HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: The Legend of Ronnie
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:23:36 GMT

In article <exuptr.536.716422013@exu.ericsson.se> PATRICK the
ostrich-man writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.163721.25209@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>
>>Speaking of simple-minded blind partisanship.  Has it never occured to
>>you that economic policies can have *future* rather than immediate
>>repercussions?  No, obviously not.  If the economy looks fine, then
>>the current policies are fine.
>
>>CLUE:  There was no "boom" in the 1980s!  The economic "prosperity"
>
>Ohmigod, the clue-monger is loose again!

Which is lucky for you, since you're in dire need of *plenty* of clues.

>>Clearly you live in the media's litte black-and-white world of right
>>and left, and of neatly predifined opinion-packages.  If someone
>>states an opinion that belongs to a certain opinion-package, then you
>>can take it for granted that that person subscribes to that opinion-
>>package, and if you attack any of the package's contents, whether they
>>have anything to do with what the person actually said or not, then
>>you weaken that person's argument.  Extremely simple-minded, but
>>unfortunately most people think in those terms.
>
><snicker>

Go ahead, <snicker> all you want, it won't change the fact that that's
the way you think.  Instead of sticking to what I said, you ascribe a
package of opinions to me that's associated with I said, and then you
actually think you're refuting what I said by attacking other opinions
in the package.  I'm blaming Reagan for destroying the economy, so I
MUST BE absolving Congress of all responsibility.  Never mind that I
didn't actually *say* it, it's in the same opinion-package, so it MUST
BE what I believe.

*Of course* you're <snicker>ing, because you know that what I said
about that Edelmann fool applies to you just as much.  Just don't kid
yourself that I didn't notice that your <snicker> was more of an
embarassed, self-conscious giggle than a snicker.

>>>and Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president.
>
>>Did I say Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president?  Did I even *imply*
>>that was just a *good* president?  No.  So why did you assume I think
>>so?  Because you're a simple-minded idiot.
>
>>>Got it.
>
>>No, obviously you don't.
>
>What a comeback.  Such brilliance.

Next to your 486 "joke" (for lack of a better word) and "falling piece
of rock" followup, most primary school chants are brilliant comebacks.

>                                    Such perception.  Such topicality!

He said that he "got it", and I said that he obviously didn't.  How
was that untopical?  Eat your empty words again, unless you still
don't know any better than to make feeble attempts to squirm out of
the corners you back yourself into.

>Nothing left but a sizzling pair of shoelaces.  ;-)

What a comeback.  Such brilliance.

<snicker>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: The Question Bush Will Not Answer
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:25:13 GMT

In article <BAGCHI.92Oct5145348@quip.eecs.umich.edu> bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:
>In article <1aq088INNbnc@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>If you see Bush being interviewed, note that Bush's conditions
>>for interviews currently state that no questions may be asked
>>about his role in the illegal sale of weapons to Iran.
>>
>
>	Welp, seein' as he promised to take real live calls on
>his next Larry King appearance, I'm sure that he can be asked.
>How much does an auto-dialer cost, anyway?
>

Hmmm...I wonder who will be screening the calls and  who decides
when to break for a commercial...even if Bush's next Larry King
appearance *is* live (bets ?? have you heard of tape-delay...:-)
what do you think the chances of an Iran-Contra question (and answer) 
actually making on the are...right about zero I would say...


>>--Brad Sherman
>>
>
>	-rj
>--
>Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
>		Don't trust anything with an odd number of lips
>oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee)
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:11:29 GMT

In <1992Oct2.124348.12393@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:


>OK, so now he's back in officially.  I've heard various opinions
>in the media regarding who's hurt and who's helped by Perot's
>candidacy.  I've heard that he could cause Clinton to win Texas
>and that, without winning Texas himself, Bush can't be re-elected.
>I've heard a similar thing about Florida.  On the other hand, I've
>heard that Perot could actually help Bush in several midwestern
>states.  Although winning these states would help Clinton win the
>Presidency, they're not absolutely critical.

>So I'm a little confused.  If Texas is a "must-win" for Bush (with
>its ~34 electoral votes), why isn't it a "must-win" for Clinton?
>Ditto for Florida.  And what about those midwestern states?

>I see many poll results every day.  I've seen them with Perot and
>without Perot.  I've seen Clinton ahead by 3 points and I've seen
>him ahead by 21.  The problem is that these polls represent the
>_national_popular_vote_, NOT the impact of people's preference on
>the electoral vote, which is how a President is elected.  Perhaps 
>someone could present a (hopefully objective) view of the possible 
>and/or likely implications of Perot's candidacy on the electoral 
>college.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Scott D. Brenner
>AT&T Consumer Communications Services
>Basking Ridge, NJ
>scott@cimu03.att.com  -or-  sbrenner@attmail.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, in a nutshell, the electoral college is a contest of 51 statewied (and
DC) contests weighted according to a state's population.  Presidential
campaigns are structured around winning 270 or more votes in this weighted
series of contests.

To do that, candidates focus on putting toether a coalition based around the
large and medium-sized states.  Because Clinton is believed to have the two
most populous states, California and New York, in his camp, Bush is believed
to need Texas, the third most populous state for an electoral victory.
Because Perot is from Texas, some observers believe that he may be able to
get anti-Clinton voters who would have otherwise voted for Bush.  On the
other hand, because he represents change, observers believe that he may get
votes in more conservative states from voters who might have voted for
Clinton because he isn't Bush (i.e. voting for change, but not necessarily a
particular candidate).
-- 
*****************************************************************
yvonne_lee@infoworld.com   (preferred email reply address)
yvonne@well.sf.ca.us       (news account) (415) 312-0571 w  (415) 968-3132 h
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: z_edwardsda@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Voter registration on campus
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:41:12 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

I think the idea of having voter registration booths on campus is a 
great idea. However, I think this should have been done at least
a week ago so it would have given the student more time to become
aware of the service offered here on campus.




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Request for "United We Stand"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:14:20 GMT

  All the bookstores in the Seattle area are out of this book and
  there are huge waiting lists.  Could someone email me a copy of
  the 4-part listing of the book?  Or better yet, post it.

  Hopefully, those establishment types (i.e. Republicans/Democrats)
  on the net will take the time to read it so that they can talk
  substance instead of slinging mud for a change.
  ==

  Bob

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15323 alt.politics.bush:7869 alt.politics.clinton:8668
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 26 Sep 1992 20:28:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:

>In article <1992Sep25.085020.29253@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>

>
>>I would suggest that the American pejorative use of the word
>>"liberal" is quite intentional since it is meant to tar anyone
>>who opposes social authoritarianism with the "socialist" or
>>"tax-wasting" brush, and thus to dismiss them without ever
>>having to face up to their real case.
>
>  "Liberal" is an English word (granted it has Latin roots, but it
>  is, nonetheless, an English word).  We speak English and, moreover,
>  we are the largest English speaking country in the world (unless
>  you count India) so we have every right to define the word as we
>  wish without regard for the non-English speaking world's opinion
>  of the meaning of the term.  
>

I  might suggest that an intelligen reading of the above passage
suggests not that Americans cannot reinterpret words the way they
like but that conservatives have tried to imbue the word "liberal"
with inherently negative connotations.

-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15205 talk.politics.misc:49619
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 15:32:49 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:

>If this is true, it is real sneaky!

Sneaky?

No, but it is a good example of how easy it is to pull the emphasis of
a campaign away from the real issues and instead concentrate on the
most trivial, obscure, unimportant facets of the election process.
Instead of talking about the federal deficit, or criminal law reform,
or even "jobs jobs jobs" we are all out spewing a frothy mixture of
piss and wind.

I, for one, don't give a damn how George is referred to, as long as
he doesn't get re-elected.

Stratocaster

-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
Don't believe what the Moral Majority says. Remember that they are neither.
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:41:47 -0400 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT

I really,really hope this guy was kidding.
James Stepanek
esp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14289 alt.politics.bush:6716 alt.politics.clinton:7257
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:22:59 EDT
From: <LDM102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Bushita!" in Happy Valley
Distribution: usa
 <92267.171312LDM102@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Sep24.213717.15394@javelin.sim.es.com>

In article <1992Sep24.213717.15394@javelin.sim.es.com>,
pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) says:
>I wrote:
>> Like I said, that's not nearly as bad as Penn Staters. :-)
>
>As someone who doesn't have a feel for school rivalries or stereotypes for
>that part of country, I must say that this makes Quayle's father's remarks
>look even more pathetic when that is all a republican voter can come up with
>as a rebuff.

First of all, learn what the following symbol means->  :-)
Secondly, where did I say I am a "republican voter?"  Perhaps I do vote,
  and--being an American--that would make me a republican voter.  Or, did
  you mean "Republican?"  No, if I didn't say I vote, then you can't infer
  I vote Republican. Hmm...maybe it is just irrelevant drivel or an attempt
  at making non-Republicans look bad or ..?
What has really p*ssed me off about Bush's trip is the way everything is
  being twisted by our daily rag (_The Collegian_), and the posts.  The
  ironic thing is that both the Collegian articles and posts such as those by
  TAF102@psuvm have swayed some of those who were at the speech over to Bush's
  side.  ("It makes me question everything they've been saying all along,"
  was what one acquaintance said.)  I find it a bit like watching C-SPAN for
  a day, and then seeing how twisted CNN reports what I've just watched.
The election is not for several weeks, and I don't know for whomI will
  vote.  I *do* know that poor or biased reporting--by anyone--bothers me.
                                                -Larry
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Ross Perot Prediction
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems


I predict (and I've never been right yet B-) that Perot will attend the
first debate, and find a reason to miss the next two.  Either he'll
decide the debates aren't about the issues (he'd be right), or he'll
decide that the people aren't interested in debates, or he'll declare
that B or C agree closely enough with him that he needn't run any futher, 
or that both B & C are discussing his issues and he isn't needed.

In any event, I don't think Perot will do well in the debates.  And
I think that's gonna really piss him off.

--f2

--------------------------------
  "Bill Clinton picked a running mate who was his intellectual equal.
   Unfortunately, it seems like George Bush did the same thing."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Bumpersticker
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:25:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.235405.18704@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>
(incredibly tortuous postscript stuff, deleted)

Geez, some people just can't tell a joke.
Whatever happened to "brevity is the soul of wit", or
is this too cultural-elitist?


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Bumpersticker
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:54:05 GMT


Warning: If you believe that cheating on your spouse,
dodging the draft, etc, are all acceptable values,
then please read no further. (IE: Don't inhale!) 
I wouldn't want to insult you. Otherwise, send all 
replies to /dev/null. You were warned!

*************

Well, I don't know exactly WHO I support in this upcoming 
election, but I DO know who I DON't support. So any other
anti-clinton'ers out there who want a bumpersticker to that
effect, you can print out the enclosed postscript file on
your laser printer by cutting along (and including) the
dotted line (so that the first 2 characters of the file are "%!".
then just lpr the file. Contact me if you can't get it to work
right.

_________________________________________________________________
%!

/mod 7 dict def
/MOF
  { mod begin
    /uid exch def
    /sw exch def
    /nfn exch def
    /bfn exch def

    /bfd bfn findfont def

    /nume bfd maxlength 1 add def

    bfd /UID known not
      { /nume nume 1 add def } if

    /ofd nume dict def

    bfd
      { exch dup /FID ne
        {exch ofd 3 1 roll put }
        { pop pop }
        ifelse
      } forall

    ofd /FontName nfn put
    ofd /PaintType 2 put
    ofd /StrokeWidth sw put
    ofd /UID uid put

    nfn ofd definefont pop
    end
  } def

90 rotate 0 -792 translate

/Helvetica-BoldOblique /HO1 1000 54 div

/Helvetica-BoldOblique findfont dup /UID known
  { /UID get 1 add }
  { pop 1 }
  ifelse
MOF

/HO1 findfont 200 scalefont setfont
22 610 moveto (Clinton) show
22 410 moveto(is a ) show
22 210 moveto (Sleaze) show
showpage


From: Tom.Cavender@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: New polls
Date: 21 Sep 92  07:08:00 EST

Some recent state polls, in addition to the Indiana poll referred to earlier:

**Delaware:
    Clinton: 45%
    Bush: 31%
    Perot: 10%
    Undecided or would not state preference: 14%
  (Wilmington News Journal Poll of 801 registered voters taken
   between Sept. 13 and 17.  Margin of error: 3.5%)

**Ohio:
   Supporting Clinton: 43%
   Supporting Bush: 35%
   Undecided: 22%

   Supporting or leaning Clinton: 50%
   Supporting or leaning Bush: 35%
   Undecided: 10%
 (Akron Beacon Journal/University of Akron poll taken Sept. 8- 16 with
   a margin of error of 4 percentage points).

**Illinois:
   Clinton: 51%
   Bush: 32%
   Undecided: 16%
 (Chicago Tribune Poll of 1000 registered Illinois voters questioned
  Sept 10-13, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points)

**Missouri:
   Clinton: 49%
   Bush: 28%
   Undecided: 16%
   Perot: 7%
 (St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOX poll of 500 registered voters conducted
  September 12-16, with a margin of error of 4.4%)

Looks like more deep doo-doo for Bush in the industrial midwest.  Bush will almost certainly have to come from behind and win at least one of these states to even have a remote chance at winning the big prize. Polls here in Florida (once considered a given for Bush) show him either 6 points up or 7 points down.  Anybody have the latest numbers for Texas or Michigan?

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

----------------------------------
|                                |
|   CLINTON-GORE '92             |
----------------------------------

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: First Debate Site
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:21:46 EDT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na

In article <1992Oct5.011420.25458@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec1.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>     Chancellor William Danforth of Washington University announced this 
> afternoon that Washington University will host the first Presidential Debate
> next Sunday.
> 
>     It will be held in our fieldhouse (with maximum capacity ~4,000, but less 
> for the debate due to press and stage, etc.).
> 
>     Now, I just hope I can get one of the few tickets that will be issued.
> 
> Greg
> 

Please provide us with all the stuff we won't be seeing on the tube!

-Garrett
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The environmental president
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:32:24 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <BvE7J6.3zC@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:

>NYTimes 9/30:
>
>	The White House has dropped a proposal to allow manufacturers
>	to dispose of hazardous wastes in town dumps, senior Bush
>	Administration officials said today, because of concern
                                             ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
>	that the Bush campaign has become vulnerable to Democratic
        ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>	criticism on the environment.
        ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

While this report will probably bring screams of "liberal media 
bias", I personally have no difficulty believing this to be the 
rationale behind this decision.

Dave

   Libertarians for Congress!
   Perot for President!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Keywords: tweedle-dum, tweedel-dummer
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:14:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.165519.4109@watson.ibm.com> born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>Mr.  Bush or President Bush?  About 3-4 weeks ago in US News and 
>World Report's Washington Wispers column reported that the 
>Clinton campaign was putting out the word that they wanted to 
>stop referring to Bush as President Bush and start referring to 
>him as Mr. Bush, to help diminish his stature.  

Can the Bushman's stature possible get any more diminished?

>Supposedly, the 
>media has come on board with this.  Has anybody noticed this 
>usage (blatantly) by the media?

Nope. I've heard several newscasts today, and it's still
President Bush.  For four more weeks.

>If this is true, it is real sneaky!
>--
>Christopher J. Born
>
>born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:57:35 GMT

In article <1ad7iaINN7ce@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>Add to that the number of people who called to say DON'T run and your
>'poll' is pretty useless for telling how many people want him to run.

Not to mention the number of radio and television stations that called the
number so that they could record the message for their nightly political
sound bite.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment, it's the impurities in
our air and water that are doing it.			- VP Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:13:09 GMT

In article <BvEq2I.B3p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  Today's Wall Street Journal has an article detailing the "watering"
>  Mr. "I'm at the command of my people" Perot has been doing of his
>  grass roots. 
>
>  Pretty interesting: paid "volunteers", $4 million spent in the
>  month after he "withdrew" from the race, etc.  A former NY State
>  coordinator for Perot refers to him as "H Ross Gepetto", pulling
>  the strings from Texas.   
>

	This isn't the NY state co-ordinator that gave his Perot badge
to Clinton the day after Perot withdrew, is it? How would he know what's
been going on since he left.

>  This whole non-campaign campaign sounds like a slick, well funded
>  first class con-job.   
	
	Could be. Why hasn't the press been covering it, until this
week?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: NAFTA
Organization: Organization
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:03:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.223005.20550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <BvMrtI.DGG@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>  Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
>>although he still has "reservations".
>
>Let's be a bit more accurate.  He supports NAFTA, but he wouldn't sign
>the agreement in its present form.  He hasn't been specific about the
>exact changes needed.


  The way I heard it, he does support it in its present form, but
also supports an additional treaty or "understanding" which would
allow the USA to dictate Mexico's and Canada's environmental policies.
  Presidents don't sign treaties, anyway, they simply have to be ratified
by the Senate.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15302 alt.politics.bush:7847