HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:32:32 GMT

In article <1d58tpINNq5t@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>>todays portion of happiness.
>>
>
>Please now DEMONSTRATE how these "consertive beliefs" are followed by
>Nixon
>Reagan
>Bush

Cross out Bush.  Reagan is self explanatory.  Nixon probably resembles
today's conservatism as much as JFK resembles today's liberalism!

>Expound especally on the limited government.  And if you can, on
>limited government spending.
>
>(Hint:  This may be the 'definition' of conservativism, but I'd 
>much rather define by actions.  So far, NEITHER the Democrats
>or the Republicans score well on the limited Gonverment scales....)

Thanks for the hint, I've already posted an adequate response to the
big spending argument so if you'll direct your comments there we can
discuss it.

MB
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13656 alt.politics.clinton:16676 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8275 alt.rush-limbaugh:9354
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:03:45 GMT

In article <6851@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> The next two years will test the constitution of the Republican Party,
> but at the moment it doesn't seem very clear which side will win --
> conservatives or moderates. (I'm keeping this at a gross level for my
> own simplistic understanding of the dilemma.)

I believe that the leadership of the RNC will change in November.
I have read rumors that the conservatives wish to claim the position.
We'll see how this goes.  Of course, it's a long time to 1996; anybody
out there remember Richard Gephardt or Pete DuPont :-)?

> The Right Wing will not be weakened as a force in the Republican Party
> as long as moderates seem to be losing control. Moderates like Gov. Pete
> Wilson in California and Gov. Thompson (?) of Illinois must succeed in
> passing their moderate agendas through and making them work. Wilson in
> particular is in trouble because of his relative moderate stance that
> reflected George Bush's political moderation. That is the only real way
> the moderates can win control of the Republican Party.

Wilson's real problem mirrors that of the nation: high unemployment
and low tax revenues, with industry high-tailing it out.  Of course,
California doesn't have any debt that I know of.  If Wilson pulls
CA out of the hole, he'll look great.  Right now he's nearly a lame
duck ... but it's also a long time to 1994.

I think it's possible that if the Republican Party veers to the
right, then we'll have a real third party next time made up of
moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats, and Perot supporters.  It's
also possible that Clinton can include some of these people
if he acts responsibly (re the comparisons of Clinton and Nixon as
trend-setters).

Please God, can we have a short and reasonable discussion about
something?  Has the name-calling and ranting increased exponentially
in the last 3 weeks, or am I just over-sensitive?

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:53:54 GMT

In article <6851@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>The Right Wing will not be weakened as a force in the Republican Party
>as long as moderates seem to be losing control. Moderates like Gov. Pete
>Wilson in California and Gov. Thompson (?) of Illinois must succeed in
>passing their moderate agendas through and making them work. Wilson in
>particular is in trouble because of his relative moderate stance that
>reflected George Bush's political moderation. That is the only real way
>the moderates can win control of the Republican Party.
>
>Open for comments...

Bear in mind that it's not just because moderates may be losing in the
general electorate.  The Religious Right also tends to be very well
organized.  This sophistication allows them to dominate local GOP
organizations and caucuses, not to mention give them a good shot at
local elections.  (There was an article in the NYT last week or so
about "stealth candidates from the Fundamentalists.  Because local
elections generate low turnout (this applies to party caucuses and
other organizational groups), the group with the best organization has
a very good chance to get its candidates elected, even if that groups
views do not reflect the general electorate.)  Clearly, this faction
of the party was in strength in Houston, and dominated the platform
committee because of its influence in the delegate-selection process.
I don't see a change in this situation on the horizon.



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13257 alt.politics.clinton:15957
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 19:43:37 GMT

In article <3673@news.cerf.net> cjk@nic.cerf.net writes:
>In article <Nov.8.12.57.09.1992.11273@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
>>crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:
>>>I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
>>>Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.
>>
>>And expect more. George Herbert Walker's last three months in office
>>will be spent in rigging a January surprise for Clinton..
>>
>>Any speculation on what else it will be?
>
>I say Hogwash....George Bushes career is over, he has been 
>retired.  He'll never hold political office again, and will
>probably be glad of it.  You're just looking at the worst
>possible scenario. 
>
>There will be political partisan fighting,
>but it hasn't started yet.  Suggesting that Bush will have
>a January suprise for Clinton is saying he does not have the
>countries best interest at heart.  And that he is mean spirited
>and vile. And even though I did not vote for him I say that
>this is not true.
>
>Clintons the President, There is nothing Bush can do that 
>Clinton can't undue.  Or at least give private notice that
>he will undue.
>
>Chris Kevlahan
>cjk@cerf.net

Don't bet on it... Bush just imposed a 200% tarriff on French Wine.
This is just one the first action he will be taking from now until
January to be sure that the Clinton administration is the last
Democratic administration in a very long time.  Bush is attempting to
start a trade war.  Clear and simple.  This could be something that
Clinton will have a tough time dealing with given Democratic tendencies
toward protectionism -- any moves Cinton makes to head off the trade
hostilities will undoubtedly hurt American companies and/or workers.

I don't know what Bush's motives are for this -- he could seriously think
that this is the "tough medicine" America needs so it will see the folly
of electing Democrats.  Either way, it stinks.
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13474 alt.politics.clinton:16338
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:17:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.222614.23808@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.194747.1486@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>>
>>>that the rich will do the right thing without prompting. Recent history
>>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
>What exactly can the rich do with their money that would be BAD for the
>economy?  

You might want to ask Charles Keating that.  Or, better yet, his
broke and elderly "clients".  Or maybe Roger Smith.  Or, better
yet, his employees.

>If they spend it they provide jobs for those who produce what is
>bought.  

Not very many though.  Not necessarily jobs that will last either.
And, not necessarily, jobs that are in the USA,  And, not 
necessarily, jobs that pay well or require much skill.

John D.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13552 alt.politics.clinton:16461 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8189 alt.rush-limbaugh:9257
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:12:17 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.224301.15140@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
> >Well David, you must not have heard Rush, but I believe it is the case that
> >an ABC exit poll show that 67% of those who voted for Clinton said they
> >wanted fewer taxes and less government.  If this is true, then your splendid
> >logical deduction unfortunately leaves the American public in ugly
> >contradiction, which,  unfortunately again, shows that people voted against
> >Bush, for any kind of change, and NOT on the issues.
> 
> Let's say the "issues" were less taxes and less government.
> 
> Please answer how the ACTIONS taken by the Bush administration follow this
> with:
> 1) large % increase in white house staff
> 2) "read my lips no new taxes"
> 
> If the "issue" was less taxes and less government then why did the 
> Libertarians NOT win?  I will maintain there is little differance between
> Rebublicans and the Democrats in the big picture of things.  Big Govn.
> assures their survival.  And big gonv takes big $$$ to run.
>   

Look at it this way; Bush's easy win over Dukakis in 1988 was a stunning
AFFIRMATION of Reagan's lower taxes-less government policies.  Clinton's
win over Bush this year is an overwhelming REJECTION of Bush's REPUDIATION
of Reagan-omics. 

That Clinton's margin of victory (in the popular vote) was so small
indicates that not everybody figures that he'll be any better than Bush;
note that Slick Willie got less than 44% of the vote. This election is
simple; it's George Bush, yes or no. The "No'es" took it. The only people
in this election who were at ALL excited were the Perotistas; every
Clinton voted that I talked to said, in essense, "He won't be as bad as
Bush has been."   Even Bush himself, in the days before the election,
admitted that a vote for him was for "the devil that you know"; I voted
for Bush on that basis. Apparently enough people "felt lucky" enough to
gamble on the devil that they DON'T know. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:57:23 GMT


     A person's life must be pretty bitter when they look forward to
blaming everything on a president who has yet to take office.  One
apparent bush supporter writes that B. has taken the blame for the last
twelve years.  Well, with a 4 billion dollar national debt and a dicatator
laughing at the U.S., who do you want to take responsibility? 
     George likes (liked) to blame congress, failing to acknowledge that
his signature was on everything.  They are all in it together, and to
distacne himself from the last twelve years is absurd.  With that line
of reasoning, he cannot claim victory in the gulf or victory in the cold war.
      Which way do you want it?  

put a little syrup on those "waffles", it will take off some of the
bitter edge for the next four years.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Reponse to WHY WE SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:47:49 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <22132@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1cup6nINNihk@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>} that the have more to spend. If DL Olson was exempted from taxes, his
>} immediate circle would benefit: he could buy more food, a nicer car,
>} even give more to charity.

>So far, so good.

>} But why stop with Olson?

>Shouldn't stop with Olson.

>} The answer is, we
>} shouldn't even start with Olson.

>Why is that an answer?  I mean, what does it matter if it starts with
>Olson, or Jones, or Smith, or Martinez, or whomever?

Are you arguing that we should abolish taxes by exempting everyone?

>Bah!  To say that something that doesn't equalize wealth is unfair and
>a failure is as much nonsense as saying that something that doesn't
>equalize talent, or health, or beauty is unfair and a failure.

Trickle-down was sold as a way of brining wealth to all. If you want to
repackage it as a way of increasing the wealth of a few, fine by me.

>} >Government does not create prosperity, because it cannot create wealth
>} >-- it consumes wealth.  Every job that is created from a tax means the

>} Would you like to argue
>} that the Spanish Government's investment in Christopher Columbus didn't
>} pay off big time in creating the wealth of Spain?

>How much wealth did Spain *create* as a result of Columbus?

I see the plan of this argument coming. So let me ask: in what way did
the Homestake Mine create wealth? For that matter, in what way did Henry
Ford create wealth that was not already latent in his workers? Your
implication that the enormous wealth Spain enjoyed after Columbus was
not "created" is quasi-Marxist -- the North American natives, for
example, didn't mine gold at all.

I figured that this would be the "rebuttal".

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:08:46 GMT

mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
>According to another poster, from USA today:
>
>How voters say they would feel about a Clinton victory
>
>Excited			16%
>Optimistic but not excited	26%
>Concerned but not scared	26%
>Scared				28%
>
>Which puts the concerned or scared portion up over 50%.

Hmmm... it seems USA Today comes out with more than one edition. My copy
dated Nov. 4 did not have the poll numbers above, but had the following 
comment in the cover story:

	Indeed, of all the figures from pollsters, the most striking were
	those showing that half of all voters were excited or optimistic
	about a Clinton presidency. What's more, one-fifth of Bush voters
	and one-third of Perot voters agreed.

However, the Nov 4 USA Today in our library at work has a different
cover photo of Clinton, and the words in the cover story are somewhat
different:

	It is only marginally surprising that almost half of all voters
	said they were excited or optimistic about the prospect of a
	Clinton presidency.

	But it was nothing short of stunning that about one-fifth of
	Bush voters, and one-third of Perot voters, said the same thing.

The actual poll results were given in this edition as well.

I guess the earlier version went down the memory hole!

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Bill Weld in '96 (was Re: Dear Republicans)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<5NOV199200510296@vxcrna.cern.ch>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:07:21 GMT


  Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN

   >William Weld in '96.


   Right on!

   I actually took the practically unthinkable (for a Republican) step of changing
   my registration to vote in Massachusetts while I was in school there so I
   could help elect Bill.  It was quite satisfying to help elect a moderate
   in the state of Dukakis and Kennedy (and of course defeat John "Dr. Doom"
   Silber).

   I suppose we could do a lot worse than Kemp, but somehow he doesn't seem like
   ideal Presidential (i.e. executive) material to me.



What's the difference in Kemp and Weld?  Is Kemp pro-choice?  

I was impressed with Kemp's performance during a free-trade debate at
Ole Miss recently.  I have also been impressed with his humanity as
the HUD chief. It sure took George long enough to recognize some of
his complaints.


--a democrat that could change if Slick drops the ball

--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:15:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.153313.174@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>
>In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
>the White House AND the Congress.
>
>Those of us who didn't endorse Clinton can now go from defense to offense,
>and in fact, we'll enjoy ourselves (in a Pyrrhic kind of way). 
>
>Because from January 20, 1993 on, EVERY bad thing that happens will be
>Clinton's fault.  Higher taxes.  Higher deficits.  More regulations.  More
>spending.  Homelessness.  Pollution.  Hunger in Africa.  Drought in
>California.  Everything will now be Clinton's fault -- just as everything
>after January 1981 was Reagan's fault, and all bad events after January
>1989 were Bush's fault (so sayeth the left). 

And, you know, it's great.  We'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
No more finger-pointing at a recalcitrant Congress, no finger-pointing
at subordinates, and so on.  We get to accept responsibility for our
actions without the crutch of a scapegoat, a responsibility neither
Bush nor Reagan were willing to accept.  Clinton's fortunes will rise
or fall with solely his and his party's actions.  It'll be
exhilarating.  Let's hope he's up to it.




And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:21:18 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <9098@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
>I was a Republican for over ten years.  I'll be
>a Republican again, and gladly, when the Religious
>Right crawls back under a rock.

Well, our version of the Religious Right is the OCA.  The OCA voted the
Oregon Republican Party's chair out of office tonight and installed an all-
Religious Right group into power.  

The fracturing of the Republican Party in this state has already started,
with the OCA's anti-gay initiative a driving force behind it.  Several
traditional Republicans have announced they are leaving the party because
it is not salvageable with the involvement of the fundementalist churches
in keeping their supporters in office.

The Republican Party in this state is about to split.  The question is
whether it happens in the next few weeks, or whether the majority gives it
one more election cycle and then tells the OCA to take the party and goes
into a new organization.  It is only a matter of time before similar events
occur in other states where the Religious Right has taken over.

When the churches bus their members to the party meetings it reminds me of
the union power tactics of the old Democratic Party.  I wonder how the
Democrats got rid of that stuff?  Maybe we will have to learn from them.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: What is a Conservative?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:01:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>todays portion of happiness.

Unfortunately, there seem to be VERY FEW true conservatives around.  Rush is
definitely NOT one.

A True Conservative (tm) would be against the RICO seizure statutes, against
keeping drugs illegal, against keeping prostitution illegal, against making
abortion illegal, against forced prayer in schools, etc., etc., etc.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Everything you know is wrong!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc