HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: A First in Presidential Campaigns: Paying for Good Spin
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:43:38 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        
 October 13, 1992                                    


                       YOU KNOW HE'S HURTING

       A First in Presidential Campaigns: Paying for Good Spin

     [Statement of Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director]

      When it came to fanciful and bizarre campaign television ads, we
 thought we'd seen it all from the Bush campaign.

      But today's contribution adds new dimensions to the word
 desperate. You know you're really in trouble when you have to pay to
 try to convince people that you won a debate.

      Once he finishes paying for his spin, the ad turns back to what
 George Bush knows best: distorting Bill Clinton's plan.

      So at the risk of repeating ourselves -- and in contrast to what
 the citizens on the ad told the Bush cameras -- we repeat ourselves.

      Bill Clinton's plan will cut taxes on working families. The
 Clinton plan includes $60 billion over four years in middle class tax
 cuts and $12 billion in tax cuts for the working poor.

      Commenting on the Bush's campaign last ad to make such claims,
 The Wall Street Journal said, "...Mr. Clinton has proposed to cut
 taxes for the sort of [middle class] workers featured in the ad."
 [WSJ 10/2/92]

      George Bush and his admeisters can continue to talk about
 tax-and-spend. But that doesn't change the facts: the Clinton/Gore
 plan will cut $140 billion in federal spending, cut the deficit in
 half in four years, and give middle class families a tax cut of $300
 per child.

                             -- 30 --


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16405 talk.bizarre:33906
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Your Permanent Record
Date: 13 Oct 1992 05:38:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) says:
>
>Here's an interesting point:  when all of these sophomores grow up and some
>eventually run for public office, all of their current half-thought-out
>rantings on the net will probably still be available in various archives. 
>After all, the full net stream is being captured and put on cdrom even now. 
>Every flame, every obscenity, every lapse of logic.  This is something new
>in the world of politics.
>
>So think about that out there in .edu land; are you sure about your facts
>and logic?  What you say now may doom your run for dogcatcher in 2012.

In the year 2012, the position of dogcatcher will no longer be an elective
office. There will a nationwide agency with local franchises, to which
local governments and companies (which will be all but indistinguishable).
will contract out for dog-catching services. You will need a Ph.D. and 
possibly a second masters to be hired at Dog Apprehension Services
International, Inc.; however, you will be paid minimum wage with no
overtime or benefits.

So flame away now, you have nothing to worry about.
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
From: Bill_Steinmetz@NeXT.COM (Bill Steinmetz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:39:03 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu  
(Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>  
munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
> 
> > One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
> > economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
> > independent of who is President and what he does.
> 
> Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
> will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
> belief is somewhat different.
> 
I don't know how this idea started.  If Clinton wins the election, the economy  
will surely get worse.  His tax-spend program does not in any way address the  
deficit problem.  Clinton plans to spend the US out of the recession just like  
Reagan did.  However, this time around there is NO money to spend on the  
economy.  The deficit will grow.  

Most likely, a Clinton win will hurt the economy over the next four years.  My  
guess is that the deficit will grow, interest will rise, and inflation will  
increase.  Clinton WILL look like another Carter.  In four years, the  
Republicans will say:  "See, you voted Democrats in office and now the country  
is really screwed."  With that thought, the Republicans will dominate the white  
house again.

Bill
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why no alt.politics.perot?
Date: 13 Oct 1992 06:26:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


There is an alt.politics.perot. Has been for months now. Talk to your
newsadmin.
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:37:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.235705.22577@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <Bw4Hoq.K8E@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>>The Clinton plan proposes 150 bil. in new programs, 104 bil. cuts 
>>in old programs for a net tax increase of 46 bil. to be paid 
>>by incomes of over $200,000 which have received more than their fair 
>>share of tax breaks in the last 12 years.
>
>It sounds like your numbers are different from the "Put
>Government, er People, First" plan. I see only $44 billion
>in savings, even in the out year.

I got these numbers from a Wed. morning news program which reported 
the number of mistakes made in the debate (5 -> Quayle, 1 -> Gore).

Clearly, you have looked at the financial programs of the candidates 
in far greater detail than I have.  If you are comfortable that Bush 
would be better for the economy than Clinton, then I suggest you 
vote accordingly.  After Tuesday night's debate, however, I am more 
afraid than ever of having Quayle a heart-beat away from the presidency.

I get the impression that Bush's economic program is still in the 
formative stages (witnessed by the brand new idea that Baker will 
now oversee domestic policy).  It sounds like you will be voting 
against Clinton's plan rather than for Bush's (yet fully formed) plan.  
Am I right?

Me, I'd like to vote for Tsongas.
 
>>Quayle can't seem to distinguish programs from taxes, or maybe he doesn't 
>>know how to subtract cuts from new programs.  
>
>Uh, I think you too may be confused there, based on the $100 billion
>in cuts comment.  

Again I got the 150 spend, 104 cut, and 46 tax numbers straight off the 
newscast (CNN, I think).  I wouldn't be surprised that the media's 
quick glance at the numbers would be different from those who has 
looked at them carefully.

It is clear that Quayle's interpretation of the Clinton plan is 
different than what Clinton says.  Given Quayle's reputation in 
the past, I am more inclined to believe that he is mistaken 
before others are.
Bottomline:  Is Quayle telling the truth when he says that Clinton 
PLANS to add 150 billion in taxes?  I think not.



-- 
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: anda@ahpcrc.umn.edu (Andrew A. Anda)
Subject: Natural Law Party info request
Keywords: Natural Law Party
Organization: University of Minnesota, AHPCRC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:36:19 GMT


Does anyone have information on the Natural Law Party--its platform and its
candidates?

&y&a
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15750 alt.politics.clinton:9261 alt.politics.bush:8305 alt.rush-limbaugh:6928 talk.politics.china:1745
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.china
Subject: Look who joined the crowd!!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:26:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Forwarded as:
Article 51002 of talk.politics.misc:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Mandela praises China's government
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:40:16 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

I got this jewel out of the Oct. 7 issue of the Atlanta Journal and
Constitution.


Nelson Mandela drew an icy and puzzled silence at Beijing University this
week with his public praise of China as an "inspiration to democracy and 
freedom of expression".

The 76-year old leader of the African National Congress has been feted by
Chinese leaders for the last three days.  His official visit is to thank
Beijing for sustaining the ANC's anti-apartheid struggle for years with
cash and goods.  

Many of those watching Mr. Mandela receive the an honorary doctorate saw
their student comrades shot down or beaten at Tiananmen Square in June
1989 after demonstrating for more freedom and democracy.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:46:06 GMT

In article <2670@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:

>Did anybody else think that Dan was given some kind of Pavlovian
>training to respond, "But can you trust Bill Clinton?" any time he
>could not find something to say in his notes?
>
>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!"

     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. 
     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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pjm@isis (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Debate meter (running on empty)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:28:37 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

judging from the light volume of posts on the second
debates, we're all pretty much exhausted. i know i am.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GORE BLASTS STATE DEPT WITCH-HUNT AS OUTRAGEOUS
Date: 15 Oct 1992 14:55:25 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <athos-141092151341@athos.apple.com> 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?
>--
>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!

Just curious...who exactly was it that was requesting the information
in the first place? It DOES make a difference you know, even under
the Freedom of Information Act. It was also interesting that the
person who initially started screaming about "3 pages missing"
from Clinton's passport record, was the SAME person who, after the
FBI found nothing wrong with the passport records, ordered a HIGH
PRIORITY search outside of normal channels of all embassy records
for some information on Clinton's travels...hmmm interesting...
and strange, I haven't exactly noticed the press or Clinton,
two groups/source that are allowed to request such info
under the FOIA, clamoring for this information...interesting...

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Funny things in VP debate Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.162627.17888@bnr.ca> labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes:
>
>Quayle:    I'm qualified... I saved democracry in the Phillipines.
>
>           Attack Clinton, Clinton Bad, Clinton Bad
>           (Quayle has been taking ATTACK lessons probably from
>           RepuboNazi Attack Woman Mary Matalin.)
>
 
 
   This just from the Republican Campaign, the mecca of lies and rumors,
 
      George Bush and Dan Quayle have spent considerable time together 
with Mary Matlin. 
 
     
Now, we want to ask Mr. Bush, Mr. Quayle and Ms Matalin, have you or have 
not you engaged in group sex ? 
 
    Mr. Bush, Nr Quayle and Ms Matalin, it's time for you to come clean
on this, level with the American people. 
 
  Sorry, this is really disgusting. I have learned too much from the Bush-
Quayle campaign. 
 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:36:14 GMT

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:

>	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
>president of the United States will have to call on young men and
>women in the military to fight and die. We all hope and pray that this
>does not happen, but only a reckless fool would refuse to consider it
>as a real possibility. It is entirely likely that the cause they are
>asked defend will be a questionable one. After all, Presidents and
>Congresses have been known to make mistakes.

This is nearly certain?

>	So, who do you want to be asking your children to march off to
>war and not return? Do you want the man who, when it was his turn to

No one.

>go, weaseled out by running off to England?  Or do you want the man

This is odd, because it's combining two separate things.  He didn't go
to England to avoid the war -- he was in school in England.  He avoided
the war by saying he was going to join ROTC.

>who flew off the aircraft carrier wondering if he would ever return? Do

Definitely not, since I hope he loses all 50 states.

>you want the man who meditated on his future political viability while
>in a comfy dorm room at Oxford?  Or do you want the man who was
>wondering about the value of war while floating in the Pacific Ocean
>after being shot down?  

>	The President of the United States has to have the moral
>authority to lead the military. He is, first and foremost, the
>Commander in Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever know.
>If Gov. Clinton is elected, every soldier who is asked to fight and
>die will have the right to say : "HE DIDN'T GO WHEN HE WAS CALLED, WHY
>SHOULD I?" Any notion of self-sacrifice in the name of duty will have

They SHOULDN'T!!!!  If they don't volunteer, they shouldn't be forced to go.

>to be compleatly abandoned. While Gov. Clinton may be a fine
>administrator, a great speaker, and a good politician, he lacks the
>moral authority to be Commander in Chief. He can still be patriotic,
>he can still love his country, he can still serve in politics; but the
>moral authority to ask someone to die is purchased with actions, not
>with talk.
>	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
>yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
>child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 

I'd feel exactly the same as if GHWB did it, except at least if Bill
Clinton did it, there *might* be a justification for it, besides "Propping
Up My Popularity."

Anyway, the draft is immoral and unconstitutional, so I'd be upset if
anyone ordered me to go and die.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:51:28 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

In article <29373@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

>The job of President involves public speaking, speeches and debates.
>One ought to be skilled at them if one ever wishes to be efficient.
>Furthermore, and most importantly, Stockdale had VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO
>SAY, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING.

You don't _know_ this.

>My take on this is: Perot didn't even consider for a second who to
>choose a running mate, because he is so egocentric and make the whole
>campaign revolve around himself. Strategically, he chipped away at
>Bush in the first debate while Stockdale was instructed to hit on
>Gore. It backfired, because Perot was so good with Bush and Stockdale
>so pathetic against Gore.

Just because Stockdale disagrees with Gore on matters of principle
doesn't mean he was ``hitting on'' Gore. Furthermore, he wasn't
pathetic against Gore, he was simply pathetic. Gore was a serious
of boring commercials (when he wasn't trying to make Quayle repeat
slogans).

Gregg



-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)          VOTE PEROT  VOTE PEROT       
If you think the Republicans screwed up the country, can you afford to
see what the Democrats will do?!   ->BEWARE OF SLICK-WILLY CLINTON!!<-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:26:08 GMT

In article <92276.121746MJNJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> <MJNJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> I think it is too late for Perot. He shouldn't be wasting every
>body's time.
>

Yes, Perot should beyond all doubt stop wasting everybody's time 
presenting real issues.

We _do_ need to talk more about Murphy Brown.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17129 alt.politics.bush:9388 alt.politics.clinton:10781 alt.politics.perot:2242 talk.politics.misc:52178
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:12:52 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
|> Allan Schaffer):
|> > 
|> > Here's what Brooks Jackson of CNN said:
|> > 
|> > 	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
|> > 	aid for environmental projects." "Gore writes that the money the
|> > 	United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
|> > 	Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
|> > 	spending that much now."
|> 
|> That is not the statement that I heard on CNN immediately after the 
|> debate.  Immediately after the debate they made a statement that there 
|> was nothing at all about what Quayle was talking about on page 304.  That
|> was simply not correct.  Even though Quayle clearly misrepresented the
|> specifics, there absolutely is something about what Quayle was refering
|> to on page 304.
|> 
|> > Amazingly enough, I've actually seen people asserting in this newsgroup
|> > that Quayle was correct.  
|> 
|> I have never said that Quayle was correct.  Amazingly enough, you seem 
|> determined to dodge the real issue here.  Does Gore advocate spending US 
|> funds on foreign aid for environmental projects or not?  Why won't you
|> answer the question?  
|> 
|> If so how much does he consider "politically viable?"  Is that money 
|> included in the Clinton budget plan?
|> 
I thought the issue was what Clinton believes and advocates.  Gore won't
be the first or last vice president that had different positions on
many issues of substance.  When Gore is running for president, ask what
he believes.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15539 alt.politics.bush:8094
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: voting
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 92 19:33:21 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct7.180149.9022@fid.morgan.com>

In article <92276.120618DMGJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> Dolores Grande <DMGJJ@CUNYVM.BITNE
T> writes:
>I am getting sick and tired of commercials urging people to vote, no matter
> for whom. My philosophy is "Don't vote, it only encourages them."

The Libertarian Party platform has had, perhaps for decades now, a plank
stating that "None of the Above" should be an option on every ballot, and
that when "None of the Above" wins, THE OFFICE GOES UNOCCUPIED FOR THE
DURATION OF THE TERM.

Would you prefer this to the present situation?  If the answer is yes,
then it is like everything else in life: you get what you want by working
for it, not by wishing for it.

I have found that the attitude you express is very common among the more
intelligent people one meets.  The LP is the political organization with
the potential for doing something about it.  The Reperoticrat oligarchy
is not going to encourage you to take action, nor are their toadies
in The Media.  You will have to take the initiative and investigate the LP.

If so, welcome!


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information