HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:34:48 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov14.005636.5028@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.105951.22000@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

The Clue Patrol sees more nonsense about Reaganomics....

>Spending increased? Yes, but at a reduced rate (compared with Carter/Bush).

Hogwash. Discretionary spending--on defense-- soared during the early
Reagan years. OK, I'll go back to the library and post the spreadsheet
again. (It didn't get to yur site?)

>"taxes actually collected (as opposed to tax rates) increased"
>Well, that's the wonder of pro-growth, supply-side economics.
>He was successful enough to pay for the expanded state.  :)

Actually, Federal Funds Receipts (excludes trust funds), which is where
Reagan made tax cuts, PLUMMETED during the first Reagan Administration.
Since spending went up, we got a big increase in the deficit. During the
early Reagan years, we could have controlled the
deficit. Now the deficit controls us.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24010 alt.flame:14848
From: kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Kevin Walsh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: REAL CANADIAN HISTORY FOR AMERICANS
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:11:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Cursor Software Limited

In article <1992Nov16.145703.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (Dark Lord of the Sith) writes:
>
> Shitloads of drivel.
>
What's wrong with you?  You got nothing better to do or are you trying to get a
round of applause?

Post it into alt.history.boring and good luck with the history exam.

Seeya!  |/    \    /
        |\evin \/\/ALSH  -  kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24242 alt.politics.marrou:2348 talk.politics.misc:61242 alt.politics.clinton:17610
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 16 Nov 1992 23:06:40 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

All this wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Weinberger indictment
is really an attempt by Republicans to allow them to feel good about
their loss.  After all, it wasn't because George Bush had no domestic
agenda until six months ago.  It wasn't due to the fact that, although
Bush seems to be on a first name basis with every foreign leader in
the world, he had not spoken to the mayors of Chicago, LA, or New
York until after the LA riots.  It wasn't due to the fact that
George Bush has lied about Iran-Contra from start to finish and
then insisted that trust was the issue.  It wasn't due to the
fact that the Republicans turned over their national convention
to the religious right.  It wasn't due to the fact that George
Bush was thoroughly inarticulate at expressing an understanding
of the suffering of the American public.  It wasn't due to the
fact that we ended up sending American troops to dodge Scuds to discipline
a monster the Bush administration had helped to create.  It wasn't due
to the fact that George Bush promised to keep his campaign out of the
gutter while Mary Matalin spewed forth her daily lies and innuendo via fax
to newsrooms across the country.

George Bush would have lost whether Walsh's office revealed the
memo or not.  If I were a Republican strategist, I would be wary
of this Walsh-bashing.  It's a sign of denial.  I don't really
want to bash Bush any further, but if Republicans hide behind
a mentality of "they stole the election" then they will see
no reason to change, and certainly run a doomed campaign in
four years.  They have to analyze some of the real reasons
they lost.  It was partly the candidate, partly the party,
and partly the message, or lack of one.

I can't say what the reasons were for the Weinberger indictments.
It was said a few months ago that further indictments were expected
around August.  According to one report I read, there was a deadline
which had to be met on this indictment.  Unless you can establish
slightly more convincing evidence, a full-blown investigation is
somewhat excessive.  This is far less of an abuse than the State
Department records fiasco, or the theft of the Carter debate notes
in 1980, or the October Surprise (which warranted investigation
only due to the persistance of rumors and the severity of the
charge; I'm not implying that it happened.)  Get off the topic,
and reform your party.

Six months ago, people in this group were saying that the
Democratic party was dead.  These reports were premature.
It is the Republican party that is limping now.  You weren't
tricked out of a rightful win.  The Weinberger thing is pure
inside-the-Beltway stuff - of interest only to people who
wake up early on Sundays to watch TV commentators rather
than go to church.  Now, get to work if you want to win
in four years.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23930 talk.politics.misc:60413
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:27:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division

Would you mind editing the Newsgroups line, so that it doesn't have 
"alt.fan.dan-quayle" in it?

Thanks.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24151 talk.politics.misc:60947
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:33:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <EOx+r*Ek1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In <1992Nov04.001516.32776@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti/100000 writes:

>> In article <bViVr*ke1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >In fact, I haven't heard a single "pro-choice" person admit that the 
>> >Pennsylvania laws were reasonable.
 
>> Maybe because they weren't.

>Ok, I'll take the bait.  Explain to us just what was unreasonable about the
>Pennsylvania laws.  Also explain how that any or all of those laws would
>destroy Roe vs. Wade as the pro-abortionists claimed.

Spousal consent.
Prohibiting abortion for sex selection purposes.  (Unreasonable because
it's unenforceable; unless women have to take lie detector tests to
prove why they're getting abortions.)
Waiting period.

I don't really understand the second question; if you prevent people
legally from getting abortions, then you've destroyed Roe v. Wade.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:12:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T

filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM writes:
>Now, I find it sickening to watch Dole.  He's worse than Bush.  He not
>only keeps saying "57% of the people voted against Clinton", he has
>decided that HE speaks for those 57%.  He has said, and I paraphrase,
>that the job of the Republicans in Congress is to thwart Clinton's agenda.
>
>I guess with Bush out, there's room at the bottom, and Dole jumped right
>in.

He's under a distinctly mistaken (I hope) impression that the Republicans
are still calling the shots in some way, and is making bellicose threats
that if Clinton removes the ban on admitted gays in the military, the
reactionaries like himself will "blow the lid off Washington." Yeah, yeah,
no doubt there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I just hope
Clinton lets Dole and Co. know who is in charge by signing an executive
order post haste. If not, maybe folks should start sending pens to 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue before Clinton lets his revolution be co-opted. The
old guard has to be beaten down now.

On a related note, here's a good one from today's WSJ:
	
An editorial page writer uses dubious polling data to assert that Clinton
is merely a Republican hireling:

	Voters did not reject the heretofore durable Republican coalition;
	they simply elected a Democrat to run it.

Oh, simply is it now?

And:
	The question now is the extent to which [Clinton] will keep himself
	-- and his party -- on that largely Republican-defined course.

OK, and while you're amusing yourself pondering this question, Clinton'll 
just move forward, all right?

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24166 alt.politics.clinton:17507
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.074720.21342@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound) writes:
>
>>I agree whole-heartedly.
>>It's a good thing Ross Perot didn't have his way.  He fought kicking
>>and screaming against having an Asian woman design the memorial, even
>>to the point of having the members of the memorial selection committee 
>>followed.
>
>Gosh Ted, you sound paranoid.  

Not only that, but there are Black Panthers from Canada trying to kill
me.  Luckily, my dog chased them away.

>I don't suppose you can prove this?  And no, The New Republic is not proof.  

Well, if you insist on closing your eyes to evidence presented by magazines
and newspapers, then, no, I can't "prove" anything.  But under the same
standards, can you prove that Perot even exists?  And, no, Larry King show is
not proof.  Luckily, most people aren't so paranoid as to think that the media 
is conspiring against them.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Error (er, I mean) Era
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:02:45 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

One of the funniest political imitators is Jim Morris.  I saw
him imitating Reagan on Crossfire and I laughed when he had Ronnie
say,  "My fellow Americans, vote for George Bush because 
George Bush is the only man that can carry on the Reagan Error, (er, I mean) 
Era.

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24266 talk.politics.misc:61386
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: REAL CANADIAN HISTORY FOR AMERICANS
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:45:25 GMT

>In article <1992Nov16.145703.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (Dark Lord of the Sith) writes:
> Today everyone remembers Auschwitz... noone wants to remember Dresden.
> And in conservative Canada, veterans in the Senate began a show trial to
> hang two film makers who dared tell the truth about Dresden. (David Irving
> .... the pre-Holocaust denier Irving....wrote an excellent book on this
> aspect of the war. )
 
And the Americans did not do the day bombing in Dresden?
 
The statue of Bomber Harris was unveiled during a religious service.
 
What will be the next move of God's Own Army?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel)
Subject: Further proof that Clinton is bad for U.S.
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Distribution: alt
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:58:39


As if we needed it, we finally have convincing proof that the Clinton's
represent a very disturbing change at the top.  We no longer have a White
House dog.  Instead, we're getting a damn cat.  I was all ready to give
Clinton the benefit of the doubt on the issues, but once he showed
favoritism for cats over dogs, well, he just killed his support from this
citizen.

I'll be he likes the designated hitter rule & artificial turf too!

:-) for humor impaired

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:27:00 GMT

In <BxuGvw.271@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>  I really wish you would review the above studies.  They would provide
>>>you with much better information concerning this subject. 
>>
>>Well, I'm not sure how the fact that regulations have a short-term
>>impact is meaningful to your argument against them, either.  You have
>>to look at the long-term effect of the regulatory effort.

>  Short-term impact?  The studies I recommended _all_ concentrate on
>long-term impacts.  Once again, I highly recommend Mr. Hopkins work and
>the Fall issue of Policy Review (among the others I mentioned).  

Why is it that I get the feeling that these studies ignore just what
achieving the purpose of the regulations has as an impact, and just
what impacts there would be from not achieving those purposes?  After
all, economists live in a ceteris paribus world; you can't change ALL
the variables and make any predictions.  Sure, you can say that OSHA
costs money and jobs (for example), but what would things be like
without it?  It wouldn't just be a case of the money spent on
complying being spent to provide more jobs -- you would also have some
pretty unsafe working conditions; what is the price of that?

This is why I consider this type of study somewhat less useful than it
is often portrayed as being when used to advocate or argue against a
particular political agenda.

-- 
"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.elections:23860 alt.politics.marrou:2273 talk.politics.misc:60267 soc.history:9416
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,soc.history
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:37:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: uoft02.1992Nov15.133710.15
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound) writes:
> >> If Libertarians had won the 1932 presidential election, Europe 
> >> would be under the Fourth Reich, and there would probably be 
> >> some sort of dictatorship here as well under a Huey Long or 
> >> Charles Coughlin type.
> >
> >sorry, wrong answer. the US before WW2 -was- pretty isolationist.
> >Charles Lindburg, America First, remember? also remember that we
> >didn't get into the act until -after- Pearl Harbor, at which
> >time Germany also declared war on us. sure, FDR himself wanted
> >to get into the fray, but even he couldn't do it without a decent 
> >reason. 
> 
> Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
> US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.  Japan wouldn't
> have even bombed Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for the United States
> refusing to sell oil to it -- but that's "meddling" in the 
> Libertarian view of the world.

not selling oil to a country that's threatening a bunch of other 
markets is "meddling"? prohibitions against "force or fraud" are 
quite a bit different from the false accusations of blind 
isolationism you accuse libertarians of.

> >Pearl Harbor was a reason i doubt even libertarians would ignore.
> 
> Do you think the Japanese would've attacked Pearl Harbor if 
> Libertarians running the government refused to have an oil embargo 
> against the Japanese?

eventually, yes. the point is still moot because you have yet to
provide any reasons why a Libertarian guv -would- have sold oil
to the Japanese.

> For that matter, even if the Japanese would've bombed PH anyway, 
> despite getting all the oil they wanted from the Libertarian-
> Americans, do you really think the Libertarian US would've gotten 
> involved in Europe?

we almost didn't anyway. eventually we -would- have gotten involved
in Europe and the Pacific, 'cause no matter which way you slice it,
Hitler & Hirohito were just too stupid to leave us alone.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "We are errant knaves, all; believe none of us." - Hamlet      `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:46:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.013950.5834@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>>Well, if you insist on closing your eyes to evidence presented by magazines
>>and newspapers, then, no, I can't "prove" anything.  But under the same
>>standards, can you prove that Perot even exists?  And, no, Larry King show is
>>not proof.  Luckily, most people aren't so paranoid as to think that the media 
>>is conspiring against them.
>
>Sorry, but when the editor of the New Republic openly admits that the
>magazine is biased towards a particular person, that there are definately
>un-truths printed supporting this bias, and that it's up to the reader
>to sort fact from fiction - yes - it sure sounds like they're conspiring.

Yes, the New Republic endorsed Clinton.  But they also printed pro-Perot
articles by John Judis.

I read the interview with Andrew Sullivan that you seem to be talking about.
He never said the magazine is printing lies.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:27:23 GMT
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Nov16.163109.27953@samba.oit.unc.edu> dil.admin@mhs.unc.edu  
(Dave Laudicina) writes:
> I find it strange that Bob Dole can claim support from all the 
> people voting for Perot. If Perot did not run his vote would most
> likely been split. Bush would have had to taken 67% of these voters
> to overtake Clinton. Basoed on the pllos this would not have happened
> and Clinton would have still won with over 50%. Let's quit whining
> and talk about some real issues.

This is fairly accurate.  According to the latest tallies I have Bush would  
have needed 12,453,662 of Perot's 19,266,862 votes, which is 64.64%, to defeat  
Clinton 50,674,089 to 50,674,088.
--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.... Love your
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       |  enemies."--Jesus of Nazareth
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24193 talk.politics.misc:61096
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:53:53 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1eegqrINNg3a@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

|>If you don't like that example, then look at abortion.  Almost no TV
|>show mentions the word, even if the plot includes one.  I see "Life,
|>what a beautiful choice" ads several times a day, but I have *never* seen
|>a commercial offering abortion services.  If that is not a conservative
|>bias, what is?

If you can demonstrate that pro-abortion groups had ads that they wanted
to air, but were turned down, then you would have a point.  As it stands
you have demonstrated nothing beyond your own biases.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23964 alt.politics.marrou:2304 soc.history:9447
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov15.233206.18833@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>>That being said, FDR's New Deal did little to help the ecomony.
> 
>It did much more than Hoover's laissez-faire.  Plus, it prevented
>a revolution.

	Hoover's laissez-faire???  You have got to be kidding.  The economy
he presided over was hardly laissez-faire.  There was plenty of government
intervention in the economy.  There simply wasn't as much redistribution
of wealth as during FDR's reign.

	And just WHEN would this revolution have occured?  The depression
lasted long enough.  Were there any identifiable signs of one?

Mark Sulkowski
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24275 alt.politics.marrou:2356 talk.politics.misc:61423 alt.politics.clinton:17683
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:53:19 GMT

In article <1ee9d8INN8kg@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>
>Hogwash. Discretionary spending--on defense-- soared during the early
>Reagan years. OK, I'll go back to the library and post the spreadsheet
>again. (It didn't get to yur site?)

>Actually, Federal Funds Receipts (excludes trust funds), which is where
>Reagan made tax cuts, PLUMMETED during the first Reagan Administration.
>Since spending went up, we got a big increase in the deficit. 

I'd like to see a percentage breakdown showing how much of the new debt
accumulation under Reagan was do to 1) increased defense spending 2)
the growth in entitlements  and 3) revenue shortfall due to tax cuts.
There is lots of discussion going on about how numbers 1 and 2 are the
reasons that deficits and debt soared under Reagan.  I have a strong
suspicion that number 2 is a bigger factor than 1 and 3 put together.

> During the early Reagan years, we could have controlled the
>deficit. 

A mathematical probability perhaps, but with the Congress that was in
power, it wasn't all that likely.  To be fair, howerver,  Reagan
made no strong efforts, at least that I'm aware of, to attack the
growth of entitlements.  In historical perspective,  that may end up
being the main failure of his presidency.

- Ted Drude
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc