HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Threatened Suit Against Bush/Quayle Campaign
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:34:12 GMT


In article <crb2.718983740@Ra.MsState.Edu>, 
crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) said:

> > I heard on CNN tonight that Time/Warner has threatened to file
> > suit against the Bush/Quayle campaign unless they pull their
> > latest TV ad which features the Time magazine with the cover
> > saying "Do voters really trust Bill Clinton ?"  [Greg Lyon]
>
> This is the same Time/Warner that thought so much of the freedom to
> say 'anything' that they watched their own stock plummet while
> listening to Ice-T's Cop Killer on their label.  I think it's odd
> that this champion of free speech would not want ANYTHING to
> air....maybe we could get Ginnifer's photo-spread in the next ad???

I think that Time-Warner's stand is based on business and property
grounds.  That cover -- photograph, headline and design -- belongs to
them, after all: "(c) 1992 Time Inc.  All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is
prohibited.  TIME and the Red Border Design are protected through
trademark registration in the United States, and in the foreign
countries where TIME magazine circulates."

If the Bush campaign didn't get that permission to use it, they may be
pirating it (I say "may" because there may be n opening for the Bush
people under the "Fair Use" exemption in the U.S. copyright laws, and
there are probably other potentially viable defenses as well... I
_don't_ want to get deeply into the legal issues here, though), in
which case it's just good business practice (you might even say that
it's "prudent" :-) for Time-Warner to protect their property rights,
just as they would if they caught someone pirating that Ice-T album.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: That protest on foreign soil thang
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:27:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: what.. me.. organized?



Bush says, 

"It's wrong to protest [and organize protests] against one's 
 govt on foreign soil."


So all those International Chinese students who protested in the
USA against their govt's murders at TianAnMen Square were wrong
to do that? They should have kept quiet? 


_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
From: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:55:59 GMT
Reply-To: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)


sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>As soon as I am satisfied that
>no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
>I'll pay attention.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Look, the problem is education, not religion. The fact of the matter is
that a lot of religious schools do a very good job of education. Can't you
put your hatred of religion aside in the interest of quality education? 
Preoccupation with these kind of issues are one of the reasons that the US
educational system is in bad shape.

Ted Pawlicki
pawlicki@kodak.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:56:08 GMT

In article <1bapvhINNebl@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>1) Perot won hands down.  He will be rewarded in the polls.

Yes, but I think it's irrelevant to the outcome.  He's getting undecided
votes now.  But many of those people, historically, will change their
mind on Election Day because they don't want to "waste their vote."  

>2) The commission was right, this is a lousy format.  Not a single
>good question was asked (puffballs all) and as soon as the candidates
>began to address the issue, the minute was up and it was on to the
>next disjoint question.  This was perfect for Perot.  Serves Bush right.

Not only that, but Clinton couldn't rebut Bush and Bush couldn't rebut
Perot.  It was stupid to rotate that strictly so that they never had the
chance to challenge each other.

>3) If Clinton uses the word "change" or Bush says "tax and spend"
>one more time they should lose half their remaining time.

How about public floggings?

But Perot gets one too if he says "Talk is cheap.  We need to sit down 
and do it" one more time -- all he DOES is talk.

>4) Perot completely defuses Bush's attacks on Clinton.

You noticed that too, huh?
First of all, Bush comes off looking unpresidential if he attacks
Clinton while both Clinton & Perot are talking about issues.

Plus, since Perot agrees (at least superficially) with Clinton on the
problems, if not the solutions, it came out as two against one.

Bush looked really silly saying there weren't any problems, attacking
Clinton for saying there are, when HRP is up there talking about all the
things that need to be done.

Bush couldn't harp *too* much on specific taxes since HRP was the big
taxer up there, not Clinton, and HRP did such a good job of defending
the need for taxes.

Bush looked really silly talking about his experience when HRP pointed
out what that experience has gotten us.

Bush looked really silly talking about the protests in England when
Perot snidely comments on the fact that Bush has character problems from
the last few years, not twenty years ago.

Bush *needs* to attack to win, but he can't attack without looking
petulant and childish as long as Perot is there.  

[Of course, it might be different with a single moderator -- we'll see.]
-- 
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: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "Debate"
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:37:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T

atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>     "If the Libertarian candidate, Andre Marrou (AHN'-dray mah-ROO'), had
>been invited, the American people would have heard specific proposals for
>real change to improve this country, proposals that they haven't had a
>chance to hear" Ms. Gingell said.

I think Americans have had enough of Marrou's proposals. On Larry King,
he stated that civil rights laws such as those requiring restaurants to
serve people regardless of race are "wrong." The sound you hear is
20 million TV clickers changing over to Headline News.

Another good one: Marrou said the Libertarian were running "neck and neck" 
at 6% support in the polls. Which poll, Larry King asked? Why the "Compuserve"
poll!

Yet another: the reason he is being blocked out of debates is prejudice
against women candidates (referring to LP VP candidate Nancy Lord).

--
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Ross TV
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:21:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.213553.13947@u.washington.edu> sieferme@u.washington.edu writes:
>Just heard on the radio that Ross Perot is changing the
>direction of this TV campaign.  Instead of airing the next
>two installments of his TV show, he is re-running the
>show that was on two nights ago.  This is in response
>to (he says) public demand.
>
> [format description deleted]
>
>Now, we are apparently not going to see the final
>two episodes.  Makes you say "hmmm ...".

I hope this is not true.  Personally, I thought it somewhat
ill-advised to seperate the broadcast of the problem
descriptions and his proposed solutions by three whole days,
given the attention span of many Americans regarding politics.

What I would really like to see is for him to broadcast his
three programs on consecutive nights.  This would, in my
opinion, maximize the impact.  I have no idea whatsoever
how feasible this is given network television scheduling.

>Isn't it looking like this guy is just making this up
>as he goes along?  Does he have any idea what he is doing?
>It is easy to see why so many HRP supporters are getting
>very frustrated.

Well, to be fair, Perot is new at this political game.  He
does not have hundreds of party apparatchiks (sp?) to 
choreograph his every move.

I am a bit frustrated, I admit, but only in the sense that
it may adversely affect his chances of winning.  I have
read "United We Stand", so I know more-or-less where he
stands on solutions.  This opportunity is available to
all literate Americans, should they deem the future of
their country worth the $5 and couple of hours they'd 
have to spend on it.

Dave
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:16:21 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                      
 OCTOBER 11, 1992




                   Statement of SEN. AL GORE
        On the first debate among the presidential candidates

 George Bush finished fourth -- behind Bill Clinton, who was the clear
 winner, in expressing a plan for economic recovery, behind Ross Perot
 in an understanding of why the economy is in trouble, and even behind
 Jim Lehrer, the debate's moderator, in an ability to present a plan
 for America's future.

 If anyone doubted it before, they can't any longer: it's time for
 change and it's time for George Bush and Dan Quayle to go. America
 needs the leadership, ideas, energy, and courage Bill Clinton offered
 during tonight's debate and offers America in this election.

 With the attention of the nation focused on him, George Bush failed
 to provide the American people with a single reason to re- elect him
 or a single idea to get our economy moving again and create jobs.
 George Bush offered more of the same: the same stale, tired policies
 that have brought us recession and cost us jobs.

 George Bush kept the American people waiting for nothing. Anyone who
 hoped this debate would give them a reason to vote for Bush and
 Quayle is going to sleep tonight planning to vote for Bill Clinton
 and Al Gore. And, for good reason. Bill Clinton reached out to the
 American people with a plan for change and economic recovery, with a
 reason for hope and a genuine commitment to putting people first.


                                ###


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,alt.fan.dave_barry,alt.fan.howard-stern,alt.fan.monty-python,talk.politics.guns
From: jbh@anat.UMSMED.EDU (James B. Hutchins)
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Summary: Gone, but not forgotten; astrocytomas I have known 
Organization: Dept. of Anatomy, Univ. of Mississippi Medical Center
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:14:55 GMT


In article <60.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>For example, witness this testy exchange
>between reporters and designated Republican attack-bitch, Mary Matalin:

[more stuff deleted]

Does this remind anyone else of Lee (Willie Horton) Atwater?  Does Matalin
play blues guitar?

Jim

-- 
Jim Hutchins                    []     E-Mail: jbh@anat.umsmed.edu
Dept of Anatomy                 []
Univ Mississippi Med Ctr        []
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:57:25 GMT

In article <1bai6fINN7li@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello) writes:
# 
# 3.  Clinton was especially effective at countering Bush's attack on his
# patriotism.  He reminded voters of Joe McCarthy, and that Sen. Prescott
# Bush, George's father, fought against McCarthyism.

I think this was a lot less effective for the unconverted than for Clinton
backers.  First, he didn't challenge the facts at all, however false they
may be.  Second, I hardly think Clinton is about to get blacklisted or
expelled from the country.  Remember that he is running for public office;
attention to character is quite relvant.
I thought that this was a great time to just come out and say "I made a
mistake."  Goerge was practically daring him to.  Instead, he makes
accusations in return at Bush.  Both of them seem to be making the same
mistakes they were before the debate.

# 4.  Bush did not score a "knockout punch" against Clinton.  He didn't even
# faze him.  Looks like this is a wrap, boys and girls...

This is the part where they circle around for position.  The last debates
(esp. the one-on-one-on-one one) are where they go for the big strike.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:34:32 GMT

Bill_Steinmetz@NeXT.COM (Bill Steinmetz) writes:

>In article <blah blah> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>> I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
>> than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course 
>> of the last 8 weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.
>
>From this post and others like it, the following message is conveyed:
>Gee, everyone else is voting for Clinton so I may as well do so too - I am  
>voting for a winner.  This thought pattern is well demonstrated in sports.   
>Everyone supports the local professional team if it is winning, but only a  
>handful of people support the local professional team if it is losing.
>
>When will people have their own opinions?

On the other hand, the following message could be conveyed as well:
"Gee, everyone is voting for Clinton, so I guess my vote doesn't mean
 much.  I'm not going to bother to vote."

This attitude, held on a large scale, can spell doom for a candidate.
Witness the Dewey loss to Truman in '48.  Dewey had such a large lead 
over Truman in the polls that he wasn't an aggressive campaigner, and his 
supporters took false comfort in that apparent lead.  It became known only
in the early morning hours the day after the election that Truman had pulled 
off the nearly impossible and posted an amazing come-from-behind victory 
over Dewey.

Draw your own conclusions about how that situation might be repeated today.

			      V  O  T  E  !

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: mike_p@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael John Petterson)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:58:48 GMT



Please keep this garbage out of this newsgroup.  This is for the discussion
of hurting heads, not for those cretins who think they know what's going on
in America ("Boy, the American public must be grateful for this sort of
technology in their supermarkets"-Bush recently, paraphrased)

I'm putting you in my kill file.


Michael J. Petterson     | Just say "not" to "Perot" 
mike_p@cheshire.oxy.edu  | (force the rhyme either way you please)
Los Angeles, CA          | (a fool and his money are soon elected)
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:51:51 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct14.161054.3386@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.135531.1182@umr.edu>, jeff@don't.want.email writes:
>>
>>If you look at the beliefs of Dan Quayle and his corresponding actions,  
>>you will find that he is a mirror of Abe Lincoln in modern times.
>
>Dan Quayle and Abe Lincoln in the same sentence.  Pardon me while I retch.

My reaction was closer to, "If I had a nickel for everytime a GOP
zealot makes an idiotic statement, I could run a better campaign than
Perot."


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16948 talk.politics.misc:51944
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:47:53 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1bisf2INN90e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
>votes than George Bush.  Namely:
>
>	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
>
>This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.

In NO WAY should this be construed as a "Let's Not Vote" message.
Complacency and overconfidence kills.  Dukakis took NY for granted in
'88, and lost 10 points over the course of election day.  Being
smarter, the Clinton-Gore campaign (in NY at least) is working on a
Get Out The Vote blitz in the last two weeks.  We're not leaving the
field to the Shrub and Shrubettes.  If you want to participate, call
the HQ (i think the main phone # is 1-800-FOR-BILL; NY office is at
641 Lexington Avenue, at 54th Street.  1-212-888-1992.)


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17393 alt.politics.clinton:11068
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Date: 16 Oct 1992 20:27:52 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

All the anti-Florio posters talking about taxes in NJ forget to mention
what happened when the lame duck Democratic legislature considered a
bill to REPEAL all those taxes, so the incoming Repubs would have to
find some of their own (or make drastic cuts).

Funny thing happened. When their bluff was called, all those Republicans
came out AGAINST repeal. They wanted the money raised by the Demos to
play with, but not the blame for the taxes.

It's the same way with GHWB and the 1990 budget compromise which he now
welshes on. You don't hear him say what spending cuts he would make if
he had it over, do you?

The Republicans are the party of the Free Lunch. That party's over....

andy
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:03:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) says:

>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.

 What are your criteria? Al Gore looked oily and pedantic, but I imagine
his goal was to look dignified and high-road. Quayle's goal, I'm sure,
was to look aggressive and in control. He was certainly more effective
than his advance billing, but I don't think giggling and yipping is
sufficient to give him the title.
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Subject: political cartoon
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:09:37 GMT

    There was a funny political cartoon reprinted in Sunday's New 
York Times -- my copy was somewhat damaged, the cartoonist was
(something) Rall (and I can't tell what the original source was), 
first panel reading "The Republicans needed a break".  Does someone
with a good copy want to post it?  Or at least let me know who this
cartoonist is, and where s/he publishes?


-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: af610@yfn.ysu.edu (Ben Hanson)
Subject: DATELINE: Washington
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:09:27 GMT


 Former-President-to-be George Herbert Walker Bush today announced
that the economy was basically ok and that he would immediately
accept the resginations of those responsible for making it so.
-- 
Ben Hansen
af610@yfn.ysu.edu
From: archon@world.std.com (Timothy P Szczesuil)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Political Stock Market
Summary: Looking for Political Stock Market
Keywords: presidential,stock,market
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:08:08 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Anarchy

On National Public Radio this morning I heard an interview
with someone connected with the Political Stock Market.
Apparently, it's a non-profit scheme to vote with your
pocketbook.  If you think Clinton's going to win you buy
shares of Clinton, etc.  Anyway, it's supposed to be 
accessable via the internet.  If anyone has practical
information, about how it works, how to get more info,
please respond.  Thanks in advance.

-- 
			--Tim Szczesuil
	alias			(pronounced SEZ-u-il)
Dr. Archon, physicker, alchemist, inventor, excentric
archon@world.std.com       :       uunet!world!archon
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:31:03 GMT

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
>that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
>Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
>But the sight of the President of the United States
>sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
>too sad.

Pathetic, yes, but there has to be an explanation somewhere, right? After
watching the excellent piece tonight on MacNeil/Lehrer tonight about the
unraveling Iraqgate coverup and scandal, I think there is a simple explanation:
a desperate attempt to divert attention away from *current crimes* going on to 
*anything* else. Even if the attacks on Clinton are ludicrous, they have 
dominated the news today. Whether they can do so for more than a day is in 
serious question, but the Baker campaign is desperate.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won NOT!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:01:54 GMT

In article <Bw4BxJ.1Fr@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <1bh9lbINNf29@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>>
>>The point of the debate is as Sen. Gore said at the start
>>"to assume the office of the president of The United States in the case
>>of the presidents death"
>>
>>Who could we "trust" to fill this roll from the three ?
>>
>>Simple:
>>Sen. Albert Gore 
>
>Um, I disagree entirely.
>
>

One would like a, uh, more substansive answer.

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15668 alt.politics.bush:8220 alt.politics.clinton:9116 alt.politics.perot:1917