HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:27:02 EDT
 <1992Aug11.184033.9941@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug12.182715.25650@news.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug12.182715.25650@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.184033.9941@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>There's no comparison between Clinton and Quayle.  Clinton was clearly
>>trying to avoid military service.  Quayle entered a Guard outfit that
>>had lots of reasons to expect that it might be shipped to a combat area.
>
>My impression was that Quayle pulled strings to get himself assigned
>to a Guard unit that had no chance of being shipped out for some
>reason.  Given this, Quayle was a hawk who avoided the draft.  Clinton
>had moral objections to the war, and avoided the draft.  One is a
>hypocrite in this matter, the other not.
>


Yes, I remeber that Dan was able to be assigned to the publicity-type
unit (something to do with wriitng) thouhg he had failed all the
exams for it.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:49:50 GMT

Elizabeth G. Levy writes
> Moynihan, a Cold War Liberal, became a neo-conservative, and saw
> the light again when he switched back to the Dems.

You mean to say that Moynihan ever was a Republican ?

	Carl Edman
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: WSJ on Current State Breakdown
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:16:06 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



  This was a little clip from Friday's Wall Street Journal.  

Pat


"At the Starting Gate"

  This is The Wall Street Journal's current analysis of November's
likely Electoral College results, state by state.  It presumes the
race will be close, with the winner topping the loser by no more
than three of four percentage points in the popular vote.  The analysis
reflects the calculations of the Bush and Clinton targeting strategists
and of independent analyst Charles Cook, as well as reporting by the
Journal.  Each state is followed by its number of electoral votes; to
win a candidate must get 270 votes.

     Bush States				Clinton States

     Texas		32			California	54
     Florida		25			New York	33
     New Jersey		15			Pennsylvania	23
     North Carolina	14			Massachusetts	12
     Georgia		13			Washington	11
     Virginia		13			Wisconsin	11
     Indiana		12			Tennessee	11
     Alabama		 9			Maryland	10
     Oklahoma		 8			Minnesota	10
     South Carolina	 8			Iowa		 7
     Arizona		 8			Oregon		 7
     Mississippi	 7			Arkansas	 6
     Kansas		 6			West Virginia	 5
     Utah		 5			Hawaii		 4
     Nebraska		 5			Rhode Island	 4
     Maine		 4			D.C.		 3 
     New Hampshire	 4                      Total          211
     Idaho		 4
     Nevada		 4
     Alaska		 3
     Wyoming		 3
     Delaware	 	 3
     North Dakota	 3
     Total             208


     Toss-Up States

     Illinois		22
     Ohio		21
     Michigan		18
     Missouri		11
     Louisiana		 9
     Connecticut	 8
     Kentucky		 8
     Colorado		 8
     New Mexico		 5
     Montana	 	 3
     South Dakota	 3
     Vermont	 	 3
     Total	       119


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.222636.25840@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.114027.3020@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>
>>
>>  I'd like to add a little quote from _The Economist_ that I think
>>is particularly well-worded on this matter.
>>
>	[ Text of quote deleted ].
>	
>	I've often seen _The Economist_ quoted in this way, even in
>reference material. It makes _The Economist_ sound like a TV-show
>detective, like _The Enforcer_ or something. Does one person write
>everything in this magazine, or is it possible that _The Econimist_
>has many authors, that can sometimes contradict each other? 
>
>	I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but it would be nice to have
>the author's name along with the publication when being quoted.
>


  Your concerns are understandable, but clearly show that you do not
read _The Economist_.  They don't include the author's name.  This has
a lot to do with why they can be a reasonable objective magazine rather than
have particular pundits with particular viewpoints espousing their
rhetoric.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: clinton's bravery
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:29:40 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <714216322.1@iphase.FidoNet.Org>
Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender) writes:
> back from the National Guard, and talked about how great 'Nam was.  There's rel bravery for you.  And, to add insult to injury, Quayle consistently
Wow, this is a new one to me.  I never heard any quote from Quayle about Nam.
Care to provide a source or is this one of those urban myths?

I personally think the discussions about war (snicker) histories of either
Clinton or Quayle are relatively irrelevant to the issue that looms before
us: who is going to lead the country back to prosperity.  Killing Huns
can be left to later generations of brave "politically unviable" people.
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: On the Attention Span of Americans
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:37:46 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

First of all, I am an American.  I am proud of it as well.   But I am
dismayed by our limited attention span.  We behave like "the mob" or
a bunch of lemmings about to cascade off the cliff.  One bit of evidence
for this is that there is always a significant rise in the popularity of
the candidate whose convention just happened.  Clinton rose from the mud
to have a lead as much as 30 points over Bush after the Democratic
convention.  True, this effect was contaminated by Perot's departure,
but this same trend is found in previous elections.  Are Americans so
short on thought that media coverage sways their vote this much?

What is the attention span of the American mind?  Well, we had a war a while
back and Bush's popularity was around 90% favorable.  Keep in mind, we
already had that "no new taxes" thing disobeyed.  Only some time after the
war and after the fall of the USSR regime did Americans start to dislike Bush.
The same Democrats who waffled over the Kuwait war now were saying "Why
didn't Bush destroy Hussein?"  And the masses said "Yeah!  Why didn't he?"
Never mind the UN Resolution did not allow for this.  Who cares about facts
when the crowd is chanting.


And Clinton's rise in popularity the last month.  What exactly has he done
other than appear on TV every night?  He hasn't governed.  He hasn't done
anything other than campaign.  And his popularity grows 20 points.
Similarly, what had Bush done?  Not much.  Nothing out of the ordinary.
The press, by repeating the Democratic wailing over everything, made
the American mind think "Geez, George Bush is a failure."

Now this week, the Republican convention and Bush's popularity will undoubtedly
go up.  All of this makes me think that a party might get a bigger bang for
the buck if they had two mini-conventions, one about August and another
in late October, with some thinly disguised reason like "to celebrate the
success of our plan".  The carryover from that last mini-convention, if
done within the attention span of us Americans, would win the election for
their candidate.  But in the end, it might be preferable to have a
populace who followed and remembered events as they happened, rather than
as they are being portrayed by the slimiest of all creatures, the political
weasels who play you and me like the strings on an instrument.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:15:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.142231.29347@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert) writes:
 
>[drivel deleted]
>     [...if]
>warming melts 3% of the Greenland ice cap, enough fresh water will go into
>the Northern Atlantic to halt convection between cool surface water and warm
>deep water.  That water is the main heat source for Scandanavia, which would
>become uninhabitable.  When are we going to wake up and realize that we are
>heading, at great speed, towards environmental catastrophe.
>
>Jason
 
Similarly, if pigs had wings we'd all wear hats. The statement above is
only worth worrying about if you believe in the "global warming' scenario
which fewer  climatologists than political activists do.
 
In the 70s we were warned of the coming ice age owing to global cooling.
The record up until then seemed to indicate that was the case. Now other
data from land-based records are used to prove the opposite- it's warming
that's really happening. Which do we believe?
 
Neither, actually. The satellite data says that there has been no
significant warming. The ground-based data shows no correlation between
the eras of significant warming and the periods of greatest increase
in "greenhouse" gases.
 
If there were reliable data indicating a real warming effect we should
worry. In the absence of such data we are being asked to follow policies
that will increase suffering in this country. I am not yet convinced.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:27:11 GMT

In <6221@ucru2.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:


>How could you possibly know?  People who had TRUE moral objections to
>the war left the country, went to jail, led the anti-war movement.
>What they did right or wrong was to put their life on the line.
>People who were looking out for NUMBER 1 went to school.  At least
>Quayle went in if only halfass.  People lie to themselves.  They can
>say I don't believe in this, I object to this and as long as they do
>not have to prove it then you never know how true their belief is.

	OK, so if that's the real choice, I'd still pick the
	one looking "out for NUMBER 1" rather than a "halfass".


>I served in Vietnam in the 173ed Airbore Birgade as a combat medic.  I was
>with my brothers when they died, I held them in my arms, I know the color
>of their blood.  You can see their names on a wall of black granite in
>Wasington DC.

	And last night I heard our republican vanguard, former
	drug czar, now keeper of our childrens' minds, Bennett
	say that those friends of yours don't count - it's the
	leaders who sent them there who will be remembered in
	the history books. And as far as I can tell, it does
	indeed look like our generation has been successfully
	erased, just like 'they' always wanted. From Kent State
	to Mr. "shut up and sit down" we're gonna let them stay in
	power until every Vietnam vet is dead and gone and then,
	they'll pass the gauntlet on to the next generation who
	can't even remember that Vietnam is a country, thanks to
	their successful propaganda.

Bev
-- 
This here is my .signature file.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug18.041741.12549@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.041741.12549@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

   You're attaching an unduly negative meaning to "vigilante" here.  A
   vigilante is a private party that defends itself or others from
   crime, citizen or not.

Not by my definition.  Self-defense from a crime in progress is not an
attempt to enforce the law per se; it is defending ones life (and, in
some cases, property).  A vigilante is enforcing the law, in addition
to or as a replacement for enforcement by the state.  This may or may
not be justified, depending on the circumstances.

   The rioters weren't vigilantes, those defending themselves from
   them were, and good for them!

No.  Defenders were protecting their lives and property, not enforcing
the law.  Motiviation is important here, in this distinction.

   Statists would like you to think that vigilantes are Bad Things,
   but that's only so that they can retain their monopoly on force.

We may agree here.  There are circumstances where vigilantism is
necessary and justified; in the face of nonfeasance or malfeasance on
the part of the government.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:52:49 GMT

In article <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
>>2) you have an excellent set of records to be used to confiscate
>>   weapons when Bill Clinton declares himself "President For Life"
>>   and has the backing of his "National Police Force" (the Gestapo).
>>
>>Registration has time and again been used for confiscation. Why do
>
>References please. . .

New Jersey used lists of registered "assault weapons" to order people to
dispose of their rifles or have them confiscated.  I believe New York City
did the same thing, this year.  It's happened a number of times, in the
past decade.

>If the country has a firm economic footing and feeling of relative
>contentment and equality, there will be no need for revolution that
>requires guns.

I keep a gun for many reasons, not just because I think I'll need to
oust a tyrannical government.

>In my opinion, gun control as a tool to help or hinder a military
>takeover has little relevance.  Gun control also has little relevance
>on organized or 'semi-organized' crime.
>
>Where it might help (but couldn't hurt) is getting guns out of the hands
>of small time psychos, children, and abusive spouses.

Ha!  It could TOO hurt!  An abusive husband doesn't need a gun to kill
his wife; she, on the other hand, NEEDS a weapon to prevent him from
doing so.

More people are saved because they own guns than are murdered by guns.
The media just doesn't report that angle.

   don

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:42:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.154841.6185@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>In article <jc4m6tc.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>
>>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!
>>
>Then move to Wyoming! 

I ask, does the Crispinator really deserve to be damned to the 5th
Circle of Hell?


--
This is not a .signature
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: LATimes Poll
Date: 17 Aug 1992 05:51:39 GMT
Organization: Statistics R Us
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


Latest _Los Angeles Times_ national poll reported by CNN, 16 August 1992:
                       Bush   Clinton
 Choice for Prez:       33%     56%
 Better on Taxes:       34%     36%
 Better on Health Care: 16%     62%

(Margin of error supposedley +-3%)
-------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

The Dream Debate: Marilyn Quayle versus Tipper Gore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave)
Subject: GOP convention transcripts
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:27:37 GMT
Reply-To: stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA


For those of us poor souls that don't have access to prodigy,
could someone post any GOP convention transcripts that may be
available?

Thanks,
Joel Stave
stave@apollo.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Where's the Republican Platform?
Summary: I know it will depress me but I want a copy anyway...
Keywords: Republican Election Platform
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:43:02 GMT

So, like, I have a copy of the Democratic convention on disk (you can get
your own copy on info.umd.edu via anonymous ftp in the info/Government/
US/Campaign92/Democrat directory.)

I want a copy of the Republican platform too.  I really wanted one last
year when I interned at a local high school, teaching government.  Now I
can be prepared next time I have to teach high school government.  Nothing
like AUTHENTIC REAL documents compared to really boring, useless textbooks.
Ugh!

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: How evil are the Republicans?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:47:43 GMT

I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
any of these statements.  But what else is new.  

However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of another time. 
A leader who claimed that if you followed him without question, even if you
disliked a couple of things he stood for, he would improve the economy and
make his country powerful again.  He would make certain that those that did
not represent his definition of "good", and who he blamed for the country's
woes, would be kept carefully in check.  He talked of forcing religion,
albeit just his view of religion, back into the lives over every citizen,
especially the captive audience of unsuspecting children.  He had the
support of many of the fundamentalist Christian religions.  Who am I
talking about?  If you haven't figured it out by now, it's Hitler.  And
while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
are infinitely more frightening.  The Nazis even went so far as to attack a
group which Quayle has had no end of enjoyment in attacking:  the media and
entertainment "elite."  Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth on
abortion.  And his attitude towards the rights of gays and lesbians reeks
heavily of a fascist attempt to repress a minority; there is little
difference between Republican attacks on my sexuality than Hitler's attacks
on the "evil" of the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany.  He claims he represents the
'majority', but did that make the Nazis (who also represented the
'majority) _RIGHT_?  Fascism, unfortunately, is very seductive, and Bush
has seduced many of the moderates of the Republican party.  Let us hope
that the American people are not as easily seduced, for the world does not
need another demagogue with too much power.


   _______________________                             _________________
   \        \            /  Michael Lax                |    ACT UP!    |
    \        \          /  12514 Esplanade St., #B     |  FIGHT BACK!  |
     \        \        /  Austin, Texas 78727-4409     |  FIGHT AIDS!  |
      \      / \      /  U.S.A.                        =================
       \    /   \    /  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax) 
        \  /     \  /  email:  lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Please,  \/       \/    
do not    \       /   "If the opposite sex is *supposedly* so much fun, 
feed or    \     /     than why does everyone MASTURBATE?" 
tease the   \   /    
straight     \ /      "Never let the bastards get you down"  
people.       V                      (or is that GO DOWN?)  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Republicans bad for Economy?
Summary: Just the facts...
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:14:53 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University


	I wanted to compare GNP growth under different administrations, and
what I found surprised me and may surprise you.

	The following figures were taken from the Presidents Report on the
Economy, Feb. 1991, Appendix B-2.  The figures are based on real, inflation
adjusted GNP in constant 1982 dollars.  The chart starts with 1929, skips
to 1933, and then gives GNP figures up to 1990.

FDR/Truman  1933-1952         5.5% annual growth
Growth was negative in 1932, so including that year would slightly alter
the figure.  In any case, the figures fluctuated wildly due to WWII.  

Eisenhower 1952-1960          2.4% avg. annual growth
Kennedy/Johnson 1960-1968     4.5% avg. annual growth
Nixon/Ford  1968-1976         2.3% avg. annual growth
Carter    1976-1980           3.0% avg. annual growth
Reagan/Bush 1980-1990         2.7% avg. annual growth

If you just take the Reagan years, 
Reagan 1980-1988              2.9% avg. annual growth

The book does not have figures for 91 or 92 of course, but I know they
would not help the Reagan/Bush record.

	Two more comments:

	1) The 60s Kennedy/Johnson years also saw inflation and unemployment
steadily below 4%, and often as low as 1.5%
	2) Carter's first 3 years were 3.6% growth, but the election year
of 1980 was flat, and inflation and unemployment jumped that year.  Reagan
on the other hand had his best year in 1984, with 6.5% growth, and his next
best in Bush's election year of 1988 with 4.5% growth.  No other years were
above 4% growth.  This may explain the apparent contradiction between
popular belief about Carter's economy record and the figures above.

	I'm also going to go back and recalculate the rates based on a
1 or 2 year lag in an administrations policies taking effect.  This would
make Carter look worse (he'd gain the bad years of 1981, 1982) and Reagan
look better (just the opposite).  The other presidents would remain mostly
unchanged, and would not much help the overall Reagan/Bush combo.

	-JG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10604 alt.politics.clinton:1964 alt.politics.bush:1624 talk.politics.misc:39780