From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Sounds like Democracy to me. (Was Re: Well, even Adolph had to start at thge bottom ...
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:27:02 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan5.091805.12175@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1ialmkINN9nf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.233744.1311@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >Well a public office person can be recalled on many things-
>    >if they advertise themselves as believing a particular
>    >political philosophy, and then do the opposite, it is well
>    >within the rights of the people to call them onto the carpet.
>
>As he is the leading vote getter TWICE, I'd say that the voters knew/wanted
>what they were getting. Like Bush, he could have fooled them once, but
>not twice.

I need to know and understand what his first year of voting was like.  He 
may have, in your terms, voted PC all of the time, as least appeared to do
so.  But now in his second term, he has made some changes in his voting
and it was not as he advertised.  This is a completely believable scenario.

It has happened in the greater political arenas.  For instance, if you enter
office and you are allowed only 2 terms, then it is smart for you to get your
act together during the first term, keep yourself popular, then get reelected
and in your second term, make your move on issues that are your pet projects
or issues that you have been influenced about via special interest etc.

>    >And of course we won't even delve into the political bais of
>    >a newspaper- in general they take a position and viewpoint
>    >when they report on political issues- SJMN may be anti-PC or
>    >whatever one wishes to label it.
>
>The SJMN reported a situation. If you have FACTS that are at odds with
>what it said of what I posted, then bring them on. If you can't deal with
>FACTS, keep your fantasies and ad hominiem attacks to yourself.

No you obviously do not understand how journalism works in today's market.
I have very good and close friends on the SFC editorial staffs and they
have links to other papers- SJMN as one of them.  And we have conversations
about how stories are prepared in order to satisfy certain political bents
and viewpoints.  The only story that would not is one quoted verbatim from
the source without any commentary or story telling additions.
>
>So Clinton's election is meaningless? Glad you agree.
>

Well it is in the sense of majority vote- it is not in the sense that he
still got more than either Bush or Perot.  It is only important that he
realizes that he represents all fairly.

>    >Also this sounds like a hip-hop pop story that the SJMN wants
>    >to do, so they can sell papers. We are afterall a tabloid
>    >news society.
>
>Clever way to deal with something you don't like.
>

I never said I did not like the story- it is my position to analysis 
the content and see if anything can be solidly concluded.  Many papers
use a mixture of sensationalism and baiting to get buyers.  This is 
a well known tactic.  And at this time, PCism is a great target.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8120 ca.politics:10536 talk.politics.misc:66508