HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:28:18 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: dan-mac.csuchico.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A701B5F6F3014069@dan-mac.csuchico.edu>
X-XXDate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:33:10 GMT

In article <Bw3qDI.Auw@beach.csulb.edu> Jeff Sicherman,
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu writes:
>>>I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
>>>American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
>>>able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
>>>viewpoint of it.
>>>
>>>Just a thought,
>>>
>
>  What an irresponsible suggestion ! Just think of all the newspeople
>that would put out of work and increase the unemployment roles.

>
I guess you're one of those people who needs to be spoon fed information.
 If you would notice, I didn't say that we should get rid of the press. 
I simply said that I wish the media would give us time to consider our
reaction before giving us theirs.  The view the press gives us is very
important.  I also believe though that it is very biased and tries to
influence its watchers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.172332.2277@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.151015.6902@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.113013.21469@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) said:
>
>>> 300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
>
>>> [ * * * ]
>
>>> I didn't read any farther than this first statement.  Of course, one
>>> wonders why I read this far. :-)
>
>>> Citizens for Tax Justice is an arm of the Clinton campaign.  Don't
>>> let its name fool you.  Remember Brown's complaints about the same thing?

Right. The people running CTJ came from the Clinton campaign and vice versa.
There was much cross-fertilization of talent.
>
>>Using a neutral organization name to hide behind is an ancient
>>political practice which, imho, sucks big hairy rocks.  Assuming
>>Patrick's reporting is accurate, shame on Clinton's people for doing
>>this... but at least I have to give credit to whoever manages the
>>300.3115@compuserve.com account for putting an honest identifier/
>>disclaimer in the "username" field.

Like it's hard to tell when their press release come out.

>Well, his reporting isn't accurate.  At least not in the sense you're
>talking about.  It's not one of those "organizations" that are run by
>campaign staff out of the same office as the campaign with the same
>phone number and just a different PO Box.

So there smart enough to have different phone #, office, etc.
But it's the same people. My guess is their waiting for their
Clinton Administration jobs, and are eagerly cranking the biased
statistics to effect that end.

>CTJ seems to have been very pro-Clinton to start with, and there were some
>people who used to work for CTJ who now work for Clinton, but it IS an
>independent organization.  It's just that the people running it come
>from the same centrist wing of the Democratic party as Clinton, so they
>tend to have the same general ideology as he does.  This makes them
>naturally sympathetic to Clinton, but they aren't an "arm of the Clinton
>campaign."

Scary stuff .... the CTJ group has been planting very biased stuff,
and has been anti-capital-gains tax cut.  If this is "centrist" and
in line with what Clinton really wants, then (a) Clinton is lying
w.r.t to his tax proposals and (b) your centrism is a little left
of most standard definitions.

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate	
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16769 alt.politics.bush:9135 alt.politics.clinton:10397 alt.politics.perot:2137
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:52:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

In article <1992Oct14.163501.4938@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:

>>Gore did vote for the Carribean Basin Initiative according to his own 
>>campaign manager.  To be fair, Quayle voted for it in 1983, but it was a 
>>somewhat different program back then and had wide Democratic support.  So 
>>Gore effectively lied.  (Quayle was never asked if he voted for it.)

>CNN reported this morning that Gore voted against final approval of the
>bill, or words to that effect.  So, although he might have at one time
>supported an earlier version of it (they didn't say), in the vote that
>counted he voted against it.  Gore was right.

When the bill was incorporated into a larger package he voted for it.
This was reported on ``Nightline''


Gregg

-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)          VOTE PEROT  VOTE PEROT       
If you think the Republicans screwed up the country, can you afford to
see what the Democrats will do?!   ->BEWARE OF SLICK-WILLY CLINTON!!<-
From: IDJMW@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Those debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:49:29 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

Was it just me? Maybe I'd had too much coffee by that late in the afternoon,
but after a while, Bush started to sound more like Dana Carvey on SNL than
himself. I found it hard to stop giggling!
From: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Santa Claus Clinton
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:52:22 GMT
Reply-To: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)


	I fully understand why Governor Clinton is popular. He is
promising the moon and telling people that someone else will pay for
it.  It certainly sounds appealing, and all the things he wants to buy
certainly have value. What I cannot understand is how anybody with an
education sufficient to use a computer can believe in a such a free
lunch. Government taxing and spending does not create more resources.
It takes resources away from the businesses that need it to survive
and grow. It generally puts resources into flashy pork barrel
projects. It does nothing to fix the real problems of the deficit or
the debt. It is a short term, feel good, quick fix. Governor Clinton
may as well be proposing to simply print more money. His popularity
merely shows that a lot of people would rather hide their heads in the
sand and think happy thoughts than face reality. My three year old may
still think that Santa Claus is real, but we who are grown ups know
that it is Mom and Dad who end up paying for the presents.


Ted Pawlicki
pawlicki@kodak.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Review on Debate
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:23:37 GMT

In article <1bchfjINNl06@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag423@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank Fijalkovich) writes:
>
>I liked the part when thy asked Perot what would he do when he
>gets deadlocked by congress on some of his Ideas .
>He said he'd go to the people with an electronic town hall and
>more or less get the people to pressure their representatives
>to vote the way they wanted, not the lobbyists and special
>interests.

This is what democracy is all about. I hope people are more 
involved in how their representatives are spending their money.
I believe this is the main strength of the Perot campaign which is to
reduce the influence of  PAC and special interest money on government.

John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.171522.8500@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>Well, the newspapers, magazines, and electronic media are
>(mostly) private businesses.  They exist to make money.
>If their coverage of the elction is primarily geared toward
>two candidates, while giving limited play to other candidates,
>it might be because their customers (viewers, readers) prefer it
>this way.

It might.  Then again, it might not.  It could just as well be inertia.  Or
perhaps they prefer the simplicity of the two-party system.  Hopefully, if
enough people complain, they won't be able to ignore Marrou and the
Libertarian party.

>No doubt the managers of the media figure that
>a dramatic change of election coverage to include all candidates
>would alienate viewers/readers and cause a drop in ratings and
>sales.

Oh yeah, I'm sure people would stop watching election coverage in droves if
it included, say, all candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.  I.e., if
the number of candidates covered increased from three to four.  But then that
doesn't explain why they didn't cover Marrou when there were only two
candidates.

>That's the way the market works (*snicker*).  If you don't
>like it (*hee hee*) then you can start your own newspaper
>(*yuk yuk*) or your own television network (*ho ho ho*).

Ha, ha, ha.  I think you're forgetting that networks provide a service.  If
we, the customers, aren't pleased with the service we're getting, we'll seek
alternative sources.  Network advertisers won't be pleased when they find
their advertising dollars reaching a smaller and smaller audience because the
networks are unresponsive.

>BTW, the best coverage I've seen so far of the Marrou
>candidacy has been on PBS, the only tv network
>which receives any federal funding (BWAAHAAHAAHAA!).

Nah, the best coverage of Marrou and the other "minor" candidates has been on
C-SPAN...a private network.

-- 
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
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:00:32 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey) writes:

>Bush lost the debate about the debate again last night.  He got the kind
>of short answer, reporter question, no follow-up format he wanted last
>night and it killed him.  

The best part of this is Bush wanted this format because he knew he
could make it work in his favor WITH TWO CANDIDATES.  With two
candidates, this format resembles two political advertisement
campaigns running simultaneously.  But having a third man in the ring
through EVERYONE's rhythm off and they were forced to think on their
feet instead of producing canned responses.  You could see this while
watching the debate ... the first couple answers from each of them
were very well versed, but as the debate progressed they had to do
more and more ad libbing. 

>Clinton did well in the beginning and end and lagged a bit in the
>middle.  The format served him well because he didn't get bogged down in
>detail, as he is wont to do when given more time.  

There were a few times in there when he was able to do his famous
"statistics out of the air" stunt.  He did roll right over Bush in
these terms!

>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.

Agreed!

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
The white porcelain is screaming ayee! Thank god the boy's not alone. - Primus
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bkonarsk@mcs.kent.edu (Beirne Konarski)
Subject: Who is Howard Phillips?
Originator: bkonarsk@Condor.mcs.kent.edu
Organization: Kent State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:33:40 GMT


Well, I am scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find a presidential 
candidate I can vote for in good conscience.  I have ruled out everyone except
Howard Phillips, who I know little about.  Can anyone tell me anything about
him?

Thanks,

Beirne
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16949 alt.politics.bush:9268 alt.politics.clinton:10569 alt.politics.perot:2199
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 15 Oct 1992 06:15:55 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <Bw5CDA.KK2.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>Mona Charen on Crossfire this evening revealed that not only did Gore 

This is a pet peeve of mine.  How come John Sununu, Pat Buchanan and
Mona Charen, ex-Republican Administration members all, get to pose
on CNN as journalists?  Where I play poker the shills have to wear
identifying badges.

    --bks
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: "steve willer" <steve.willer@canrem.com>
Subject: mike royko: schwarzen
Reply-To: "steve willer" <steve.willer@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:32:42 EST


KG>Lets not forget that this movie (Terminator) is SCIENCE FICTION, not an
  >attempt to depict real life as in a show such as Murphy Brown.

I was not aware that Murphy Brown was this either.
It's a "drama," is it not?
---
  SLMR 2.1a  In any case = In any box ???
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Subject: Re: New California Poll 52-32-9
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:15:53 GMT

In article <BvtKqG.MGB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:

>Clinton and Bush.  The results were 30-30-29, +/- 3%.
>
>--
>Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
>Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
>Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
>Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
>UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    
>
According to a Times/CBS poll that appeared in today's NY Times,
Bush's lead is currently 41-37-7, which they describe as "well 
within the prescribed margin for error."  (if I recall correctly,
that is; don't have the paper with me, I read it on the train 
this a.m., but the 41-37 part is definite).

