HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: The Debate
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:01:02 GMT

Immediately, after the debate the reaction is sort of mixed among the
publice.
Debate judges see it Clinton, Perot, Bush
ABC poll sees it Clinton, Perot, Bush
CBS poll sees it Perot, Clinton, Bush
CNN poll sees it Perot, Clinton, Bush

I see it Clinton a narrow victor of Perot and Bush a very poor third.

Some quick comments:
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.  If he's ever going to convince voters that he
should have four more years in office, he's going to need more than one-
or two-minute answers to do it.  The luck of the draw also went against
him.  Perot came after him and deflected much of Bush's criticism of
Clinton.

Perot sounded very good.  The format favored him most; he got to give
short, tangy, but mostly vacuous answers.  A longer period of time and
opportunities for the questioners to follow up would have made his lack
of specifics more obvious.  The one time he actually mentioned his own
plan it was mentioned for him, and to his credit he stuck to his belief
that gas taxes should be raised 10 cents a year for five years.  The
only other time I remember a specific being raised by him is in his very
good answer about the Federal Reserve--financing our debt with 5-year
bonds is foolish.  But he didn't say what he'd do about.  The lack of
specifics was most glaring in my view in his answer about race--he
brought up the Thomas/Hill hearings saying "that shouldn't happen
again."  No one's going to argue with him, but many would argue about
what exactlly "that" was--Perot didn't tell us.  In my view, the
Thomas/Hill debacle was more about gender than race.

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.  Instead, he offered
pertinent specifics and concise answers.  He was the only one of the
three who never went over time.  Perot got to the limit a couple of
times, but stopped, saying he'd cover the rest of his answer later.
Bush just ran over time two or three times.  One time, he went over by
about ten seconds.  The camera angle on my station showed him going
over and Perot looking agitated that Bush was so blatantly disregarding
the rules.

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.
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:38:49
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: 75300.3115@compuserve.com's message of 12 Oct 92 01:47:07 GMT

In article <29164@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:

>REALITY: On taxes. George "Read My Lips" Bush gave us the second
>biggest tax increase in American history. He has consistently raised
>taxes on the middle class.   The conservative Cato Institute called
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Bush "the largest spender to sit in the White House in the past 30
>years" and noted that Bush "increased the domestic budget more in
>four years than Carter and Reagan combined did in 12 years." [Cato
>Institute, 6/19/92]

The Cato Institute is libertarian, not conservative.  While I'm
pleased that the Democrats are listening to them, it would be nice if
they could identify them properly.

(Have to give them points for speed, though.  That was a mighty speedy
response...)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17155 talk.politics.misc:52193 rec.humor:31282
From: ferguson@wizard.etsu.edu (Jason M Ferguson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Presidential Debate Drinking Game V. 1.2
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:59:25 GMT
Reply-To: ferguson@wizard.etsu.edu (Jason M Ferguson)
Organization: East Texas State University, Commerce, TX

The presidential drinking game shall not be reprinted though this
message has something to do with it:

	double drinks if George Bush mentions "enterprise zones"
	single if Clinton mentions "enterprise zones"

	optional: singles drinks if Bush mentions the "line-item
veto."

"I told you this bucket of bolts wouldnt make it back to Arizona..."
- Jason Ferguson                  - Commerce, TEXAS                   -
- ferguson@wizard.etsu.edu        - "I thought, therefore I was"      -
- AMIGA: A Machine Is Going Awry  -      - Descartes-                 -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17125 sci.econ:8135 talk.politics.misc:52170
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Springtime for Honecker (Part I)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:48:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

NEWS RELEASE
St. Louis, Missouri

Local Contact: Steve Dasbach, David Carr - 314-330-2018

October 11, 1992
1:00 PM CST

                   LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
                     BARRED FROM C-SPAN INTERVIEW BY
                           ST. LOUIS POLICE

ST. LOUIS -- Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Andre Marrou, who
has been excluded from participation in the first Presidential Debates
tonight in St. Louis, today was barred by St. Louis Police from entering the
studio of C-SPAN for an 11:30 am interview and viewer call-in program.

Andre Marrou, who is on the ballot in all 50 states, had been scheduled to
appear on C-SPAN to discuss his exclusion from this evening's debates.  As
Marrou and C-SPAN interviewer Geoffrey Baum approached the C-SPAN
interview studio, they were blocked by St. Louis county police officers.  In
spite of Mr. Baum's verification of the scheduled interview, and in spite of
statements by a debate commission member that Mr. Marrou could be
permitted inside of the police lines, the police officers refused admission.

Hundreds of supporters of the Libertarian Party candidate have assembled
in St. Louis to protest Mr. Marrou's exclusion from the debates.  At 3:00
pm on campus, there will be a march demonstrating that Mr. Marrou is the
only candidate on the ballot in every state who will not be in this evening's
debate.  From 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm, Marrou supporters will demonstrate
outside the debate site at Washington University.

                                - END -




    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GORE BLASTS STATE DEPT WITCH-HUNT AS OUTRAGEOUS
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:53:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: athos@apple.com's message of 14 Oct 92 22:14:24 GMT

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
|Nice how you left out that this was a Freedom of Information Act search.

|Do you always leave out the details?

That was the assertion; however, the head of the Freedom Of
Information Act Bureau/Dept/whatever said that it was not and that
these things are never handled that way.  In fact, the release of the
kind of information that was requested must first be cleared by the
subject of the request (ie Bill Clinton).

I think some folx just overstepped their boundaries (whether we can
blame this on the Bush/Quayle campaign is another matter).  It does
reek of desperation.
--
Peace.
                                   "The reason I like masturbation
                                    is because it's sex
                                    with someone I love."
                                                  - Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:42:07 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> 
> I don't see why Clinton has to waste his time chasing every bone that
> every jackass throws.  Someone makes up a story about him and he's
> expected to bend over backwards to proove that it isn't true.
> What a crock.  I think he has more important things to do with his time.
> 

Maybe because he is the one who makes up stories! Everytime he explains
something, he either leaves out details or changes the story. It is his 
own fault, if he had only come right out and told the truth the first time
about the draft (for one example) he could have put this all behind him
months ago.  I still can't believe his campaign start. I will not talk
about my personal life. He may as well said I have a lot of things to hid,
I hope you don't find them.

Bill, did you ever smoke dope?
A: I never broke any US laws.

Bill: I never got a draft notice.
Bill ( a week later): Yea I did get a notice, I forgot, but no one pulled
strings for me.
Bill ( a little later): Uncle, no he didn't help me.
Bill (later still): Well maybe my uncle did help me, I forgot.


Ken
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: electoral college question
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:40:23 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com


What is required for a presidential candidate to win a state.  Do they
just need to have more votes than anybody else or do they have to
win a majority of the votes in that state.  If they need a majority
then what happens if nobody gets a majority.  If its different in
different states I'm interested in how Texas does it.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17264 alt.politics.bush:9461 alt.politics.clinton:10933 alt.politics.perot:2265
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:43:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
>was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
>obvious gaffe.

Sorry, but in these debates one is not judged by how many mistakes
they *don't* make.  They are judged by how well the points they make,
how well they make them, and how well they defend them.

>Gore was wooden, and there were a couple of lines I thought he should
>have followed up on but didn't.  So much for zinging your opponent
>with the single-moderator.

This was a debate, not a zing contest.

>Quayle was helped in part by having the closing zing a number of
>times, when I thought the discussion could have continued for quite a

Quayle was an infantile fool.  He was constantly interrupting.  He
even interupted Gore's opening statement.  He always had to have the
last word, even though that word was usually, "he did it - not me",
and he never made a point other than "you can't trust Bill Clinton"
and "I'm pro-life".

Quayle lost on every aspect of this debate.  If one were kind, one could
concede that he was, at least, aggressive, but he was actually obnoxious.
He did everything but hold his breath and stamp his feet.

>The debate shouldn't change the overall election.  Quayle may have
>improved his political stock, but that won't necessarily help Bush.

I used to feel a bit sorry for Quayle.  I thought that maybe he just
wasn't a good public speaker and perhaps he was better in the office.
But this debate has shown me that he is a juvenile idiot and I am 
convinced his father bought him his seats in the congress.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: STATEMENT BY ADMIRAL WILLIAM CROWE
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:14:31 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 OCTOBER 13, 1992

                STATEMENT BY ADMIRAL WILLIAM CROWE


   Given the latest news that the Bush Administration is going to get
 rid of their top economic advisors, I can understand that Marlin
 Fitzwater has become an expert on White House firings.

   However, his suggestion that my endorsement of Governor Clinton
 stems from my being "fired" from my position as Chairman of the Joint
 Chiefs of Staff is dead wrong.

   The facts are that, as my second two-year term was coming to a
 close in 1989, President Bush personally asked me to stay on as
 Chairman.  I was deeply honored to have this vote of confidence from
 the President.  However, I decided that 47 years in uniform was quite
 enough for any man, and I declined the President's offer.

   Marlin Fitzwater was the President's spokesman when all this was
 happening.  The President's efforts to have me stay on were widely
 reported in the press.  I can only conclude that Mr. Fitzwater's
 misstatement of the truth of this situation was deliberate.

   It is precisely this pattern of campaign deception that convinces
 me that my support for Governor Clinton is the right decision for me
 and for the country.

                            -30-30-30-


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17119 talk.politics.misc:52154
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stockdale NAILED it!
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:37:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <6631@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes...
>mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
> 
>>   If Stockdale can find the resources to survive and lead for seven 
>> years in a POW camp in North Vietnam, he can surely find the 
>> resources to be vice president, or even president for that matter.
> 
>What makes you think he wants to be vice president, or even president?

To quote Admiral Stockdale from one of his writings, "Education for
Leadership and Survival" from _The Ethics of Citizenship_:

	At its best, citizenship finds an equilibrium between
	two essential ingredients -- that of rights and that
	of duties.

and later in the piece he quotes Job:

	Why me... Why *not* me?   [His italics]

Note very similar to his opening the other night,

	Who am I? And why am I here?

No simple break-the-ice comment coming from 
one so well versed in philosophy and blessed with
a full experience of life.

This man will rise to meet any challenge.

So once again for James Stockdale -- duty calls.	           

>John

-- Stephen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Veto Override
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:42:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.124505.14258@midway.uchicago.edu>
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
 
>In article <1992Oct6.050303.23654@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>>  If you haven't heard already, the Cable TV Re-regulation bill became the
>>first bill to be have a veto by President Bush overridden.  The votes were
>>something like 75-24 (Senate) and 308-114 (House).
>>
>>  Any comments on possible effects on the upcoming election ?
>>
>>Greg
>
>  I tend to think it isn't a bad indicator that the Republicans in
>congress (and therefore probably in general) have given up on
>Bush as not having a chance to win in November.  Whether or not
>this was true, this sort of attitude by GOP members is a self-fulfilling
>prophecy.
>
>Pat
>
>--
>Patrick Sugent                          E-mail me if you really want
>sug6@amber.uchicago.edu                 a response.  My USENET reading
>(708) 447-1771                          is haphazard at best.
 
I think Republican members of Congress were in a tight spot.  This bill
had tremendous support from voters.  The Congresspeople were torn
between loyalty to Bush and personal survival.  You can see which won
out.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
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
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:17:55 GMT

In <1992Oct16.131520.1190@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>In article <1992Oct16.010232.8678@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct15.125744.4200@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>> Lets not forget that the (democratically-controlled) Congress has to
>>> approve ALL spending, revenue-raising, taxes. The President has no
>>> power to spend money unless Congress gives it to him. Only the Congress
>>> can borrow money and go into debt. Its in the Constitution (Article 1, 
>>> sections 7,8).
>> 
>>Ever hear of the veto?  If Bush had had more than 1 veto overturned he
>>might have a case.  But it's clear that he agreed to the budget
>>compromises.  If he didn't veto the spending bills he's just as
>>responsible as Congress.
>>-- 
>>Doug Andersen
>>hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com

>Bush has screwed on those compromises but again, Congress can absolutely 
>override him. So the President has the veto power and Congress can
>override it if they can muster the votes. But only Congress has the
>authority to raise taxes, raise the debt, spend money, etc. - The
>President does not have that power.

And how many times has the Congress been able to override a
Presidential veto in the past four years?  *ONCE*, and *NEVER* on a
spending bill, tax bill, or tax bill.  So tell me again about how it
isn't Bush's fault, won't you?

Sorry, but it just doesn't track.  

-- 
"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.
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot Dies in VP Debate
Date: 14 Oct 1992 02:07:29 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


Stockdale, a thoroughly likable and respect-worthy individual, would
not be a credible candidate for county assessor, let alone VP.  He
was, though, an invaluable contribution to the event, showing how
plastic one has to become to succeed in national politics.

Quayle didn't blow it too badly. He is perceived as a complete
nincompoop while he is actually a pretty boy of average intelligence.
He completely blew the timing of his closing statement.

Gore is a windbag who should be mayor of a major American city.  His
one good zinger was about term limits.  Needs someone to take him
down to the local pub and get him plastered.

Either Gore or Quayle could have won easily by taking Stockdale's
lead and giving shorter statements, short rebuttals and acting calm
and collected w.r.t time allotments.

The format was a big improvement.  There should be _no_ moderator.

Despite the heat almost no mention of the S&L bailout, the coming bank
failures, Iran-Contra or Iraqgate.

How can politicians still get so much mileage out of taxes?  We're
going to be paying a good chunk of our wages in taxes for as long
as we work: admit it, make it as fair as possible, and move on.
Jerry Brown had the right idea: keep it simple and the equity will
take care of itself.
----

    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:56:43 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1bcjhsINNp8l@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
]In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:
]>Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has clearly
]>stated). If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine, go to it and
]>there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it overseas, during the middle
]>of a war, it is wrong and goes against 200 years of American tradition.
]>It's the same principle as a family dispute... you don't do it in the
]>shopping mall.
]
] However England is where Clinton *was*. It is not as if he got
]a Rhodes Scholarship in order to portest the war.
So what?
]
]>
]>Well, Bill Clinton has been slinging all sorts of personal attacks
]>at Bush since he has been in the race. Fair is fair, and character
]>is a legitimate issue, in spite of the fact that the democrats are
]>trying to remove it as an issue because their candidate doesn't
]>have any.
]>
]>
]
] If attacking Bush's record is attacking Bush then there have
]been personsal attacks. What is an example of Clinton attacking
]Bush personally?

Accusations that he doesn't care about the poor because he is rich.
Accusations that he is using abusing his powers to aid his friends.
Accusations that he lied regarding Iran-Contra.
Accusations that he was a war monger (this was from the democrats in
general, not Clinton).
Accusation by Hillary that he was an adulterer.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:58:00 GMT

In article <PA146008.389.719178366@utkvm1.utk.edu>, 
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes...

>     Quayle and Gore both looked like they were reciting their carefully
>planned and practiced remarks that they'd been trying out in front of their 
>mirror for the past few weeks.
>     The problem with practiced pre-planned remarks is that you're 
>generally stuck with them even when they have nothing to with what's going 
>on.  That's what's caused the "index card syndrome" we've seen in past 
>presidential debates, where a question is asked, and the candidate goes 
>through his notes until he finds something with a common word and then gives 
>a mini-speech on the subject.
>     May not answer the question, but then we're not really watching to hear 
>an answer.  If we haven't got their inevitably staged answers down pat by 
>now we're terminally clueless.  We're watching because we want to be there 
>when somebody screws up.     Nobody had their mind changed last night.  The 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>responses here on the net are proof enough that people saw exactly what they 
>wanted and expected to see. 

Excellent summation of the process, and I agree except for the last.

Most of America is just now tuning in, and have never heard the rhetoric
before.

-- Stephen 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16840 alt.politics.bush:9197 alt.politics.clinton:10484 alt.politics.perot:2165