HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: You Got it
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:26:52 GMT
 <92310.035244MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <92310.035244MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs
<MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> says:

>Excuse me, but I simply do not believe that Saddam Who's Sane threw a victory
>party in Baghdad after Clinton won.

My goof. I was wrong. That's what I get for reading the NYT instead of watching
network news -- I read about it in today's edition, after the fact.

Still, this just proves how goofy the guy is. If he thinks he can just march
back into Kuwait again, he's got another think coming (strapped, probably,
to the back of a 1,000-pound bomb.) Clinton has been studying the problem of
some belligerent foreign power trying to "test" him for the last several
months; it's very much in the front of his mind, and I would imagine he's come
up with one or two options.

 "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17)--Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 14:54:06 GMT
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

  In article mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
  >In article thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
  >
  >>Tribe would be filibustered much longer than Cuomo ever would -- he
  >>was one of the prime leaders behind the movement to keep Bork off the
  >>court, he's made statements that taken out of context could very well
  >>Bork him, he's made a lot of enemies, and he's waffled on a lot of legal
  >>positions as he's tried very hard to want to be nominated.  
  >
  >he hurt his chances permanently both with his opposition to Bork (where he
  >combined legal and political arguments against Bork) and with his tendency
  >to trim his sails according to which political wind is blowing.
  >
  >Cuomo would easily be confirmed.

Other than a general history of him and a number of his decisions, I'd
like more specific info on him from either of you, for my knowledge (and
anyone else's, if they're interested.)

What is it exactly that he did against Bork that would be held against him?
I guess I thought that if Bork wasn't nominated because of Tribe's arguments,
those against Bork would be for Tribe.

And how did he make enemies (not conservative...those I think are automatic),
and who are they?

I'd like some more of this background, as I thought that as Cuomo is more
of a 'in the public eye' type, senator's constituents would be much more
against Cuomo than Tribe, if constituencies concern the Senate in judicial
appointee matters, which I'm not sure is the case.

Thanks.
-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Kathryn Scholl  -- Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark --
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA  01701, USA
 Internet: uvmark!scholl@merk.com, UUCP: uunet!merk.com!uvmark!scholl
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22733 talk.politics.misc:58323
From: zeus@vxcrna.cern.ch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason...
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:01:26 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

In article <1992Nov5.131147.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>, tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.061154.16556@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>    	thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
> 
>> Some folks would have you believe that the media is conspiring to keep
>> the onslaught of Libertarian voters from the public's knowledge.  One
>> credulous person claimed to me that two million people voted for Marrou,
>> another claimed 1.8% of the vote.
>> 
>> Marrou ended up with less than 0.3% of the vote.  He barely beat out Lenora 
>> Fulani.  The real reason no one reported Marrou's votes was because they
>> were only slightly less meaningless than Lyndon LaRouche's.
>> 
> 
>    Well, Ted may well be correct, but I am beginning to get rather
>    sceptical about the whole process. There have been some claims that
>    the election authorities actually only count votes of those
>    candidates which they expect to win, leaving the count of the third
>    parties until the legally mandated reporting time (20 days later in
>    some states).
> 
>    In today's SF Chronicle, the following strange statistics were
>    reported:-
> 
>    Calif Senate `long seat'		- Genis		220,000
>    Calif Senate `short seat'		- Brodie	210,000
>    Calif totals for president		- Marrou	 44,000
> 
> 
>    Am I expected to believe that libertarians were so distressed with
>    Marrou that 4 out of 5 of them couldn't bring themselves to vote
>    for him, and as a consequence, voted for the offical candidates?

Maybe the "Libertarians" were voting for the candidate and not the party.
Maybe they hadn't heard of Marrou and didn't want to vote for him.

Most likely these people were only going to vote in the Presidential
elections and filled in the rest of their card more or less at random.

I would guess that a number of Perot supporters probably boosted the
total for the "Libertarians" in the Senate race.

With the death of the Regan/Bush new right era the "Libertarians"
are going to have to work hard to survive. The Republicans will move
in one of two directions, either back towards the center or even
further to the right depending on who wins the post election power
feud in the party. If the Right win the the "Libertarians" are out
of business because the Republicans will be stomping their turf. If
the centrists win then the "Libertarians" will be as isolated from the
mainstream as the Socialist Party and the Birchers. Either way they
are most probably a spent force since all extreeme splinter movements
fall when the mainstream movement they split from falls. Reaganomics
and the new right agenda is a dead duck now and there is only Dan
Quaylee left to bring it back to life. The new right pseudo-libertarian
philosophy will fall with it.

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 14:21:45 GMT

In article <#h==RV-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.182646.9493@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>None of what you have said disputes the comment that Clinton did
>*NOT* receive a mandate.

If a "mandate" requires a majority of the popular vote, Nixon didn't
have one in 1968.  The relevence of that turned out to be
approximately nil.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22791 alt.politics.clinton:15989 talk.politics.misc:58393 alt.politics.marrou:2123 alt.politics.bush:13281 alt.politics.perot:5215
From: v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Chester Zeshonski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov5.003127.23720@netcom.com>, hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) 
	writes...

>I was surprised too last night when like one minute after the
>Calif polls closed at 8pm Pacific Time some stations were 
>projecting Barbra Boxer the winner in her Senatorial race against
>Bruce Hershenson, since early returns showed him with a sizeable
>raw vote lead. In fact by the time I went to sleep near midnight,
>she still hadn't claimed victory and he still hadn't conceded. 
>But sure enough, the projections were correct and she won. Guess we
>should give the networks more credit for being able to accurately
>project the final winners when they do, eh?

More likely than not, you have just been witness to the crime of manipulation
of the masses via mass media.

>Harv

					---Chet Zeshonski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: houk@athena.cs.uga.edu (Joshua Houk)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:31:47 GMT

In article <6NOV199208104799@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>
>Horsehockey.  Carter arrived at a politically expedient treaty which
>conveniently ignored the roots of the problems.  George Bush has been the
>first president since 1948 who has tried to treat fairly with the Arabs and
>Palestinians, and to use the enormous leverage this country has on Israel.

Umm... the peace talks succeeding at this point is due more to
a new Israeli government than to US pressure. But I think Bush
and Baker have worked towards this goal in a rather good way.

[Oh my god I don't believe I said that! And to think I'm semi-liberal!!]

>I have my doubts that Slickness will have the courage to risk political
>backlash in this country by keeping to the "no settlements or no loans"
>policy George has set.  And without a fairness to the Arabs, you will have no
>peace treaty.

Interesting! If you're right - it'll be a big setback for the
Democratic Party. And, more importantly, a big setback to peace
in the Middle East...

Joshua Houk

-- 
houk@athena.cs.uga.edu * email for indie-list info!
Gimme the phone! Why do you keep picking it up when I can't? Who's
on the phone? Why can't I hear anything? What's going on? Shut up!
   - Lisa Suckdog
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 20:54:42 GMT

turney@kenyon.edu writes:

>The media went after Clinton in the primary.  He took everything that they
>could throw at him by just smiling and shrugging.  The media then decided that
>since he passed their "rite of passage", he must be the best man.

The media threw everything they could at Clinton during the primary because
they were in love with the real liberals like Harkin. Clinton was too far
"right" for the media's liking.

>Since the
>convention - he was protrayed as the winner.  Sam Donaldson even told the
>public that they were stupid if they did not vote for the obvious winner.

The media would much rather have a moderate democrat than a moderate
republican.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:39:43 GMT

In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Andrew Chase <T3F2@UNB.CA> writes:
>The media in the USA dictated who wins the election. 

Must be.  That's why we get Reagan in one election and Clinton in another one.
Yep, the media controls everything -- it's just too bad they can't 
be consistent.

>If you Americans weren't
>bombardedwith polls Perot would have won! 

Ahh, but this is assuming the Republicans didn't plan to also threaten his 
daughter's first anniversary!  It's possible he might have dropped out a 
second time, if we didn't have the polls to assure the Republicans he 
was no longer a threat!

>Polls should be banned but...

Great idea...   They do this in Canada, yes?  That would explain your 
ignorance.

>Canada by the way was
>ranked #1 country in the world by the United Nations this year.

Is this another poll?  I thought you wanted them banned.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:20:30 GMT

thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
>Last night, George Bush arrived at the Memorial at around midnight.
>Without notifying the press, he and Barbara went and read names.
>
>This was a powerful, eloquent gesture.  If George had governed with
>this much grace and humility for the past few years, he would be
>President for another four years.

It's his tendency to go mean on you that is hard to forget, though.
"Campaign mode" is the worst, but at least that's over now.

>If there is anybody out there who has not been to the Vietnam Memorial,
>I recommend it.  I am too young to have known anybody who died in
>Vietnam, but the wall brought tears to my eyes anyway.

I've only seen the traveling version which is a half-scale model, but it
is an emotional experience. If you don't know anybody on the wall,
then call someone who does so you'll have some names to look up. That's
what I did.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:13:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov04.004308.24269@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
> In article <21796@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> >[Bill Clinton] will raise taxes.  He will ruin the economy.
> >. . .
> >(go read Article I sections 7 and 8 of the US Constitution to see who
> >taxes, spends, and borrows in this country - it isn't the President!).
> 
> How can you write these two statements, in the same article, with a straight
> face?
 
I thought it was amusing too.  Let's see.  Reagan cut taxes.  Taxes were
raised under Bush's administration, but he wasn't responsible because only
Congress can tax.  But Clinton will increase taxes.  Amazing.  This
ability must skip every other president or something.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: That issue in Oregon (?)
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:21:05 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Heard a lot of hype beforehand, but not since the election...
there was an issue the the Northwest regarding classifying
homosexuality as an aberration, or something like that.  How did
that one turn out?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22768 talk.politics.misc:58355 tx.politics:7025
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:15:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <21815@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>When Bill Clinton can learn that many Conservatives believe that a hand
>up is better than a hand out, and that doing something yourself is
>better than paying big Government to do it for you,

	So you prefer to do these things all by yourself:

	The military (become a one-man army)
	Law enforcement
	Road and airport building

	Have you started yet?

THEN Bill Clinton
>will be worthy to be our president.  Until then he is just another
>class warfare hate monger.

	So is someone who denounces a supposed "cultural elite".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:59:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.160315.5035@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austi
> I think he'll cave in to the big spending Democratic Congress and
> devastate the economy and lose to Kemp in '96 in a huge landslide,
> if and only if the Republicans jettison assholes like Pat Buchanan
> and the Fanatic Right.
 
I hope not.  Kemp is one of those who claims that the national debt 
just isn't that big of a problem.  Also, Kemp has considerable ties to the
Fanatic right.  We'd be better off with a Libertarian Republican like
William Weld of Massachusetts.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
From: turney@kenyon.edu
Date: 7 Nov 92 10:05:23 -0500
Organization: Kenyon College

THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON.	

Consider these points.

The media went after Clinton in the primary.  He took everything that they
could throw at him by just smiling and shrugging.  The media then decided that
since he passed their "rite of passage", he must be the best man.  Since the
convention - he was protrayed as the winner.  Sam Donaldson even told the
public that they were stupid if they did not vote for the obvious winner.

Bush, on the other hand, fought back at the media.  In turn, the media
portrayed him as being behind, in trouble, and having difficulty catching up.
They sealed the fate of Bush by showing the Iran Contra memo right before the
election.

Perot would not submit to the media's "rite of passage" and lectured
them for not doing their job and concentrating only on issues critical to the
survival of our country - as opposed to issues that improved their ratings and
revenues.  In turn, the media branded Perot as unstable, paranoid, and crazy.  

Finally, media polls are self fulfilling prophesies.  Many Americans think for
themselves, but many in our society are what I call "bandwagon people".  They
will only support and be part of a "winner".  If you don't believe this, go to
the football game of a team with a losing record and check the size of the
crowd.

Showing polls of the "likely voters", 28% of the voters, promoted Clinton as 
the winner.  Polls of unlikely voters, 72% of the voters, were not shown
because they did not show Clinton as the winner.  One wonders how the election
would have ended if Bush or Perot would have been proclaimed as the winner by
the media causing the hordes of "bandwagon" voters to shift their support.  The
strong showing of Perot, despite their character assasination campaign, shocked
the media.  19,000,000 Americans actually thought and acted for themselves!
       
The media, under the constitution, is free to do what they want - to whom they
want - with no recourse.  They have abused that privilege in the pursuit of
profit.  Americans must realize that "news" on the media is no longer "news" - 
it is "newsertainment".  It is directed to achieve ratings and revenues, not to
objectively inform the American people on issues critical to our country.  
Americans, be skeptical of everything you see or hear.

Glen Turney 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Congradulations to Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:15:31 GMT

In article <132330002@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen) writes:
>In alt.politics.elections, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>
>> Well, we got rid of George Bush.  Now we just need to work on Clinton
>> so that he impliments a progressive agenda, restores a progressive tax
>> system, and slashes the military.
>> 
>> The focus must be on rebuilding a country that started decaying by
>> spending too much on weaponry and on aiding the rich, with no
>> consideration of those of us who must work for a living.
>
>	HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!  DIE YOU LIBERAL SCUM!!!!!!!

Jeff, his mind surely filled with messages beamed in from space
invaders, goes bonkers over a seeming innocuous post.  Surely we can
be somewhat more civil, no?



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:35:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Dear Democrats & Repubs too
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections

In alt.politics.elections, <RAP115@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Yep, this is how it could happen, and I'll take this chance because of the
> fact that I voted for the Clinton/democratic Congress!  The Republicans have
> already screwed up enough.  If the country has to go down sinking, I want it
> to be with my leader and hero - Bill Clinton!!!!!!
>                                                   -Rob 

i	HA HA HA, coming from some stupid kid at Penn State your statement
	that he is your hero tells me you like to pluck chickens in the 
	near future.   I hope you graduate before all hell breaks lose...

Morty
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: how do i apply to the Electoral College?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.204832.17032@news.vanderbilt.edu>, LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb) writes...
>> from the same state where you reside.  As you note, in 1972
>> one elector from Virginia voted for the LIbertarian Party ticket
>> instead of for Richard Nixon; this is the last time this has
>> happened that I am aware of.
> 
>Actually, it sort-of happened in 1988, as one Democratic elector reversed the
>ticket.

I heard rumors a large percentage of Michigan's (Republican) electors were
thinking of voting for a state resident in 1984, so that Mondale would finish
third.  I'm glad they didn't though...


Dave