Rob L.

Clinton/Gore '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occasionally)
Subject: REQUEST: All Platforms
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:00:46 GMT

I would like a copy of both Dem and Rep Party Platforms, as well as the 
corresponding document form the Perot campaign.  Thanks.

Matt Ivaliotes  
mci41087@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16821 alt.politics.bush:9179 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5408
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Does He Get It?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:24:02 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

Blurb on page A19 of today's NYT:

As Mr. Quayle stood on the stage after the debate taking the
congratulations of well-wishing Republicans, a supporter raised a
point.

"You did great, Dan, great," he said.  "There's just one thing.  This
abortion thing.  You've got to realize that the Democratic position --"

"Is extreme?" Mr. Quayle said, nodding in anticipation.

"No, is supported by 72 percent of the people in this country," the
man said.  "You've got to drop it, Dan."

Mr Quayle nodded politely and moved on.

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: Read this.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.174353.670@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>>	In a few years, when the national debt is greater than we can afford
>>to pay off through taxes, I will cry. I will cry because all of the money
>>that I and everyone else earns is going to pay interest. 
>
>About 1/3 of all federal taxes go to pay the debt right now. This money
>could be used to upgrade education, etc

Hmmm.  This sounds like the "peace dividend" the democrats are so fond
of.  The idea of taking money from defence and spending it elsewhere,
when the total budget is more than total revenue, is repugnant.  If
defence can now be cut, so can the deficit.

Someone posted some budget statistics from FY1990 a while back.  I did
some computations and found that even without the national debt, and the
interest implied, we still had a small ($45 billion) deficit.  We cannot
afford new or expanded programs.

Perhaps a first goal for the next Congress should be to eliminate
borrowing which does not pay interest.  It would be a start, anyway.

I think that if I were running for president, my campaign promise would
be "No new programs!"

/Roger
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Date: 12 Oct 1992 21:53:57 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct12.195947.21290@athena.mit.edu>, jfed@athena.mit.edu writes:
|Didn't anybody else want to puke when they saw how polished and
|refined [Clinton] was?  

No.  I expect polish, refinement, & preparation from politicians
at the national level.  I'm far more worried by Bush's inability
to speak in correct English sentences, without repetition,
stammering, and wandering.  I consider public speaking skills
to be basic, almost to be taken for granted.

I wonder why you think incompetent public speakers are somehow
better suited for public offices.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com     C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I think you are wrong, Basil, but I won't argue with you.  It is only 
the intellectually lost who ever argue." --Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.usa
From: donald@university
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Organization: electronic enginnering
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:48:48 GMT

In article <Bw2t6q.BJ3@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:

>>George, let's not forget what happened to Nixon after he started listening
>>to the nuts in his party.

>But remember-George was Republican national committee chairman during Watergate 
>(that's how he got to be appointed first ambassador to China afterwards) and 
>never said a single even remotely critical word about it. He was one of the nuts
>Nixon was listening to, or rather he was listening to the same nuts at the same
>time. So I'm hardly surprised.

>                                                       Dan Case

>                                               V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>                                               Prodigy: WDNS15D
>       "America is one of the few places in the world where failure to promote                                 	
>       oneself is widely regarded as being arrogant"-Garry Trudeau.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.210632.22652@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>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.

[...]

>
>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.

Clinton argues for public school choice.  Presumably, we'll have an
extended magnet school system, where individual schools will
specialize.  There will be a choice to what you "major" in: in NYC,
there are 3 public math/science high schools (at least one of which is
among the best in the country (I won't say which one I went to :-)),
vocational schools, the art and dance school featured in "Fame", a
school concentrating in the humanities, etc.  Chancellor Fernandez has
proposed extending this system of mini-schools.

The thing about private school choice and vouchers is that these
schools will still have the option of turning down applicants that
don't fit their vision of their student.  How will minorities fare in
this system?  How do blacks and hispanics fare in the free-market
economy as is?  Are you going to impose quotas to check
discrimination?

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:52:00 GMT

nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) said..
>>Does Gore advocate spending US 
>>funds on foreign aid for environmental projects or not?  
 
In article <1bk6njINNn6g@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>I'm sure he advocates it, but realizes that with the country suffering
>so badly from the Bush recession that it's not feasible to do now.

Where has Gore said he realizes that?  See, you're putting words in Gore's
mouth in the same way which you have accused Quayle.  I say you are both
interpreting Gore's written statements differently, and the discrepency is
based on the fact that Gore has not articulated his position precisely.  In
other words, he doesn't want to say anything which would put him in the
doghouse with either environmentalists or the average taxpayer.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.conspiracy