From: markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re:  Publicity
Date: 6 Sep 92 05:16:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.42478
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <72049@apple.Apple.COM> mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
>On the matter of 'Queer Politics' being something other than 'politics,' 
>there exists simply some nebulous blob of power - and a pack of screaming
>self-interested individuals who want to control said blob.  

And here I thought that political science was a bona fide study.  Silly me.

>         In that each of these groups are themselves composed of screaming,
>self-interested individuals, perhaps within their own context there exists
>'<name of group> Politics.'  

You do have a way with words, now, don't you.  Born politician, this one.
Is there anyone you won't insult?

>                             However, we are talking about Presidential
>politics, and the workings of all groups at once.  On this field, they
>are all playing the *same* *game*  They are all trying to influence 'Power.'

My!  Well, I'm sooo glad to be put in my place.  I had no *idea* that
'Power' had anything to do with politics.  Mercy me, but I am so glad
that we have *you* to tell us about all this *politics* stuff.

>The originations of the thread:  Homosexuals as an 'issue' in the 
>Presidential election.  The god-damn, mother-fucking PRESIDENTIAL
>election!

My!  You do rile easily don't you?  And incestuous as well.

>My point:  "Family Values" - as a PUBLICITY TOOL - is designed to distract

What about as a political tool or tool of public policy?

>from issues on which the Republicans may be challenged.  I have said this
>three times, and every time, some drooling idiot feels compelled to remark
>that I am ignorant of politics.

Excuse me while I wipe up my drool.  It seems that yonder thread about
the life-o-reilly started the ol' glands a pumpin', dontcha know.

Please explain, using as much room as you feel that your carefully prepared
manifesto will require, why "Family Values" (you really are big on quote
marks aren't you?) is a smoke screen and why the only real issue is the
economic pocketbook of said voter and the way in which a PRESIDENTIAL
candidate relates to said pocketbook (or, prehaps, we can get back to
party platforms, party politics and wordsmithings, patronage, etc. which
you feel is irrelevent to 'politics').  Perhaps you can rationalize
smokescreens that take the form of "feel good" (see, you have me doing it
now) politics from the 60's where we (the regal 'we' as in 'Americans')
did things like the Peace Corps, etc. which clearly did nothing to line
the pockets of Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average Citizen (complete with 2.3 children,
none of whom were Lesbian or Gay as that wouldn't be average now, would it).

Certainly you can answer this simple question?  Please?
>
>Again, the Republicans and Democrats are trying to put their guy in the
>White House.  To do this, they need to win over the majority of the
>population that will be casting ballots.  Is this new to anyone?  Are we
>clear on this concept?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is quite new, and as far as I know it is
not a concept not in use in PRESIDENTIAL politics in this country.  The
Electoral College elects the president (with provisos as it is possible
that the House of Representatives could get to make the decision).  In
fact the EC representatives from most states are not even required to
vote for the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote in
said representatives region.  (quick!  Help from the cabal!  Who was
the president who didn't receive a majority of the popular vote but won
in the EC?)  The EC rep can even vote for someone not on the ballot!
Amazing the way that 'politics' works, isn't it?

Wasn't this just discussed here recently?  Where were you Melmon?

> [...]
>Yes?

You do like to simplify, don't you.  As long as the EC reps who account
for a sufficient number of votes decide to vote in such a way as to
reelect the incumbant, then the incumbant stays elected.

Simple, really.  Understand yet?  Probably not.

>Now, we are not currently in times of economic prosperity.  

And we weren't with Ronny Ray-gun either, but you voted for him didn't you?

>                                                            This implies
>the most voters will 'feel' that the system needs a change.  The 
>Republicans have tried to argue that we are not experiencing economic
>troubles - and that didn't work.  They must, therefore, try to cloud
>the issue as much as possible, and they must prevent the other side from
>harping too much on the state of the economy.

Fool, you don't listen to the economic news from the White House do you?
They are STILL (now you have me doing it!) claiming that the economy is
on the upswing (which, I'm sure you will point out is the job of the 
incumbant administration in an election year.  "Lie", that's the word
I was looking for.  I'm sure you would prefer "spin").  The republicans
have not addressed the domestic economy in the last 12 years, why would
they start now?

>There are several effective tools at their disposal.  ONE of these tools
>is to bring up a debate about morality.  

Bring up?!  You poor simpleton.  This is an issue which they have been
grooming for the last four years across the country.  The whole idea
is to bash the growing Pro Choice and Diversity movements in one fell
swoop.  Most people with firing synapsis have seen it coming.  What
is your excuse?

>                                                            Jesus
>Christ All-Mighty God High in Heaven!  It doesn't have *anything* -
>ANYTHING to do with the mother-fucking OCA!  How many voters across the
>*nation* do you think know SHIT about the OCA?  Publicity in the
>Presidential arena has nothing to to with a regional issue affecting a
>minority within that region. 

Uh, noone said that the OCA was controlling the national elections.  Get
a clue.  We are talking about the whole "traditional family values"
movement.  If you think the OCA was smart enough to dream that one up
I definitely have some property 100 west of Astoria which you are going
to want to buy up real quick.

>In politics, if you have no leverage, you don't play.

*everyone* plays politics, child.  Even you, right now, right here.

Oh yes, you were talking about <name the relation>-FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL
POLITICS weren't you?

>Perhaps those who know so much more about politics than I do could explain
>how it might be different.

And I do hope I have given you a clue as well.

I think that this is starting to move heavily out of the realm of soc.motss.
If you wish to address specific issues of the republican party, its platform
and policies and how they relate to the queer community as a whole or queer
human rights and dignity in particular, then I will be happy to continue
to converse with you.  However, if you wish to continue to rant political
fervor, please move this discussion to a *.politics.* group.  I won't be
joining you.

Are you positive you aren't related to Lon Mabon?

--mark
--
Mark Morrissey           One Hatred to rule them all.  One Hatred to find them.
markm@cse.ogi.edu        One Hatred to bring them all and in the darkness bind
                         them.  In the land of Bigotry where the Shadows lie.


Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi