HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Comments on state-by-state
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:43:10 GMT

In article <1b5helINNa4h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>
>Speaking of Anderson -- I voted for him myself. I was young and very 
>politically naive. I was disillusioned with Carter, particularly about
>the draft registration thing. I knew I didn't want Reagan, but guess what
>-- I got him anyway! And ever since then I've wondered -- how about that
>Anderson guy, anyway? Did he disappear like a stone into the dark waters
>of politics, or what? I mean, run for president and then do the Judge Crater
>thing. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Alan Ehrenhardt has an interesting comment on something like this in
_United States of Ambition_ (a book on the rise of political
professionals, and the loss of power of party insiders).  What follows
is what I believe is his argument.  People like Anderson (Ehrenhardt
didn't use him as a specific example) don't come up within a party's
power structure.  They select themselves to run for office (This is
true for most politicians nowadays, according to Ehrenhardt.  The rise
of the professional pol has made the barriers of entry higher, since
you have to be willing to campaign with the same dedication as a
pro.), and have no allegience to the usual party elites.  Such
candidates rise up suddenly from nowhere.  If they are defeated, they
fade away and are rarely heard from in a political campaign again (at
least in the case with Presidential politics).  Consider, say,
Anderson's rise and disappearance with, say, Dewey, who was nominated
by party insiders twice (?).  Or William Jennings Bryant early in the
century.  These people are selected by the party elite.  They maintain
ties to the elite.  They can resurface again and again.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's desperation
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:45:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM () says:


>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).

 I didn't hear this. Could someone post some more details on this?
Before I heard (I don't have TV) Bush call on Clinton to explain his
trip to Moscow I would have thought this was a joke. Desperation
is almost an understatement for what Bush must be feeling. I guess
we should have taken him at his word when he said he would do anything
to get re-elected.

-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Lemmings and Sheep
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:05:36 GMT

When a party candidate with strong support can't get on a state
ballot (Pat Buchanan), the voting rules are corrupt.

When a party gets its candidate on the ballot in 50 states,
and can't get him invited to a debate because he has "no
realistic chance of winning" (Andre Marrou), the debate
should be ruled unqualifying for any tax-paid support, as
well as regarded as a sham unfit for perusal.

The "unbiased" media refuses to count votes of "inconsequential"
candidates.  The media is biased against small movements, since
it always makes its money on the mainstream.  How many people
voted for Bill the Cat last election?  Hold Peter Jennings
and Dan Rather in a damp cell without food until they 
reveal the truth.

Oftentimes, politicians change their stances because they
discover a position is popular - elections are not just
over rigidly fixed candidates, they're about battering
people with ideas.

Until people with unaccepted ideas are allowed into the
political arena, our elections are about as empty as,
well, a presidential debate.

John Kennedy was an inept traitor and war-monger who deserved
to die.
George Bush should be tried on drug-smuggling charges, and
given the maximum sentence if found guilty.
Bill Clinton had the chance to be the advocate millions of
dope-smokers, draft dodgers and marital unfaithfuls were
looking for, but he was too spineless to say it straight up.
The American people are sheep you don't want reality to
curtail their excesses.

Yes, unwanted truths, but they should be there anyway.
Out in the open, debated on TV.
"Mr. Governor, did you fuck around on your wife for 17
years?"
"No, Mr. President, it was only 13 years, but at least I
wasn't importing cocaine into the U.S. to pay for a secret
war."
"Not true, Mr. Governor, my CIA records show there's a base
in Arkansas where MOST of my drugs came through."
"Probably a CIA report falsified by Robert Gates, no doubt..."

Ah yes, now that would be an interesting debate.

Leap out of the crowd.  Vote for an extremist.  America was
founded on radicalism. Tar your congressman.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: campbell@rz-berlin.mpg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re-request: Transcripts on Internet
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:45:43 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

I have seen the subject line, but no information about where transcripts
are available. I've heard the first two presidential "games" on radio,
but tonight's broadcast begins at 2 a.m. here in Germany. Could someone
please post or email the transcript information? My server has been
down for more than a week and I missed the original posting (the 
followups are quite far afield - isn't there something in netiquette
about this?).
			Thanks,		Joe C.

Undecided? Who? Me? I don't know.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bush v. Clinton: "Who do you trust?"
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:14:42 GMT

In article <92290.143553JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu> <JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Let me repeat that:  Bush called trickle-down VOODOO ECONOMICS.

No, Bush called Supply Side Economics vodo economics, not tirckle down.
The two are not the same and Bush has always supported trickle
down.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Lost some respect for CNN (was Re: Vice Shrub won)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:28:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.082757.12778@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>NATO we're still paying for because for some inexplicable reason,
>>>Bush/Quayle think we should.  

>>Un, you forgot to mention Clinton/Gore who also think continued membership
>>in NATO is vital.

>But they don't think we need 150k troops in Europe to prevent a Soviet
>invasion of the West.

First of all, that's not what you said. If your going to flame Bush for
continued membership in NATO then you must flame Clinton for the exact
same reason.

You just pulled another Clinton. First membership in NATO is bad and we
shouldn't pay for it. Then you find that NATO membership is approved by
Clinton so your opinion changes as well. Why not think for yourself?

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Threatened Suit Against Bush/Quayle Campaign
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:42:20 GMT

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:

>   I heard on CNN tonight that Time/Warner has threatened to file suit
>against the Bush/Quayle campaign unless they pull their latest TV ad which
>features the Time magazine with the cover saying "Do voters really trust
>Bill Clinton ?"

This is the same Time/Warner that thought so much of the freedom to 
say 'anything' that they watched their own stock plummet while listening
to Ice-T's Cop Killer on their label.  I think it's odd that this 
champion of free speech would not want ANYTHING to air....maybe
we could get Ginnifer's photo-spread in the next ad???

>   An interesting note they pointed out is that Time is usually a little 
>"Republican-leaning".

This is a joke, right?

>Greg

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics
From: aib@col.hp.com (Allan Best)
Subject: Re: Is Biden Growing Hair?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:13:54 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson) writes:
>   
>    I have been thinking that Joseph Biden was looking a little thicker up top
>  for awhile here. Last night I found a video tape of the Thompson/Hill fiasco
>  and sure enough Biden is sprouting a new doo. 
> 
>  Does anyone else find this funny?
> 
> 
>  "The hair club. I'm not only a member, I sponsored a multimillion dollar pork
>   bill to bail it out."
> 
> 
>  Steve Matson

Give Biden a break!! We all gotta have something between our ears!

Al
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: Polls on VP Debate
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:43:41 GMT

Chad R. Berthelson writes:
>bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>>Who won the debate?
>
>>      Gore  Quayle Stockdale    Sample 
>>NBC    50     32      2          623 adults
>>ABC    38     35      7          500 adults
>
>
>I think it's pretty funny how both of these polls will state that 
>this is how everyone feels (with a -+ 4% margin of error).  Now
>since the Gore catagory is 12 different, there MUST be a better
>than 4% error, eh?  

  No, a +- 4 % margin of error means that 95 % of the time, the results of
the poll will be within +- 4 % of the result if you sampled the whole
population.  Of course the other 5 % does happen sometimes.

Greg


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.203125.13419@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>Not necessarily.  Private schools have the option of refusing
>admission to any student.  If you and every other parent
>flocks to this "best" school, clearly most of you would
>be disappointed.

Your mistake here is assuming there is one and only one best. What's
best for my child may not be what's best for yours. The son of a guy
I work with goes to a private school with a totally different philosophy
of teaching than the private school my daughter attends. Is it better?
For him it looks like it is but I don't think it would be good for
my daughter.

That's the sort of diversity you get when things are opened up. New
things get tried and people choose what's right for them.

Clinton however (or maybe it's his teacher lobby contributors) opposes
that sort of choice. I guess we parents just aren't qualified to
decide what's best for our children. 

But if you support the one 'best' school approach, go for Clinton. He
will assemble a team of experts in Washington and they will decide what
the BEST is and grant it to your children. Of course if they don't fit in,
well, the public schools have been putting square pegs in round holes
for years. They'll force him in.

>As soon as I am satisfied that
>no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
>I'll pay attention.

We woldn't want that. Far better we let them rot in public schools.

BTW, are you also upset about tax money which goes to religious
universities? Lots of it does.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:07:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) says:

>>>  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.
>

 No, the only reason Clinton is leading is because people believe
President Bush when he says he is not interested in domestic affairs.

-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Subject: Re: Ross TV
Keywords: ratings ross running
Followup-To: t.p.misc
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:50:52 GMT
Summary: Ratings

In article <1992Oct8.213553.13947@u.washington.edu> sieferme@u.washington.edu writes:
>Just heard on the radio that Ross Perot is changing the
>direction of this TV campaign.  Instead of airing the next
>two installments of his TV show, he is re-running the
>show that was on two nights ago.  This is in response
>to (he says) public demand.

On the Today show this morning Katie Currik interviewed a Madison Avenue
big shot who said that the ratings on Perot's first infomercial were
twenty (20) times (X) the predicted levels.  He said that it in fact
was the most watched political television event of ever.  If this is
true it means more people saw Ross explain the economy than saw Nixon
resign the presidency.(Live, It couldn't include those that subsequently
saw the Nixon resignation on the evening news, etc.)

>
>The first show consisted of HRP providing his analysis of
>the problems of debt/budget.  After the show was over,
>he was asked why he provided no solutions.  His explanation
>was that his three one-half hour shows were a series,
>and policy proposals would be appearing in the final
>two episodes.
>
>Now, we are apparently not going to see the final
>two episodes.  Makes you say "hmmm ...".

No, chances are that the incredible success of the first show made him
reevaluate the strategy and decide to run each installment three times
rather than three installments just once.  This weeks shows will be the
"explain the problem" episodes.  Next week each network will get a
"Solutions, part 1", then two weeks from now we'll get three chances
to see "Solutions, part 2."  Not an official statement just my guess.

>
>Isn't it looking like this guy is just making this up
>as he goes along?  Does he have any idea what he is doing?
>It is easy to see why so many HRP supporters are getting
>very frustrated.
>
Believe me, we are a hell of a lot more frustrated about the other two
candidates refusal to accept the gravity of our economic situation than 
we are about the unexpected ratings success of Ross's pseudo-ETH.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 22:07:51 EDT
From: <DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot for Pres???

I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
for president. What assurance do we have that in the middle of
a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
be president? What assurance do we have that he wont use
the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
his "enemies"? What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?
What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?
Why vote or support anyone who is unwilling to undergo scrutiny?
Why waste a precious vote!
Arthur
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 17 Oct 1992 00:59:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:


>
>In article <1bcjhsINNp8l@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>]
>] If attacking Bush's record is attacking Bush then there have
>]been personsal attacks. What is an example of Clinton attacking
>]Bush personally?
>
>Accusations that he doesn't care about the poor because he is rich.

Examples of "not caring about the poor": repeatedly vetoing extension
of unemployment benefit, vetoing increase in minimum wage, fighting
middle-income tax cut in favor of capital gains tax cut. All actions
taken AS PRESIDENT in the capacity of his office. This is part of his
RECORD as President.

>Accusations that he is using abusing his powers to aid his friends.

Brett Kimberlin was put in solitary confinement for several days before and 
after the 1988 elections in order to prevent him saying to the press that
he had sold drugs to Dan Quayle. The order came from the Bureau of Prisons
in the Reagan administration, at the request, according to some sources,
of James Baker, close associate of George Bush. This is part of Bush's
RECORD AS VICE-PRESIDENT.

>Accusations that he lied regarding Iran-Contra.

Richard Secord (not a Democrat) and Howard Teicher (not a Democrat)
accuse Bush of lying about his knowledge of AND SUPPORT FOR the arms
for hostages deal. Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz (not Democrats),
by implication, suggest that Bush is lying, because they dispute his
statements that he was not aware of the plans. This is part of his RECORD
AS VICE PRESIDENT.

>Accusations that he was a war monger (this was from the democrats in
>general, not Clinton).

You can read in books such as _Second Front_ or _The Commanders_ that 
Bush and a handful of his top advsisors, notably Brent Scowcroft, were
far, far more eager than the top officials in the military under his
command to go to war against Iraq, rather than continue with sanctions
and diplomacy. Whether that makes him a "war-monger"is a matter of
opinion; regardless, it has to do with Bush's ACTIONS IN OFFICE and is
part of his RECORD AS PRESIDENT.

>Accusation by Hillary that he was an adulterer.

Except for this last one (which I do not remember hearing Mrs. Clinton
say and I would most appreciate your providing a source for), all of
these examples have to with Bush's RECORD and are not "personal attacks."
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: The Debate
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:33:32 GMT

neil covey writes:
>
>In future debates, look for questioners to push Perot for specifics, for
>Bush to continue to flail about, and for Clinton to continue to be
>steady but unspectacular.

   The future debates (with the exception of 1/2 of the final debate) will be
without questioners.

Greg

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics
From: stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson)
Subject: Is Biden Growing Hair?
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:21:30 GMT

  
   I have been thinking that Joseph Biden was looking a little thicker up top
 for awhile here. Last night I found a video tape of the Thompson/Hill fiasco
 and sure enough Biden is sprouting a new doo. 

 Does anyone else find this funny?


 "The hair club. I'm not only a member, I sponsored a multimillion dollar pork
  bill to bail it out."


 Steve Matson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17440 talk.politics.misc:52594
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:05:34 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct16.143130.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>
>ABC news last night had it 44 Clinton 37 Bush ?? Perot. They are closing
>as I have predicted before. Bill, don't count your chickens before they
>hatch.

It widened again to 10, I think.  I don't know the details of these
polls, though.

In any case, we have no intention of letting up.  Lots of Get Out the
Vote events being planned in NYC, even though Clinton has a 3.5 to 1
edge over Bush.


	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:02:50 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>> I can't think of any two communist nations which warred with each
>> other either....

> The USSR and Czechoslovakia.  The USSR and Hungary.

Not strictly true.  The USSR brought in their armies at the 'request'
of Czechoslovakia and Hungary to put down a reform movement and a
popular uprising, respectively.

China and Viet Nam have had a few border clashes, however.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.drugs