HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mary Matalin and James Carville
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:13:06
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: caisr1.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.204028.5494@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:

>The NYT of a few days ago reported that Mary Matalin (chief spokesperon
>of the Bush/Quayle campaign and overall incarnation of evil) and James
>Carville, Clinton's chief campaign strategist, are romantically linked.
>Man, what a great relationship they must have.  They must have great
>sex, because they sure as hell must not be able to talk about much...

Just think about the movie potential...

I think Altman (_The_Player_) should direct. :-)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17325 talk.politics.misc:52468 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5530 alt.rush-limbaugh:7643 alt.fan.howard-stern:2155 talk.politics.guns:22234
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics,alt.fan.howard-stern,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:45:23 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Oct16.150925.28008@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.211455.23080@anat.UMSMED.EDU> jbh@anat.UMSMED.EDU (James B. Hutchins) writes:
>>
>>In article <60.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>> [stuff deleted]
>>>For example, witness this testy exchange
>>>between reporters and designated Republican attack-bitch, Mary Matalin:
>>
>>[more stuff deleted]
>>
>>Does this remind anyone else of Lee (Willie Horton) Atwater?  Does Matalin
>>play blues guitar?
>
>Yeah, Matalin reminds me a lot of Atwater - both told the simple truth, and 
>both were savaged as nazis and sleaze campaigners for daring to tell the truth
>about the political opponents.

Was it not Lee Atwater who went around making deathbed repentences to those 
whom he was instrumental in savagely trashing?  I remember specifically 
reading about a meeting between Atwater and Dukakis in which Atwater 
apologized for the Willie Horton episode.

Apparently, Atwater himself did not hold to the veracity of his statements 
when he was confronted with the specter of his Maker.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,misc.activism.progressive,alt.conspiracy
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:50:08
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1bapvhINNebl@overload.lbl.gov>
	<1992Oct12.053058.14591@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.053058.14591@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

> That was one good thing to come out of the debate.  Bush looked silly
> attacking Clinton on the British Vietnam protest (especially when he
> himself criticized Vietnam later in the debate).

I noticed that too.  Clinton said in 1969 that the Vietnam War was
wrong; Bush said in 1992 that the Vietnam War was wrong.  Bush
attacked Clinton for making a "mistake" in 1969, but it's not clear
just what that "mistake" was.  If the war was wrong, what was wrong
with Clinton saying so?

The truth, of course, is that the specifics of the accusation don't
matter; Bush just wants to make enough vague accusations so that,
regardless of the details, Clinton's patriotism will be put in doubt.
Clinton was right to recognize those smear tactics for what they are.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: sunder@sor.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: vice presidential debates
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:20:47 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sor.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Oct14.191331.4489@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.165141.6061@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> >In article <1672@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
|> >>
|> >>... a tie means that Quayle was the real winner.
|> >
|> >Wrong

|> > Nancy Lord *would*have won.

|> Nah, she'd look like a whacko when she comes out in favor of
|> drug-legalization.

Not really. I think that if we had a rational discussion of the plusses
and minuses of drug legalization... oh hell, the Veep debate and rational?
You are right.<sigh>. She *would* have appeared like a whacko.


|> --
|> "Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....

Your .sig is a fair description of much of yesterday's Veep debate. Seinfeld
must be psychic.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:56:55 GMT

From article <1992Oct14.005404.13659@news.columbia.edu>, by egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy):

> Stockdale's performance won't help Perot at
> all.  It might harm his ticket: he bumbled fairly badly in the
> beginning (but he's such a NICE, Santa-like bumbler, unlike Quayle,
> the Ken-doll bumbler in '88), and Perot seems to have picked him
> without considering if he were qualified to step into the President's
> shoes if, say, an eagle picked Ross up and carried him away.  This
> won't reflect well on Perot's judgement, but then Bush had these
> problems in '88, and it didn't hurt him much at all.

Keep in mind that Stockdale was originally intended only as a stand in
for use in placing Perot's name on the ballot.  If Perot had stayed in
he the race was expected to announce someone else to take Stockdale's 
place on the ticket as VP.  Some have said that Perot was unable to
find another VP candidate but the deadline for replacing the stand in
VP candidate may have passed before Perot re-entered the race.

Ultimately I think that Stockdale and Perot are fortunate that Quayle
and Gore came off as such idiots.  They looked like the career
politians that they are, a rabid terrier attacking a Disney animatron.
I kept expecting Quayle to froth at the mouth and fall over backwards
and Gore to freeze up and start mumbling "oil can."  In comparison to
these two brats, Stockdale will probably be forgotten except for the
few comments that may have touched a chord.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,alt.fan.dave_barry,alt.fan.howard-stern,alt.fan.monty-python,talk.politics.guns
From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
Subject: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Organization: Ramona Engineering
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:43:30 GMT

Atlanta, TN (AP) - The strenuous 1992 campaign for President appears to
be taking a toll on some of its participants. Challenger Bill Clinton is
struggling to keep his overworked voice intact; President George Bush
suffers from occasional mild hallucinations that his doctors report as a
side-effect of the self-administered heart medicine, Righteouscil (tm).
Others appear to be under the influence of nothing worse than a garden
variety case of jittery nerves. For example, witness this testy exchange
between reporters and designated Republican attack-bitch, Mary Matalin:

        Reporter: Ms. Matalin, some Congressmen are comparing the recent
          allegations that the State Department has been illegally used
          in the service of Mr. Bush's re-election to the Watergate
          scandal. What is your reaction?
        Matalin: That's completely preposterous. It's just a Democrat
          trick to drag Adolf Nixon's name into the campaign.
        Reporter: You mean 'Richard' Nixon?
        Matalin: That's what I said.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:28:58 GMT

In article <PA146008.389.719178366@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <2670@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:

  [Re:  Quayle's performance, Fil writes]
>>It kind of reminded me of when Dick Smothers would get Tom all riled,
>>and, no matter what the dialog was about, Tom would say, "Oh yeah?
>>Well, mom always liked you best!"

Funny, you should say that.  Tom Smothers kep creeping into my mind 
while I was wathing Quayle also.  Dan's stammering and sudden stops 
and starts didn't help either.

  [David 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.

Yes, they both practiced.  Gore practiced looking like a statesman and 
Quayle practiced zingers and George's finger waving techniques.

  [interesting philosophical comments on debates in general deleted]
>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. 

Well, not exactly true.  I had noticed in the past year or two, that 
Quayle's overall speech and delivery techniques had improved 
considerably compared to his early days as VP.  So, I had expected 
a practiced and statesman-like debate as we had seen on Sunday.  

I was very surprised to see Quayle throw all his recent training 
out the window, and become an embarrassing, out-of-control person at the 
podium.  He began talking out of turn right at the beginning which set 
the tone for the night.  

I was rolling on the floor laughing at our VP's actions (pretty sad 
in retrospect), and I had thought it was going to be another staid, 
boring debate.  Quayle livened up the debate, but largely at his 
own expense, as I saw it.

>     Those who support Clinton saw Dan "attack puppy" Quayle and those who 
>support Bush saw Al "the android" Gore.   Ross Perot supporters still 
>seem to be digesting James "That's all there is" Stockdale's performance.

I haven't heard one Quayle supporter say that Quayle acted presidential.
(or vice-presidential) I find this very telling, given the large number of 
supporters who said that about Bush after Sunday night.

I also note that Rush Limbaugh spent all last night talking about 
Stockdale -- is it possible that even Rush was embarrassed by 
Quayle's behavior?

>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education


-- 
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*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17135 talk.politics.misc:52179
From: sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:09:15 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1bisf2INN90e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:

> ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
> votes than George Bush.  Namely:
> 
> 	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
> 
> This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.

If you really think that, I suggest you read today's Chicago Tribune.

In their latest Illinois poll, Clinton's support dropped sharply from 
50% the last time around to 41% after the debate. Perot picked up most of
that vote, and is at 13%, and Bush remained static at 28%. That makes 
the "Undecideds" the second-largest voting group. With a real good
performance from Ross and some more of this trustworthiness stuff from Bush,
this might become a genuine 3-way race again. What happened in Illinois 
could happen anywhere. Further, the fact of the Dem. Senate candidate being
embroiled in some ethical lapses could rob her of crucial support, and hurt
Clinton in the process, sice a vote for Braun is moreorless one for Clinton too.

This electorate is still undecided. I for one, wouldn't be surprised to see
a President Ross Perot come Jan 20th.
-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fajack@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:35:48 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

 (Dave Sill) writes:

>Guess what?  We already *have* legal drugs (alcohol, for example).  Other
>countries have legalized drugs and haven't turned into doped out wasters.  Less
>than a hundres years ago, all drugs were legal in the U.S. and we weren't all
>wasters.

>But the biggie is: drugs are illegal and they're still widely available and
>used.  The War on Drugs just makes the business of illegal drugs profitable
>and encourages widespread drug-related crime.  Remember, these crimes aren't
>committed by people whacked out on drugs, they're committed by people trading
>in drugs.

>Legalization is the only way we'll ever win the War on Drugs.

>Question: if you support the repeal of Prohibition but not legalization of
>other drugs, why not?  The parallels are clear.

 But there is a very major difference between drugs and alcohol.  You will get
addicted to drugs very quickly.  Occasionally, I'll have a beer or two, and
never touch it again for maybe over a month.  But I don't think I could say the
same for drugs.  From what I heard, after you have it the first time, you
just crave for more.  You just cannot compare the two.

 Before anyone jump on board to declare legalization is the only way to win
the war on drugs, let me tell you one story.  In the end of last century and
the beginning of this century, the British has control over the southern part
of china.  The British legalizes opium.  Thier intention is that as long as
the Chinese are content with getting 'high' everyday, the idea of revolt will
be furthest from their mind, hence it is easier for the British to rule.

  
	I think to win the drug war is to attack the demand side (not the
supply side).  For example, we can revoke driving license or impose jail
sentence on those people who buys drugs.  As long as there is demand, there
is always supply to meet those demand.  Look at the oldest profession in the
world.   It still exists because there is always demand for it. 


Jack Teh



-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17111 alt.politics.bush:9375 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5480
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Does He Get It?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:48:34
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Oct15.175011.4952@Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:50:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.175011.4952@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:

> Let us remind you -- GHWB himself changed his position on abortion, as
> he changed his position on "voodoo economics," as he changed his
> position on what he knew about arms-for-hostages (2x in 2 days!), as he
> has changed his position on Civil Rights, as he has changed his position
> on the Vietnam War, as he changed his position on the tax compromise of
> 1990, ad nauseum.
> 
> Do you trust GHWB?  I don't.

Me neither.

If you're ever trying to define "chutzpah" by means of an example,
this certainly is a good one to choose: George Bush, of all people,
saying that the most important issue in this election is "who do you
trust".
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:38:54 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Scott W Roby writes:
>
>I also note that Rush Limbaugh spent all last night talking about 
>Stockdale -- is it possible that even Rush was embarrassed by 
>Quayle's behavior?
>
I've heard Limbaugh twice in my life: once in a someone else's
car and once due to good old fashioned neuralgia de la boue.
I can't imagine Limbaugh being embarrassed by anything.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The only pre-election poll I trust...
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:08:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <BvuuzL.1Fs@unx.sas.com>, rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy Whitehead) writes:
> 
> The poll conducted by _My_Weekly_Reader_ of children in grades 
> Kindergarten through 6 has been released. It shows Mr. Bush
> winning with 55% of the votes.
> 
> The _Weekly_Reader_ poll has correctly predicted the outcomes 
> of every presidential election since 1956.
> 
> -- 
> Randy Whitehead         And now, back to your regularly scheduled day...    
> SAS Institute Inc.                     
> rkw@unx.sas.com                        
>                                        


More silly trivia:

No one has lost the New Hampshire primary and then went on to win the
presidency.

The world series predicts the presidential outcome. I can't remember the
way it works. If the national league wins than the republican wins and if
the american league wins then the democrat wins. Or is it the other way
around? I don't follow baseball. The only time this failed was in 1980.

Also there is one state (Vermont or New Hampshire) that has vote for the
winner every year.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Bush v. Clinton: "Who do you trust?"
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:36:29 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <92290.143553JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu>, JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
> 
> Talk about a line that's getting old.
> 
> Talk about a line that's hypocritical.
> 
> When Bush was running against Reagan for the Rep. nomination in 79-80,
> he continually referred to trickle-down economics as "Voodoo Economics."
> 
> Let me repeat that:  Bush called trickle-down VOODOO ECONOMICS.
> 
> Bush completely changed his stance in oder to secure the VP slot
> w/ Reagan.  And now he has the gall to accuse Clinton of waffling?
> I admit to having serious reservations about Clinton, but at
> least with Clinton I know I have a chance for improvement.  Bush
> has done NOTHING during his time in office to convince me that
> I can believe what he says.

Yeah, you're right: his international performance has been nothing.  How
quickly the winds change when the danger is gone. Churchill suffered the
same sort of weirdness.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16329 talk.politics.misc:51222 or.politics:258
From: bob@reed.edu (Robert Ankeney)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,or.politics
Subject: Re: Oregon Measure 9 - Arguments In Favor
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:25:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Oct12.222559.22876
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon


     I was quite amused to see this too and had intended to type this gem
in myself.  Thanks for doing it!

     And something I've thought rather ironic is the OCA's attempt to
equate pedophilia with homosexuality.  In my book, pedophilia has nothing
to do with child love or sex, but rather is an even more cowardly use of
control and rage than is adult rape.  And when I think of a group that is
out to control others and is full of hatred and anger, I immediately think
of the OCA.  Hmmm...

     Robert

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ankeney                 | "Yield and overcome.                |
...!tektronix!reed!bob         |  Bend and be straight.              |
...!tektronix!bob@reed.EDU     |  Empty and be full."    - Lao Tzu   |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections