HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: VOTE FOR ONE OF THE THREE CANDIDATES PA
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:58:39 GMT

In article <1bb633INNh9n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

|> 
|> "FOUR nationwide candidates"?????
|> We up here in the frozen north know of Bush, Clinton, and Perot but who is
|> number four???
|> 
|> Is it another independent that is being ignored by the media?  Or do you only
|> have one fringe party!?!?!?!?!?
|> 
|> Considering the three "big name" candidates are all such fools it would be
|> nice
|> to see a few more "third" parties putting up candidates.
|> 
|> steve holland  (the man with no diacritics)
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------------------
|> 
|> You are not a poor ignorant Canadian. :)  The media and the Democrat and
|> Republican organizations have done their level best to ignore the fact,
|> but there are *four* candidates on the ballot for president in all 50
|> states, plus Washington D.C.  His name is Andre Marrou.


Not only are they "ignoring" the fact they are activly squelching it.
Feast your eyes on this:


                    LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
                      BARRED FROM C-SPAN INTERVIEW BY
                            ST. LOUIS POLICE

 ST. LOUIS -- Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Andre Marrou, who
 has been excluded from participation in the first Presidential Debates
 tonight in St. Louis, today was barred by St. Louis Police from entering the
 studio of C-SPAN for an 11:30 am interview and viewer call-in program.

 Andre Marrou, who is on the ballot in all 50 states, had been scheduled to
 appear on C-SPAN to discuss his exclusion from this evening's debates.  As
 Marrou and C-SPAN interviewer Geoffrey Baum approached the C-SPAN
 interview studio, they were blocked by St. Louis county police officers.  In
 spite of Mr. Baum's verification of the scheduled interview, and in spite of
 statements by a debate commission member that Mr. Marrou could be
 permitted inside of the police lines, the police officers ref
From: so690561@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Susan Elizabeth Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: PEROT TV SPOTS (16/17 OCT)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 13:12:47 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu

roth@csoadm.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes

>I just called (14-Oct 12:00 ET) 1-800-685-7777 and it offered the following:

>Friday,   Oct. 16th on NBC at 10:30-11:00 PM Eastern time (30 mins.)
>Saturday, Oct. 17th on ABC at  8:00- 9:00 PM Eastern time (60 mins.)

>The above times agree with a UPI story I saw.

Those were the times Ross himself mentioned at least twice during last
night's debate - too bad the moderator kept trying to cut him off - so
IMHO I would believe those times to be correct.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: azzarito@cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito)
Subject: Re: Debate
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:02:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.034059.10275@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
>I cannot wait for the next 30 minute Perot spot.  He had some strong things to
>say tonight about how to fix the problems which he addressed in the first 30
>minute spot.  

Let's just hope everyone who says Perot doesn't give specifics will be
watching!

>
>While I do not discount Perot's chances of winning in November, I must agree
>with one of the media personnel who was interviewed on CNN after the debate
>who stated that if Perot had not given signals in July that he would not 
>run, that this would be a two man race between Clinton and Perot, with George 
>Bush as an also ran.

I don't think so.  Perot got a good dose of campaign-blues before he announced
he didn't want to run (remember, he had never announced his candidacy).  After
that he was able to go back home, re-think his attack, and come out fighting. 
I think the timing was close to perfect.

Now our BIGGEST problem is what I've termed "The Perot Paradox."  Popular
opinion (and especially the post-debate commentators) agree that Perot gave
the best showing in the debate.  His plans make sense, his style is
refreshing, and his "fix-it" track record is just what this country needs.  To
put it simply, he's the best man for the job.  But, each voter says "I'm not
going to vote for him, because he can't win."  

When are we going to wake up and realize that if EACH PERSON votes for the
best man, HE WILL WIN.  Should I vote for Clinton, just because I hear he has
a lead?  Sheesh, I'm not a lemming.  It would be cute to have a "Don't blame
me, I voted for Perot" bumper sticker, but there's just one problem...

WE DON'T HAVE 4 YEARS TO WASTE ON A BAD PRESIDENT.

The problems facing this country must be addressed NOW.  A "Perot in 96"
campaign would be nice, but unless our government buckles down NOW, the next
president may find it's too late to do anything.

Let's all take a personal poll.  Ask your friends and co-workers if they'd
consider voting for Perot because he sounds like the right man, even though
the "experts" say he can't win.  I think the results will surprise you.  It
almost sounds like a good reason to keep the electoral college around! :-)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: Perot's Pick-a-Plan Plan
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:00:13 GMT

9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:


>Mr. Perot does not seem to realize that there are voters who not only care
>WHAT gets does, but also HOW it gets done.  His continual response of 
>"Just pick a plan, any plan and do it" does not allow voters to express any
>ideological basis for their choice.  He should realize that people are 
>interested in the means, not just the ends.

>If he believes spending cuts are necessary, does he have any preference as
>to what cuts should go first?  Defense? Social programs?  If so, which ones?
>HOW does he want to control medical costs?  Cutting back on Medicare?
>Federally regulated medical fees?  Does he still think SS payments should be
>eliminated for anyone making over $65,000?  

>Please don't just tell me to read his book.  If he is holding out on the details
>for some reason, i.e., wants to get people to buy his book or tune in tonight,
>he did the viewing public a disservice last night.

I'll be sure to tell Perot to forget about the important stuff and make
sure the voters of America know exactly how a huge complex plan is
going to work. I hate to jump on your case, but if you are motivated
enough to read "the book" (or any book published by a candidate for
the office of President) then you shouldn't be commenting on Perot
holding out on details. He didn't even have time to say what he was
going to do (which is the most important) let alone how. And he even
tried to cover that point. If Perot becomes president every congress-
person in the country is going to suddenly realize that the American
people are really sick of the way things are. Admit it, beyond all
the hype, Congressman in in Congress to get re-elected. That is what
they think about on every vote, every action, every speech. When Perot
becomes president ( :) ) these congresspeople won't darn oppose him.
They know that if they do the next election they will be running against
someone whose main theme is going to be that the incumbent didn't support
Perot. The same people who vote Perot in (if they reach a majority)
won't stand for all this junk from Congress, and most importantly, the
people in Congress know this. That's how Perot will get things done.

							Jeff R. Lamb
							Midnight Arrow
							Champion of Reality

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Reposting United We Stand
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:47:47 GMT

Will someone please repost the four part series of the text of
United We Stand.

There are several BBSs I want to upload it to.

Thanks

Doug
From: so690561@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Susan Elizabeth Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot's "Platform" Posted to the Usenet
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:07:53 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu

...just curious, but who published Perot's book, and does Ross have any
financial interest in said publishing house - I would imagine that the
publisher would be the most upset about the exerpts of the book posted,
but perhaps the publishing company is owned in part by Ross himself (or
maybe he could agree to buy some quantity of copies ;-).  I'm still
undecided myself, but on paper IMHO the platform seems to be sensible.
I won't make up my mind till the last day, though.  This year, a lot 
can happen in only a few days.

-S
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.164751.5807@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.153749.13597@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
>>
>>Well then go ahead and vote for a less qualified person.
>
>No, thanks.
>
>>Why not vote for the best man for the job?
>
>Great idea.  That's what I plan to do: vote Marrou/Lord.
>

Come on.  Have you read the libertarian platform?  Holy Bejezus, talk
about absolute anarchy.  These guys would destroy this country in a
heartbeat.  I voted libertarian in the last election as a protest vote,
but this year I read the California platform.  It was a sick joke.

>
>>Vote with your mind this year.
>
>I always do.
>

Read the platform.  I think oyu will finds that you are out of your
mind, or will at least agree that they are.

>>Yes, I agree with the points you make.  But the Democrats had released a
>>plan at least, they did seem to be pulling back to more mainstream
>>positions.
>
>So Perot breaks his pledge, mumbles something about not wanting to interfere
>with the election process, works behind the scenes to get on all the ballots,
>and re-enters the race at the last minute.
>
>Wanna buy a bridge real cheap?
>

One week after being put on the ballot in all 50 states Perot announced
his candidacy.


>>I don't think anyone could convince you.
>
>To vote for Perot?  I agree, there's no way.
>
>>Ross has admitted that he made a mistake.  He has apoligized to all of
>>his supporters who were hurt by his announcement in July.
>
>Some mistakes are too big to be erased by an apology.
>

The only mistake he made is assumming that the race would continue in
the same tone of addressing the issues which the people are concerned
about.  It did not.  Obviously.

Doug
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Perot's Pick-a-Plan Plan
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:02:26 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu


Mr. Perot does not seem to realize that there are voters who not only care
WHAT gets does, but also HOW it gets done.  His continual response of 
"Just pick a plan, any plan and do it" does not allow voters to express any
ideological basis for their choice.  He should realize that people are 
interested in the means, not just the ends.

If he believes spending cuts are necessary, does he have any preference as
to what cuts should go first?  Defense? Social programs?  If so, which ones?
HOW does he want to control medical costs?  Cutting back on Medicare?
Federally regulated medical fees?  Does he still think SS payments should be
eliminated for anyone making over $65,000?  

Please don't just tell me to read his book.  If he is holding out on the details
for some reason, i.e., wants to get people to buy his book or tune in tonight,
he did the viewing public a disservice last night.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant)
Subject: Re: Is Perot serious?
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:07:23 GMT

>|> Unfortunately for Adm. Stockdale, being in the national spotlight 
>|> comes with the job of being vice-president. This is no time for on
>|> the job training. I expect my leaders to come prepared for the job.
>|> By the way, I believe that Perot is prepared for the job, but not his 
>|> vice-presidential choice.
>|> 
>
>Again I will ask how much of the VP's job is debate?  How much of a
>Presidents job is debate?  None except in an election year.
>

Speaking ability is used for many other tasks than debate. The vice-
president will be called on to articulate the presidents position to
both small and large groups of people. This is a necessary skill of
a leader to shape public opinion. Public opinion is going to be Perot's
biggest weapon up on capital hill. Without the public clamoring for
change to the other 99.99% of the polititions there, nothing will be
accomplished.

>I think
>that if it came down to a crisis situation where the VP has had to take
>the reigns of state and make some immediate critical decisions I can not
>see Dan Quayle or Al Gore being any more qualified.  In fact I think
>they are significantly less qualified.

I agree with you on this. I am not questioning Adm. Stockdales decision 
making capacity, which I agree (from what little I know of the man) is
as good as if not better than the other two vice-presidential contenders.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot Won the Debate, But...
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:49:30 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

  A few days ago I posted a remark that said to the effect that Clinton was
going to win, period.

  Although I stand by that remark, for now, I think it's clear that Perot has
gained some respect and has made himself at least appear legitimate.

  I think Perot clearly won, because he was able to basically kill Bush on
several key issues (I think Ann Richards is right:  Bush is done!), while
Clinton looked a little shell-shocked.  Perot, though not confrontational,
managed to keep things at least on an even keel, even drawing a few laughs by
saying a Perot victory would be highly unusual.

  Although I hope that Perot continues to do well and makes the election
closer, I think the fact remains that Clinton could basically win almost, if
not, every state.

  Bush is through, and I think it's too late for Perot.

  I hope I'm wrong, but it's only a matter of who finishes second right now...

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: jjast7+@pitt.edu (James   J Alles)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Wake up call
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:25:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh: it's an oxymoron thing.

In article <9210151439.AA14670@TIS.COM> richard@TIS.COM writes:
>
... deleted...
>
>	Part one, which at least Perot and Clinton have figured out, is
>that you can only abuse the middle class so much. The middle class is the
>meat-and-potatos buying power of our economy. Take money from the middle
          ~~~~~~~
>class, and you have less to spend on real goods. Give it to the rich, and
>they can do nothing with it because the markets dry up when the middle
>class gets drained. But this is just a small part of the problem.
>
...deleted.

I would not normally make a personal attack on someone's spelling, the
Lord knows my fingers are fat enough, but since this IS a political
issue...

This is where the extra 'e' comes in, as in potatoes.
_Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_

Sorry Richard. Peace, JA
-- 

Peace, JA
--
But Officer, my car doesn't GO that fast!  alles@med.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: I SUPPORT PEROT, but HE DOESN'T GO FAR ENUF, _NO ONE DOES_
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:56:20 GMT

In article <BvrDnr.8Aq@csn.org>, kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
>Face it!  Perot is the only canidate for REAL change.  The problem with 
>both Clinton and Bush is that they want to patch bugs in the system.

Repeat after me: there are more than three candidates in this election. 
Consider Marrou (Libertarian), Felani (New Alliance), and Gritz (?).  You may
not like them, or think they have a chance of winning, but you can't ignore
them or dismiss them.

>PEROT WILL NOT BE ELECTED!!

SO WHAT?  If he did get elected, he'd be ineffective anyway.  You want
change?  Vote for change.  When the enough people see that there are other
people fed up enough with the current state to vote for other than the
McCandidates, real change can start to occur.  But you'll have to commit to
the long haul.  It's too late to do anything more this election than send a
signal.  But if we start now, we can really have change starting in '96.

>BUT THE PEOPLE, in general, DON'T YET BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY!

Because everyone keeps voting for candidates "with a chance of winning." 
Just say "NO".

>The USA is too big for one government.  We need to split into seperate
>governing regions, BUT IT WILL GET WORSE BEFORE IDEAS LIKE THIS ARE SERIOUSLY
>CONSIDERED!

Um, that's what "states" are for.

>I WILL VOTE PEROT, even if he won't be elected.

Good for you.  Really.  I like Perot's message--I just don't think he can do
the job.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: A farfetched scenrio for Perot victory
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Distribution: U.S.A
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:06:49 GMT

In article <xkwz-xc@rpi.edu>, whangj@aix.rpi.edu (Junho Whang) writes:
> 
>    At this point, it seem quite unlikly that Ross Perot can win 
> the election.  For that matter, I think it's also unlikly that 
> George Bush can either.  But there is one scenario in which Perot 
> has 50/50 percent chance of winning the white house.    

Aliens land and transorm Bill Clinton into a gigantic broccoli stalk.
George Bush vomits himself to death.  Dan Quayle is immediately
assassinated by the CIA.  Al Gore is accidentally fed into a sawmill
during a visit to the Pacific Northwest.

Does that count as one scenario, or four?

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: whangj@aix.rpi.edu (Junho Whang)
Subject: A farfetched scenrio for Perot victory
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: U.S.A
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:50:24 GMT



   At this point, it seem quite unlikly that Ross Perot can win 
the election.  For that matter, I think it's also unlikly that 
George Bush can either.  But there is one scenario in which Perot 
has 50/50 percent chance of winning the white house.    

  George Bush seem to vehemently detest Bill Clinton.  I don't 
think this is entirely just campaign politics, I think it's just 
in his moral fiber to detest likes of Clinton.  If Bush continues 
his kamakazi attack on Clinton, and Perot does well in debates, we 
might see the following in polls 1 week before election:

     Clinton:  42%        Bush:  32%         Perot:  14%

  Bush, seeing that there is virtually no chance of his winning 
the election, might consider that if he cannot win the election, 
who would he rather see in the white house?  Clinton/Gore or 
Perot/Stockdale?  (Remember Stockdale is a conservative 
republican).  If he cannot win, and he cannot stand the thought of 
Clinton in white house, then he might withdraw, throwing his 
support behind "patriot" Perot and "war hero" Stockdale.  It's 
virtual guarentee that 100% of republicans formally behind Bush 
will vote for Perot/Stockdale.

  This would be highly irregular behavior for a republican ticket, 
but remember, there has never been a choice of win/lose/draw+ in 
prior elections.  If Bush cannot win, he might instead go for a 
draw+.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: The Debate debate
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:51:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.034634.3426@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>[forwarded]
>
>I'd like to offer an opinion on the Vice-Presidential debate, and the 
>1992 election in general.
>

 ............ 

An excellent article.

I too would like to stick ny nose out and state that Admiral Stockdale
is, in my opinion, to be more qualified to be a VP than either Quayle
or Gore. What we saw in the debate were two politicians who were very
skillful in playing partisan politics. Yelling at each other, spreading
lies on opponents, avoiding key technical issues and going for phrases
that only make their side look good infront of the American people, etc.
Neither one of them were trying to discuss the issues in an open 
minded intelligent way. None of their blabber is going to make this
country better off. Quayle did this by acting like the "Attack puppy 
from hell", while Gore did his bit by acting like a programmed robot.

In this VP debate which resembled a food fight, we had this intellectual 
man Admiral Stockdale stuck between these two politicians wondering 
what the hell is going on. Just like him, so was I. Wondering how far 
can the Democratic and Republican parties go on, taking the American 
people to be a bunch of idiots, turning them on and off by saying "its not
my fault, its their fault, ..." Or, "not me, nanananah ..." The most 
relevant comment in this debate came when Stockdale said something
to the effect that "this is why there is is this gridlock in Washington."

We've seen so far what "politics as usual" has
done to this country. The question is, do we want this garbage to
continue? Clinton and Gore keep on talking about CHANGE. Does anyone
with any intelligence out there think that anything is going
to change when Clinton/Gore take office? It is going to be politics
as usual, with this time the republicans blaming the democrat president
for the country's ills, instead of vice versa.

The problems that we are facing today requires us to have intelligent
leaders who have the intellectual capability to grasp the fundamental
difficulties this country faces in the global arena and execute
solutions to them. After this debate, I noticed that most people were
choosing Gore and/or Quayle to be the "winner". But, unfortunately,
being a winner in a food fight is not necessarily a good qualification
to be a VP. I agree with everyone that Stockdale was the "looser" in
the debate. Of course, he would be. A man with any intelligence and
dignity would clearly be a looser in such a brawl. I am not saying 
that Stockdale is the best choice that Ross could have picked. 
However, facing the fact that we have only Stockdale, Gore and Quayle
to choose from, I'd say Stockdale is the best choice. 

John



Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot