HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Poverty
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:55:33 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

: "May I add that 40% of the "poor" own their own homes!
: "The average value of these homes is 43,000 (about 60% of
: "the average value of all homes).

[etc. etc. so on and so forth until Mr. Palmer comes up with the revelation:]

: You're full of shit. 

My, some people certainly have an unbelievable talent to 
effectively state an alternate viewpoint....
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Anybody who knows Dan Quayle
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			knows he would rather play golf
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			than have sex any day."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Marilyn Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:19:35 GMT

In <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.222723.20772@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>What do you base this assumption on?  Clinton plans to raise spending
>>by about 70 billion.  That's only 5.5% of the total government
>>expenditures.  I don't like it either, but I think you're exaggerating.

>It's based on what happens when you raise tax rates on the upper class
>and other such tricks that Clinton is proposing.  If my tax rates go up,
>I will be investing every spare dollar in the nearest tax-sheltered
>investment I can find.  Millions of other upper-class taxpayers are
>going to be doing the same exact thing.  That will reduce tax revenue,
>not raise it.

Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
investments, due to the targeted capital gains tax in the Clinton plan
(as opposed to the one in Bush's plan, which simply spurs more paper
profits rather than real investment in the economy).  This creates a
larger capital pool, which spurs the economy and raises tax revenues.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4784 alt.news-media:1219 talk.politics.misc:44622
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:12:01
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep08.174533.29008@watson.ibm.com> <lasdquINNt4i@spim.mips.com>
	<1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Sep10.181107.7909@kadsma.kodak.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com's message of Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:11:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.181107.7909@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

> A small contribution to this debate: a magazine column I was reading
> last night opens with the lines: "I have listened to NPR for many
> years; in reach and scope it is far and away the best news radio
> operation. However, I am sometimes driven to distraction by its
> persistent leftist bias..." (somewhat paraphrased)
> 
> The columnist: Morton Kondracke

It isn't at all surprising that a rather hawkish neoconservative (even
if he chooses to publish in a once-liberal magazine) would think that
NPR has a "leftist bias."  Nor is it terribly surprising that *I* see
the biases of NPR, and other major news organizations, as
conservative.

Just to throw out two examples of the bias that I see:
	(1) The news organizations devote a great deal of their coverage
	    to simply reprinting what government figures say.  Even on
	    rare occasions where they give the government's words a bit
	    of critical scrutiny, this still means that the government
	    gets to set the agenda of the discussion.  We have a right-
	    wing Administration right now (as for most of the last 25 
	    years), so this guarantees a conservative bias.
	(2) Every major newspaper I have seen has a "business" section,
	    complete with many pages of information that is of interest
	    only to well-off investors.  When is the last time you saw
	    a newspaper with a "labor" section?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Clinton E-mail Volunteer Effort: what's up?
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:37:52 GMT

i recently saved a post from the net that had this to say:

> The automated Clinton/Gore mail server is available at
> 
> "clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org"
> 
> This mail server recognizes requests in the "Subject:" field of
> your mail message.

so i tried it out, but this morning received this message:

> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 09:51:52 -0400
> From: MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.uu.net
> To: machman@u.washington.edu
> Subject: Waiting Mail
> 
> After 3 days (91 hours), your message to the following people:
> 
>         mail.clinton-gore.org!Clinton-Wins  (host=dcclint)
> 
> has not yet been delivered. Attempts to deliver the message will
> continue for 26 more days. No further action is required by you.
> 
>    ----- Queued message begins -----
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: The Machman <uunet!u.washington.edu!machman> 
> Subject: help
> To: Clinton-Wins@mail.Clinton-Gore.org

does anyone know what's going on with the automated mail server and
why it's not working?  thanks for any info.

						-- dave


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5431 alt.politics.bush:5134 alt.politics.elections:13133
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 23:43:43 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Not Registered To Vote? Read This Post.

                        VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION
                       (Information from Rolling Stone)

For more information, call your state's number or
Rock the Vote: 800-962-VOTE.  Date included is voter registration
deadline for each state.

ALABAMA
October 24; 205-261-7210

ALASKA
October 4; 907-465-4611

AMERICAN SAMOA
October 4; 684-633-2522

ARIZONA
October 5; 602-542-8683

ARKANSAS
October 14; 501-682-1010

CALIFORNIA
October 5; 916-445-0820

COLORADO
October 9; 303-894-2211

CONNECTICUT
October 13; 203-566-3106

DELAWARE
October 17; 302-736-4277

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
October 4; 202-727-2525

FLORIDA
October 4; 904-488-7690

GEORGIA
October 4; 404-656-2871

GUAM
October 24; 671-472-8417

HAWAII
October 4; 808-548-2517

IDAHO
October 24; 208-334-2300

ILLINOIS
October 6; 217-788-1536

INDIANA
October 5; 317-232-6539

IOWA
October 24; 515-281-5865

KANSAS
October 20; 913-296-2236

KENTUCKY
October 6; 502-564-7100

LOUISIANA
October 10; 504-342-4970

MAINE
November 3; 207-289-4186

MARYLAND
October 5; 301-974-3711

MASSACHUSETTS
October 6; 617-727-2828

MICHIGAN
October 4; 517-373-2540

MINNESOTA
November 3; 612-296-9217

MISSISSIPPI
October 4; 601-359-6359

MISSOURI
October 14; 314-751-3295

MONTANA
October 4; 406-444-4732

NEBRASKA
October 23; 402-471-2554

NEVADA
October 4; 702-687-3176

NEW HAMPSHIRE
October 24; 603-271-3242

NEW JERSEY
October 5; 609-292-3760

NEW MEXICO
October 6; 505-827-3600

NEW YORK
October 9; 518-474-1953

NORTH CAROLINA
October 13; 919-733-7173

NORTH DAKOTA
No registration; 701-224-3667

OHIO
October 4; 614-466-3205

OKLAHOMA
October 24; 405-521-2391

OREGON
October 14; 503-378-4144

PENNSYLVANIA
October 4; 717-787-5280

PUERTO RICO
September 14; 809-724-4979

RHODE ISLAND
October 4; 401-277-2340

SOUTH CAROLINA
October 4; 803-734-9060

SOUTH DAKOTA
October 4; 605-773-3537

TENNESSEE
October 5; 615-741-7956

TEXAS
October 4; 512-463-5650

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
October 4; 809-774-2991

UTAH
October 29; 801-538-1502

VERMONT
October 17; 802-828-2304

VIRGINIA
October 4; 804-786-6551

WASHINGTON
October 4; 206-753-7121

WEST VIRGINIA
October 4; 304-345-4000

WISCONSIN
November 3; 608-266-8005

WYOMING
October 4; 307-777-7378
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4816 tx.politics:5054 alt.politics.bush:4654
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 10 Sep 1992 23:24:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <58iEr*lY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
 Today (9/10)'s SF Examiner reminds us on the front page that on
 June 26, 1990 George Bush said "it was clear" that "tax revenue
 increases" were needed to reduce the deficit. Bush of 1992 and
 Pritchett disagree. But when I ask: OK, how would you have trimmed the
 deicit instead, I get the chickens--t response

>I'm still waiting for you to type in the entire budget document...

Bush had no clue then and you have no clue now.

Unless you come up with something new, I'll just write a shell script
that posts "Pritchett, solve the deficit without raising taxes" every
few days. Or maybe I won't, for bandwidth.

andy
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton Quotes from Bush Speech, etc.
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:25:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


I'd like a bunch of before and after quotes:

Would someone e-mail me the Clinton quote Bush used to show
that Clinton was flaky in his support for GWII (Gulf War II).  
Also, would someone e-mail me a Clinton quote from *after*
GWII.  

I'd like the same for Gore regarding when to stop the war 
(didn't Gore say it was time to "stop the slaughter"?), both
during and after the war (including his second guessing of
the decision to stop the war.

thanks,
anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5081 alt.politics.homosexuality:5930
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:10:23 GMT
	<1992Sep8.165805.833@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <mfqeh41@Unify.Com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <mfqeh41@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

-ACF is correct.  What Werling more accurately should have said was
-"... *I* cannot tell the difference between a person and an action.  Hating
-the action is definitely the same thing *for me* as hating the person."

Excuse me a minute.  What you should be more accurately saying is "*I*
have no idea what it means to be a homosexual."  To *be* gay.  You
see, I've known what it means to be gay since I was 12 years old.  If
you hate my gayness, then you hate me, because my gayness is an
integral part of who I am.

-Werling has committed a sin.  

(in a sing-song voice): *Proooooove*it!*

-So long as s/he cannot forgive him/herself,
-s/he will have great difficulty in asking God for forgiveness.  So long as
-s/he cannot ask God for forgiveness, He will not forgive him/her (the Bible
-does say you *must* ask).  So long as Werling cannot separate him/herself
-from his/her own sinful action, s/he cannot forgive him/herself.  S/he has
-damned him/herself, and is irretrievably stuck unless s/he learns to separate
-what s/he has done from the good person whom God created and loves.

What sinful act have I committed?  If you're Biblically anal, I have
committed no sin.  Ich bin ein VIRGIN.

-The NY Catholic Archdiocese obeys God's commandment to love the people whom
-God created and whom God loves by comforting the sick, the homeless, and the
-friendless.  It obeys God when it sees Jesus Himself in these AIDS patients,
-for Jesus says that He is among them:  "for whatsoever you do to the least of
-my people, so also do you do unto Me".  According to the Bible, so long as
-Werling hates his/her brothers and sisters dieing of AIDS, s/he also hates
-Jesus Christ.

How DARE you insinuate I "hate" people who have AIDS?  You better have
a damn good defense for that assertion, Carrie, because you just
accused me of something that has nothing to do with who I am.  You
take this to a personal bitch session, I will win hands-down, so be
careful, damned careful.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Debate?
Keywords: his fault
Reply-To: cornell@syl.dl.nec.com
Organization: NEC USA, Corporate Network Administration Division (Dallas, TX)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:22:36 GMT

stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>An unusally informed co-worker of mine tells me that today Mr. Bush has 
>agreed to debate Mr. Clinton by the rules set forth previously. And also that
>Mr. Bush made a statement like "For some reason Mr. Clinton is no longer
>afraid to debate ME!" Can somebody verify this??? Regardless I look forward
>to the debates and call for a law making them mandatory.

>Stan Knight
>|[Insert witty saying here]|

Last night on the news, I heard that Bush gave Clinton an ultimatum
to accept by this ?Friday? Bush's campaign's desire of two debates
with a panel of jounalists or he will assume that it means Clinton
doesn't want to debate (shall we call this Operation Debate
Sheild?).  Clinton was still standing by his, I accept the debate
committee's plans and will show up at the scheduled debate whether
you're there or not.  Now today, I've heard that both campaigns must
accept by noon tomorrow (Wednesday) the committee's scheduled
debate.

I very much look forward to a debate and I think it's in George's
best interest to be present given his current unpopularity.  I favor
the one person moderator format.  I believe (as it appears George
does) that Clinton will be a much better debater and I hope that he
stays on the issue of the question and not get bogged down in
George's attempts to draw away from the issue and blame everything
on one member of Congress' rotweiler that didn't approve of Millie's
milkbone growth package that she presented in her book.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4266 alt.politics.homosexuality:5730
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:20:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <22921@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.192349.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> |> right to endorse a candidate.  The problem I have is with the 
> |> credibility of claiming to be unbiased (which is what the Courier-Journal 
> |> did) and then having a 6 to 0 bias in favor of Clinton in the op-ed
> |> pieces.
> 
> Question:  did the Courier-Journal claim to be unbiased in its Op-Ed,
> or in its reporting?
> 
> -- Bob

     From what I gather, the reporter (or news writer) included the
incident in the original story.  An *EDITORIAL* decision was made
not to print the statement regarding the incident due to lack of space 
(i.e. they ran the story about Clinton in SC but deleted the heckling 
incident lines).  So, I do not believe there is a problem with the news 
writers, but rather with the editorial staff.

     Cary Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4804 talk.politics.misc:44645 alt.politics.bush:4648
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 10 Sep 1992 21:14:51 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <ART.92Sep10114135@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.215511.18804@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
>    In article <2AAE62CF.11063@news.service.uci.edu>, harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen) writes:
>    > 
> 
>    > >Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
>    > >grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
>    > >
>    > >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>    >    ^^^
>    >      Talk about fifth grade educations....please....:)
>    > 
>    > >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>    > >some of the people most of the time.
>    > >
>    > >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>    > 
>    > 
> 
>    Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't run my post through a spell checker. I was a very
>    naughty boy and the net.spelling.police should take away my license.
>    :-/
> 
>    Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> Well, Dr. you were the one who banged somebody else for not using his
> spelling cheker.  Since you're a Dr. I would think your spelling chequer
> would be between your ears.
> 
> 
Actually, I assumed that people on this newsgroup weren't shallow enough
or rude enough to critique my typing. I guess I was wrong.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep1.221503.15330@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <cornell.715849969@vivaldi>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:24:06 GMT

In article <cornell.715849969@vivaldi> cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht) writes:

- The leadership is encouraging people to hunt them down and deprive
- them of their jobs.  The military for example in some cases asks for
- a list of names of other homosexuals who are in service.  State and
- local governments also deprive people of jobs based on sexuality if
- they should happen to find out.  Why they're searching and find out
- is questionable.

A while back, Fort Bliss, 40 minutes away in El Paso, TX, started 
stationing undercover people in the popular gay bar in El Paso to 
see if they find any of their personnel there.

So much for the notion that you shouldn't take your work home.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Family Values
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Episcopal Church Foundation at UIUC
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:33:55 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

[Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah and possible association with homo-
 sexuality]

:      I neither have a Greek New Testament nor do I read Greek, but
: the English translations I have for Jude 7 seem to be inconsistent
: with your interpretation.  Can you help resolve this inconsistency?

Jude 7:

: Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the
: angels, they committed fornication and followed unnatural lusts;
: and they paid the penalty in eternal fire, an example for all to see.

(The passage in Genesis about the destruction of S & G has been posted
 already elsewhere.)

One possible interpretation of this passage would be that Jude is
giving a warning against going to sexual excess; i.e. orgies are not
Good Things.  As I recall, the townspeople of Sodom just wanted to
have sex with the newcomers, not necessarily because those guests were
men, but because they were new in town, and the townspeople were 
exceptionally horny and wanted to extend an "appropriate" welcome
to the new folks.

The "fornication and ... unnatural lusts" do not necessarily have to
be interpreted as a slam against homosexuality.  The reference is
most likely to having sex for sex's sake, rather than having sex as
an expression of love.

--
Michael Adams (StarWatcher@uiuc.edu), Subdeacon, Episcopal Church Fdn. @ UIUC

"I deserve respect for the things I did not do."  --  Dan Quayle

Marrou/Lord in '92




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5170 alt.news-media:1284 talk.politics.misc:45147
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:15:56 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <lat146INNa0s@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Gary Strand) writes:
>|> mp> Michael Polen
>|> 
>|> mp> As with all "hollywood elite" concerns, media bias is a non issue.  If 
>|> mp> people didn't agree with the bent of newscasters, they would watch some-
>|> mp> thing else.
>|> 
>|>   Meaning what? That newscasters would therefore be forced to try to regain
>|>   these non-viewers by changing their bias to accomodate the widest market?
>|>   Has this happened? Can the major networks afford to tilt their news towards
>|>   a smaller segment of the market and still be successful? 'Twould seem so.
>|> 
>??? Station management would say to the news directors "find some newscasters
>with a more conservative leaning."  IT is amazing to me that everyone thinks
>the profit motive works except when they don't like the results.

It doesn't work that way. When ratings start to slip, first cosmetics are
changed, the graphic "look" is changed, new anchors are hired, consultants
are brought in. Finally the news director is replaced. Content doesn't
change, only the "production values" are altered. One news director may
want shots of blood running in the streets and order the camera crews to
take lingering shots of corpses. Another may want "happy talk" from his 
anchors. Yet another may decide that a softer edge is required and bring 
in Hollywood gossip and psychics. The editorial content of hard news never 
changes. That's set at the top corporate level based on CEO prejudices
and beliefs. These things are never questioned in the boardroom. Broadcasting
is so profitable by ordinary standards that really gut wrenching changes
in slant are never required. Remember that most broadcast management comes
out of the advertising department. These people have it inscribed on their
souls that any idea can be sold to anyone if only the right technique is
used.

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Campaign strategies
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:09:23 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

So... do the Republicans have any strategy beyond trying to make Clinton look
worse than Bush (quite a task in itself...)?  I mean, can some nice Republican
post here and tell us a few details on how Bush really plans to improve the
economysNb~7yfE{i{~$p@