HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Poll for Paul
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:22:43 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <2656@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.183154.29975@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>
>>How to feal about Pres. Clinton's overall performance to date?
>>61%---favorable
>>26%---unfavorable---this is where you fall Paul
>>13%--No opinion
>>
>
>Oh is it?  If I read this right then Newsweeks own polls show a 6 point 
>drop in his favorable rating after only a week in office, it was 67% last time
>no?  And that was the poster point wasn't it, that after only a week in 
>office the honeymoon is over and Bill's actions have already led his popularity
>on a downward trend.  

The poll in last week's NEWSWEEK was conducted by NEWSWEEK. They did not give
information on how many were contacted or margin of error. However, I doubt
that it was anywhere as extensive as this current poll conducted by Gallup.
So don't get your pants in an uproar just yet. Of course if we were to go by 
you Clinton would now have a 90% unfavorable rating.

>>Should Clinton lift ban restricting gays in military?
>>53%---No

>Gee isn't that one of the things I said, that along with military and
>Congressional opposition, Clinton's move to lift the military ban
>on gays DOES NOT have popular support?  

I thought it interesting that while 72% thought gays would serve effectively 
in the military there is still a slim majority against changeing the rules. 

>And frankly Stan, all the rest 
>of the of the number seem to indicate the public is quickly showing less 
>confidence in his abilities, after all these mid to low 50% positive 
>response are lower than last weeks answers, aren't they?  

If you go back and read my post containing last week's poll you'll find that
most of the questions asked were of a different nature so comparing the
two is not realistic. Also all those "mid to low 50% positive" answers were
of a Clinton vs Bush nature concerneng foreign policy that the U.S. has already
pretty much committed too. I thought it pretty interesting that 62% think that 
Clinton will be tougher on Japan then Bush would have been, don't you?

>Quite a trend after a week of the new administraton, and he hasn't even
>raised taxes yet.  I can't wait to see the poll numbers after he does.

All I've been saying all along is to give the guy a shot. If he blows it
then he blows it and I'll even supply YOU with the numbers so you can rant
and rave about how smart you are and how dumb the majority of Americans are.
Sort of like the way you do now except now you have no basis other then your 
own bigorty of what you preceive Clinton to be. 


Stan Knight
|Just reporting the numbers| 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: matt_wilkinson@plato.nwu.edu (Matthew W. Wilkinson)
Subject: Re: M. Python's Inauguration
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:40:03 GMT

In article <3796.448.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com>,
curt.tucker@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Curt Tucker) wrote:
> 
> Did you notice the martial music played right before Clinton took
> the Oath of Office?
> 
> I'm sure it's an old traditional military march, but to most
> people in my generation, it is instantly recognizable as the
> loopy opening theme music for "Monty Python's Flying Circus."
> 
> I kid you not.
> 
> I was driving down the road, listening to the proceedings on the
> car radio.  When the music started, I thought the Rush Limbaugh
> show had started without my noticing the time.  I chuckled and
> changed the station to hear what was *really* going on.
> 
> The same music was playing on all the stations.  Talk about omens.
> 
> --Curt--                          curt.tucker@ehbbs.gwinnett.com
> ---
>  . QMPro 1.01 


Did the big foot come out of the sky and crush his limo??? Too bad it
didn't.
          __            ____ _____
 |\/| /\ |  \  |\/|  /\   |    |
 |  |/__\|__/  |  | /__\  |    |  Matthew W. Wilkinson 
         _   _                    Northwestern University
      [  x   x  ]                 Transporation Center
           ..                     Information Systems Specialist           
          
        /_____/                   Matt_Wilkinson@PLATO.NWU.EDU
          \|/                     voice 708.491.2229

      "What are you goofy?!?"
         - Jimmy Shorts
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:35:42 CST


In article <1jq2fgINNrep@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
> 
> >"FIFTY percent"?  Where did you get that factoid?
> >
> >      Money Supply Growth Rates
> >
> >  M2 growth (4Q/4Q)  M3 growth (4Q/4Q)
> >  -----------------  -----------------
> >  1988  5.2%         1988  6.4%
> >  1989  4.8%         1989  3.6%
> >  1990  4.0%         1990  1.7%
> >  1991  2.8%         1991  1.2%
> >   *    1.1%          *   -0.5%
> 
>       M1 growth was around 50 percent.  That tells me that, in
>     spite of the "spirit of renewed hope" in the land, there's a 
>     HUGE number of people who are stashing cash.

In June 1992, M1 had grown 11% over the previous 12 months (Source: 
Federal Reserve Board).  The 3 month average was 6% (indicating a 
slowdown in the rate).

> >  (* 11/91-7/92) through week ended Aug 3, 1992
> >
> >  Source: Federal Reserve Board
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:46:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA/JSC

In article <2553@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.184236.12490@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>I see no qualitative difference.  Other than that the former was behind
>>the scenes, while the latter is open.
>
>[a bunch of stuff deleted about Hillary's role in the Administration]

Shoot, considering the condition of this country, I'll piss on a sparkplug if I
thougt it would help. Hell if Hillary can put together a reasonable Health Care
Reform package, more power to her. Its better than sittin around baking cookies
or writing books about their dogs.

*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21452 alt.politics.elections:25241 talk.politics.misc:70234
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:14:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>Richard A. Mulac, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>> FACT:  The Children's Defense Fund's (Hillary's own organization) ranking
>> of Arkansas in terms of the quality of life for children living there sank
>> to last place (50th) during Clinton's reign.  Quality of life took into
>> account EDUCATION, health, housing, etc..
>
>I want a source for this one.... It runs contrary to every report I
>have read. I want to read the details of the report. You seem to
>have a penchant for "reinterpreting" statements.

This was reported on all the major networks (CNN, CBS, etc.) and in the
national press (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) during the campaign
and the Clinton forces NEVER refuted it.  I'm sure if you went back 
through old campaign issues of Time and Newsweek they would state 
the exact report from CDF.  Better yet, why not write Hillary and
ask for the info.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1377 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!
From: bowman@mont-blanc.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Greg Bowman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: What do you think?
Keywords: promises, naive optimism, misleading
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:52:15 GMT

While I didn't start out a Clinton supporter, I am trying to get behind the 
president.  I was even encouraged by his inaugural address where he tried
to encourage people to begin to find ways to help themselves and the country
rather than having their hands out for some amorphous "big-brother" to come
and help them. (My opinion might have shown through the paraphrase, just a
little).

But the thought has, over the last week, come back to me time and time again -
yes, it is his first week in office, but with all the things he said he would
do in the first days, and all the promises which he is clearly backing away
from, and all the reasons he's using to back away from the promises, are
we to believe that his failing was overestimating what he could do?  Was it
underestimating the size of the tasks? Was it underestimating the length of
our collective memories? Does he figure it's four years until election?  Or
did he say anything to get elected, and is now having to face reality?

While throughout the election I felt he was doing some of all of the above, I
am glad he's not trying to everything he said he would do.  And I'm glad he 
seems to be considering reality.  What still bothers me is, if he misjudged the
tasks or his capabilities - is he going to make it far enough up the learning
curve before something really bad happens?  And, if he was, even slightly,
misleading us, what does that say about this man's character?  And yes, character is important to me, otherwise how can I know what to expect from 
a man if his own words are not well considered, held as "his word", and 
acted on as such.

Now, for you netters.  I'm trying to get rational opinions, germane to this
issue - not ranting and raving, and "Well what about Bush...", and all that.
This is about why things are working out like they are, and what that might 
say about President Clinton. (Excuse the minor, preemtive flame).

Greg Bowman
- Standard disclaimers
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:55:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.164213.11126@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.150001.23694@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>Wrong.
>>
>>FIRST 100-DAYS ECONOMIC PLAN:
>>
>>Clinton in interview on ABC's "Good Morning America", June 23, 1992
>>	"...I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated.  I'll send them
>
>	 This was before we found out that Bush had mis-lead
>the American people, which was normal for him, concerning the
>size of the national debt. 

       Figures which, I recall, nobody took particularly seriously, except
apparently Bill Clinton.
       But I seem to recall Bill Clinton's respsonse to George Bush's 
explanation that things had changed between his no new taxes pledge
and 1990 was that it was irresponsible to make promises when you know
there's a good chance events will over take you.

>	This is really funny, watching you hard core
>conservatives go through "abussive power" withdrawal. Just
>think FOUR YEARS.....

       Apparently one must be a hard core conservative to criticize
the President of the United States.  Right...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Of course the government and the newspapers lie.  But in a democracy,
they're different lies."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: DAY TWO: MORE LIES
Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:15:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In opposition to his PROMISE to cut the deficit in half in five years,
President Clinton today relaxed budget constraints which would have cut
spending across the board by 11% in order to meet his PROMISED goal.
The lies are pouring in.  I guess Clinton takes 'sacrifice' to mean
the common people suffering ever increasing taxation in order to 
support the Democrats ever increasing pork barrel spending.  Gee, I
wonder what promise he'll break tomorrow.

By the way, let's all cry BOO HOO HOO for poor Zoe.  Things aren't 
going well for her.  It seems strange that a President who claims that
'friends are the most important thing you can have in life' doesn't
treat his very well.  He hid all day in the White House playing tour
guide instead of publically supporting her.  And a hint for George
Stephanopolous - get a shave and get some clean clothes on before
you hold a press conference.  You looked like you just woke up with
an innaugural hangover when you met the press this afternoon for 
more 'Zoe' questions.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1383 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Inauguration
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:39:54 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <21863@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.000005.3448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <21684@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan20.051946.13961@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>I never opposed anyone's freedom of speech. I just thought it was rather
>
>No-one accused you of such; no ned  to deny it.
>
>>Something a bit out of step with what he said in a CNN interview Wednesday
>>morning about not losing touch with the people.  Then again, the people and
>>the media are two different things.
>
>So are the people and conservatives.

Come on, I wasn't flaming anyone, it just struck me as a little odd
that the inauguration looked a little like Madri Gras.  Mabye I'm remembering
too much about the inaugurations of Reagan and Bush, and the old footage I've
seen of Carter's inaugural ceremonies as well as the ones
Mabye it's just me, but I always thought a more traditional ceremony would
have been more appropriate.
Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21151 alt.politics.elections:25128 talk.politics.misc:69618
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:56:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

>}In article <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Richard A. Mulac,
>}ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>}> Another lie - it's day one and THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN UP
>}> ON THE HILL!  No more excuses!  Instead of wasting time paying off 
>}> foreign lobbyists like Brown and admitted felons like Baird, you 
>}> should be keeping the PROMISES YOU MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
>}> This administration is already a joke and it's just started!  I even 
>}> hear liberals on the local radio talk shows stating that they can't 
>}> believe they were suckered into voting for such a liar.  I really 
>}> feel sorry for all you people who defended Clinton in the past - you 
>}> must feel so foolish now.  I can't wait to see the first Presidential
>}> opinion polls.

I like how Mulac turns his sentence structuring into a first-person singular
address to Clinton. He's ranting so incoherently that he seems to have lost
his mind: the vision of Clinton swirls up before him, clouding the keyboard.
He has little choice but to begin to address the vision. What choice would
any of us have, were we so afflicted? Why, the vision of Rush Limbaugh (on
the Cleveland Free Net, no less) is swirling up before me ... (agh!)
Rush! Rush! You abusive, jelly-cheeked swine! You hateful bigot!      

Sorry, lost it there ... all fine now.

Just as Mulac now shifts his address to those who voted for Clinton, I must
now shift my address to those who voted for Bush: You idiots, you sots, you
dullards.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20901 alt.politics.bush:16246
From: weitzel@cirrus.seas.ucla.edu (John Weitzel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Clinton's salute
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:48:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton



After Clinton was sworn in yesterday and signed his documents inside the
White House, he came out to "review the troops".  The officer assigned
to him gave him a proper salute.  Clinton's arm almost reached the level
of his chin with his wimpy salute.  Not a really important observation,
but just seeing him there reviewing troops, while he dodged military
service, just made me queasy.

:@) Bill Clinton smiley

Proper disclaimer
applies.

Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
A. Bierce

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20933 alt.politics.elections:25075 alt.politics.libertarian:3834 alt.president.clinton:1714 soc.men:23101
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:56:53 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1jnltuINNjn7@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>, csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
> In article <JOHNCH.93Jan21152948@test22.sun.com> johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer) writes:
> >
> >And as a result, the guy [Clarence Thomas] takes no heat for his
>  incredible statement
> >that he never had an opinion on Roe v. Wade, which he himself said was
> >one of the most important Supreme Court decisions handed down during
> >his life.  Come on -- is he lying or unqualified?
> 
> Point of order. He said he did not feel it appropriate to answer questions
> regarding Roe vs. Wade as it was very likely that he would be facing cases
> in regard to it on the court, which is exactly what he should have said.
> The Senate committee had no business asking the question.

Wrong.  When asked if he had an opinion on Roe v. Wade he said he had never
thought about it.  When asked if he had ever had a conversation on the topic he
said he had never had a conversation about Roe v. Wade.  You're thinking of
Souter.  Souter said it would be inappropriate for him to answer that question, a
view which is debatable.  Thomas simply claimed to have never thought about it. 
An issue which is so widely discussed and debated that even high school freshmen
have opinions on it, that's in the news almost every day, Thomas had never
thought about.  He lied.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WELLLLLLLLLLL IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:03:24 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Melissa Brown MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
=Richard Mulac states that you would be hard pressed to find anyone
=who voted for Clinton based on his record in Arkansas.
-  I did.
-  I also approved of Clinton's style of governing.  He actually likes
-working with the legislative branch, and building consensus among
-congress people.  He will spend some time on the Hill.  He knows
-the value of consensus and compromise, unlike President Veto.

I do have to put a note in this. The Arkansas legislature is heavily
dominated by Democrats (say >>75% in both houses). I don't think it
would've been wise for Clinton to have been confrontational with people
in his own party. I don't exactly call this "consensus and compromise"
to the extent Bush had against the Congress which consisted of
majorities of the opposing party during his term. When George did
compromise, he compromised too much as to infuriate the people in his
own party.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Inauguration
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:06:18 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan25.000005.3448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <21684@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.051946.13961@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I never opposed anyone's freedom of speech. I just thought it was rather

No-one accused you of such; no ned  to deny it.

>Something a bit out of step with what he said in a CNN interview Wednesday
>morning about not losing touch with the people.  Then again, the people and
>the media are two different things.

So are the people and conservatives.

Dan
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:28:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1993Jan20.204342.3121@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave
<lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Jeeeeez!!!!! Clinton hasn't been president for two hours and you want
> a plan presented to the hill???? When was the last time a president
> presented legislation two hours after inauguration??? I'll tell you
> when..... never. Furthermore, an economic plan must be adjusted to the
> dynamics of the economy. Do you expect that to be done in two
> hours??? You Repubs, with your colon firmly tied in a
> knot are getting more ridiculous and further from reality
> by the posting.
> 

But didn't he PROMISE to have a plan on day one to present to the Congress?
 Of course, he promised lots of things, didn't he?

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc