: What a Veg
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:37:33 GMT
Reply-To: richard@TIS.COM
Organization: Trusted Information Systems


	Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggg!

	What a Veg! Ole Stockdale gets my vote for loser of the week.
Geez, why didn't they (the Perot campaign) just have him call in sick
and send a replacement???

	Danno was an obnoxious lying sniveling sack 'o shit. Kinda like
that last little cling-on that just won't come off no matter how vigorously
you wipe your ass...

	Gore tried to maintain his cool, and mostly succeeded. I think
they (the Clinton campaign) had prepared for an *issue* debate rather
than a mudslinging contest...

	Overall, the Bushman won by a little. Lie enough times and people
will start to believe you. Sling enough mud, and whether it sticks or not,
your opponent will start to look dirty.

	I *did* find it interesting that the Perot camp decided to start
attacking the Clinton camp. Stockdale jumped on Gore a couple times.
I hope this doesn't continue! If Perot follows Bush and attacks Clinton,
then Clinton loses and Bush keeps the white house. :(

	Well, back to politics as usual. Watch the mud fly Thursday!



-----------------------Relativity Schmelativity-----------------------------
 Richard H. Clark				My opinions are my own, and
 LUNATIK - watch for me on the road...		ought to be yours, but under
						no circumstances are they
 richard@tis.com				those of my company...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:29:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.155808.12192@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:

>I do not think that public appearences will be much of the VP's job in a
>Perot administration.
>
>Doug
>

Interesting concept. A leader that doesn`t make public appearances.
A leader MUST make public appearances to shape public opinion.
I.E. the bully pulpit that  Mr. Perot keeps refering to.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Perot won the debate!!!!
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:03:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.061531.3562@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@csws19.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>
>	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.
>

CLINTON looked like a robot who was programmed to be polished, smooth and polite.
This gave the impression that he was quite timid and not sincere about his positions.

BUSH made the cardinal mistake of attacking Clinton's patriotism from the very
beginning of the debate which backfired on him immediately. The clear looser.

PEROT seemed quite confident of himself and his position. He was sincere and
straight forward when replying to the questions. The clear winner.

>    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."

;->

John