Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    A recent poll showed George Bush badly trailing Mike Dukakis among
    women voters. Why ?
    
    (As for me, I'm voting *against* Mike Dukakis and *against!*
    Ted Kennedy)

I perceive Bush as a conservative like Reagan.  Reagan has been actively
anti-women, I don't think we can take more of those policies.  I remember
being very upset in some Bush-Ferraro debates last time with what
Bush was saying, but I can't remember details.

Dukakis has been more liberal about women's rights here in Mass., but
I can't stand the way he's been increasing the tax load here.  The
"Mass. Miracle" is only in the eyes of the Dukakis supporters.

If I voted just on "women issues", I'd probably vote Dukakis.

Sorry for the lack of specifics though.  ...Karen

    re .2, I think I pretty much agree with what Karen has to say (as
    far as what she states here anyway) about Bush and Dukakis.  Just
    the opposite of Dana, in .1, I'll probably vote *against* Bush.
    
    I try to vote pro-abortion and anti-guns.  I think I personally
    may even have stronger feelings against guns than I do for women's
    rights.
    
    I think I prefer Jesse Jackson to either Dukakis or Bush.  I'll
    probably wind up voting for Dukakis thinking that at least he's
    not a republican.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I did not vote for Reagan. I will not vote for Bush. I may never
    vote Republican again, since it seems they have embraced a view
    of American society that I abhor for its cruelty, racism, sexism
    and irresponsibility.
     

Neither candidate is "exciting" in the way that people like Jackson, or 
Cuomo, or JFK are/were -- good orators, perhaps with something to say. In fact,
they're both touted as being boring. Well, maybe boring is what we need.
Reagan isn't boring because he's so calming to listen to, kind of like aural
valium. That hasn't gotten us very far.

Whatever the difference or similarity in excitement levels between Dukakis
and Bush, there *is* a clear difference between them. If nothing else, it's
a vote between continuing the Reagan years and not continuing them. If for
nothing else, that's a pretty clear decision to me.

					-- hs

    I think a lot of women remember the Bush-Ferraro debates and his
    whole tone in that situation, including the "kicking ass" remark.
    Policies aside, I just have the gut feeling that Bush despises women.
    Not that I think much of Dukakis.
    
    Still trying to figure out how to vote for Jesse....
    

I'd vote for Jesse, 'cause I think he'd get enough people mad to not accomplish
much.
I'd vote for Bush 'cuse he won't be able to do much against a democratic
congress.
I won't vote for any official of the accursed state of MA.

JMB

    
    I'm frankly worried about the fact that this country is governed
    by an Eastern Elite Liberal class emanating from the Boston and
    New York axis. They seem to think that all we Westerners are ready
    to stand up and salute whatever new Great Idea happens down the
    Mass Pike (which we call I-80 out here). Such great ideas inevitably
    come accompanied by huge tax bills. Where does Koppel go for an
    'expert'? The usual gang at Harvard, Wall St., etc. etc.. The media
    has a disgustingly predictable Eastern slant. The commercials all
    assume The Man of the House catches the train in Westchester in to 
    Manhattan, leaving behind the fashionable wife, kid, 2.3 dogs, white
    picket fence and the station wagon. 
    
    I'm for a separate country, split at the Missouri, for starters.
    Then we can work on a separate state for N. Cal.

    So far, from all I have seen, Dukakis strikes me as being the
    most real/honest...i.e. he is what he says he is. He has governed
    Mass as well or better as most governors since I moved here in 1962.
    Bush on the other hand was involved in the C.I.A. when they chose
    to use drug trafficers to finance and carry out covert activities.
    In many ways I hold Bush responsible for the bad decisions and narrow
    minded approach (don't bother about his background is he against
    x) attitudethat allowed an open pipleline for drugs into our society..
    *even if he didn't realize at the time that would happen*...it is
    a kind of expediencey that I will not tolerate. So for what ever
    weaknesses Michael Dukakis has..he has never condoned even implicitly
    hiring people known to be involved with drug running to carry out
    secret activities in SE Asia or S America.
    
    Bonnie
    

    
    re:.8
    I don't know. It seems to me the most reprehensible politician of
    my lifetime is a certain ex-governor of the great state of California;
    and perhaps the best politician was a certain Massachusetts chap
    who, while running for the Democratic nomination 20 years ago, was
    shot in the same great state of California.

    

    
    Reagan? Most reprehensible? Why? He gave us exacly what
    he promised, more or less... I would have guess Nixon...
    
    You see what an inferiority complex can do.
    
    As for RFK, we will never really find out. The fact that 
    he has been canonized does not really equate to being a
    great statesman.
    
    < the great state of California >
    I assume you were smiling when you said that...

    re: .8, .11
    
    The Mass Pike is I-90, not I-80.
    
    Did you mean to divide the country at the Missouri, or did you
    mean Mississippi?  Dividing it at the Missouri would leave a funny
    little sliver of eastern liberalism along the Montana-North Dakota
    high line. 
    
    I always thought Mr. Nixon was a Californian.  As is Gerry Brown. 
    
    --bonnie

    Bush...Had been sliding along on the tails of his boss for too long
    to be able to declare leadership ability. His previous ties to the
    legal US underworld make him a very suspicious character. He's got
    a look in his eyes as if he knows something that he doesn't want
    anybody else to know. Really don't know what he stands for since
    his campaign issues are identical to everybody elses.
    
    Dukaukas...Seems a very straight-forward type of individual. Appears
    to make his own decisions. I really like his prison reform policy-shows
    a deep compassion for humanity as a whole and a good feel for the
    economics of a large system. I think he would do wonders for the
    children and underpriveleged members of this country.
    
    Jackson... Look for him as a power in '92. Doesn't appear to have
    a good understanding of what it takes to make the big business of
    the US run. Needs a little more political experience (if he doesn't
    get the nod for VP, look for him to be a mayoral candidate in Chicago's
    special election in '89. The experience he gained during the recent
    campaign swing would make him unstoppable). HE would be the ultimate
    champion of the little person, but his ability to make this country
    "tick" needs work.
    
    My vote... Dukaukas/Glenn.

re .13

>	I really like his prison reform policy-shows
>	a deep compassion for humanity as a whole and a good feel for the
>	economics of a large system. 

	That wouldn't be the prison system that let convicted murderers
	out on furlough so they could kill again, would it?

	My fear of Dukakis is that as President of the US he would do
	for Canada what, as Governor of Massachusetts, he has done for 
	New Hampshire.

					Tom_K

    re .14
    
    Yes it would be the same prison system that allowed ONE man out
    to kill again. That is a small failure rate. Do your research instead
    of listening to the republican bias to the story. That type of rebuttal
    is the only criticism of a project that is very effective and actually
    does something to convert ex-cons to useful members of a needy society.
    How many states have similar programs? What is the failure rate
    of those programs? What is the success rate of the Mass. program?
    After asking yourself those questions, attempt a more personalized
    rebuttal.

    
    I must have mean the post road which leads to the Tahoe ski resorts
    (US 20).
    
    Well, a little sliver won't hurt, too much. Its good for a McGovern
    to come along every so often... and anyway thats really Populist
    grass roots liberalism (really liberalism?) such as what WJ Bryant
    typified... Do they still have the Grange out there?

The title of this note says "Women Voters: What are we Voting For?"  I think
that was well worded, and I wonder if we'll see any difference here in what
women (as opposed to men) think the issues are in the election.  It doesn't
assume that there are "women's issues" and "men's issues" in the election.
Some time ago, I met a woman who worked for the Women's Statewide Legislative
Network (on Beacon Hill [I think] in Boston).  They had organizational as well
as individual members.  (Information probably has their phone number.)  I don't
know if they got involved in non-Massachusetts politics or not.  [Is there
anything interesting happening in state elections this year?]  They were going
to have a conference to decide what they meant by "women's issues."  I didn't
hear the outcome, unfortunately.

Re: Note 43.8, "The media has a disgustingly predictable Eastern slant."
I haven't counted, but I think there are a lot more TV shows & movies made in
California than Boston/New York.  All those LA suburbs & Hollywood...  News, of
course, is different.  Maybe it's related to what Alan Kay (once at Xerox PARC;
now at Apple) said, "The east coast vs. the west coast is your basic tradeoff;
one has all the good book stores, the other has all the good weather."  I think
it's clear that you need good weather, not good book stores, to film most movies
and TV shows in, but someone sitting behind a desk reading the news is an
exception.  (Also, news is on the air early in the morning, when people on the
west coast are mostly still sleeping, and the day's usual stories about the
Middle East have just broken.)  Not to mention that our government, a major
news item, happens to be on the east coast.  So I think there may be an east
coast slant in the national TV news, and a west coast slant in everything else
in the media (which is *much* more).

As for the real topic at hand, I don't think that Bush has distanced himself
from the current administration's (which he's a part of!) policies (drugs,
contras, Iran, tax reform to aid the rich, anti-equality, etc.) -- I think
this hurts many women & men.  As former CIA director, I expect him to
(continue?) to sympathize with the CIA and not restrain it from trying to
circumvent legitimate checks and balances (the "secret team" strategy).

Dukakis sounds less harmful, albeit not great, either.  After a convention, a
friend took the unused food to the Pine Street Inn, and commented that anyone
who talks about the "Massacusetts Miracle" hasn't been to that part of Boston
lately.  I think Dukakis was avoiding controversial issues like needle exchange
programs to help stop the spread of AIDS.  And none of the candidates have said
anything about space exploration, as far as I know.  (It probably isn't an
issue of interest to many women *or* men in the country today, so taking a
stand will probably cost more votes than it will win.)

Finally, what ever happened to the *other* political parties?  Wasn't there an
American Communist Party (or something like that) once upon a time?

Well, there, I'm sure the NSA picked this up off of the net from some microwave
phone link, and I'll *never* get a security clearance now.  :-)

    I'm not entirely pleased with Dukakis, but all in all, he's a
    damn sight better than Bush. There's little I hate more than
    "lesser of two evils" elections. In all my voting years (since
    1972), there was only one Presidential candidate that I voted
    *for* (John Anderson) as opposed to voted against.
    
    Even if all other things were equal, I believe in voting for
    Dukakis because the current administration has gotten far too
    complacent and needs to be dumped on its ear.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .15 by Pobox::MBoutcher
    
    In 1986 alone, 610 furloughs were granted to inmates convicted of first
    degree murder. 
    
    There are presently 11 first degree murderers who went AWOL while
    on furlough. Who knows how many crimes they've committed? 
                                  
    He has commuted the sentences of 28 first degree murderers.
    
    Between 1983 and 1986 furloughs for rapists increased 47%!
    
    Is this an effective policy? I don't think the victims of these
    crimes would think so. 
    

re .15

	What do the prison reform programs of other states have to
	do with the discussion, we are talking about the Governor
	of Massachusetts here. And I'm more interested in the failure
	rate than the success rate. If the State of Massachusetts had
	capital punishment for murderers (which Governor Dukakis
	opposes!) the failure rate would be 0%.

						Tom_K

>< Note 43.20 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Non-offensive bland statement" >
>
>
>re .15
>
>	What do the prison reform programs of other states have to
>	do with the discussion, we are talking about the Governor
>	of Massachusetts here. And I'm more interested in the failure
>	rate than the success rate. If the State of Massachusetts had
>	capital punishment for murderers (which Governor Dukakis
>	opposes!) the failure rate would be 0%.
>
>						Tom_K

    And if  we  had  capital punishment for being born, the crime rate
    would be 0%. 

re .21

Being born isn't a crime. Murder is, and a pretty horrible one at that.

					Tom_K

    I thought  you  were trying to prevent crime. I offer a fool-proof
    technique.  If you want justice, you have to think abou the number
    of  people  who  are  convicted  unjustly.  You  may  also want to
    consider  the  fact  that the death penaltyis given to blacks much
    more often that to whites. There is no way to describe our present
    administration  of  the  death  penalty as just. I'm not convinced
    that  it  can ever be just, but I'm sure that this country is much
    too racist to ever apply the death penalty evenly.

--David

    re .23:
    
    > but I'm sure that this country is much too racist to ever apply the 
    > death penalty evenly.
      
    This may be true about the death penalty, and it may not, I do not
    wish to discuss that per se. I would however just like to point
    out that the US is pretty rare in terms of the breadth of its racial,
    ethnic, and cultural diversity, and while not perfect, I think we
    do a pretty good job at being so. I think that racism is such an
    easy epithet to throw at Americans because there are so many races
    here in close interaction. Most other countries are quite homogenous
    and if put to the test would probably be found to be much more racist
    than Americans. Japan comes immediately to mind. An immigrant to
    Japan, by law, is a second class citizen and cannot "become" Japanese.
                                                                   
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I've really been bouncing back and forth.  Problem is, this is an
    election where I have absolutely no confidence in either candidate.
    Making such an important choice under those conditions is scary
    at best.  I've been a dyed-in-the-wool Republican for many years,
    but that doesn't mean I vote a straight ticket by any means.
    
    Looking strictly at the candidates' stands on the issues, Bush would
    be "less worse" to me than Dukakis.  But I don't trust the man.
    Even a little bit.
    
    Well, to make a long story short, my decision was made recently -- and
    quite easily I might add.  I read about Mass. prison reform and that
    did it.  Well, when I stopped shaking my head in total disbelief, that
    is.  There's virtually nothing Bush can do now that I would consider
    bad enough to make me vote for Dukakis.  It's still the lesser of two
    evils; the difference is that now, in my mind, the evils are very far
    apart in magnitude, so the choice of the lesser has become easy. 
    
    					Pat_who'd_rather_vote_*for*_someone

How about voting for "None Of The Above" on a write in ticket?  That's my
favorite.  Failing that, who's the Libertarian this time around?  The last time
I liked anybody I voted for was Anderson.

JMB 

    I'm certainly not wild about Dukakis, but I couldn't vote for Bush
    under  any  circumstances.  Bush hasn't stated any positions since
    1980  (When  does he get his manhood out of the blind trust he put
    it  in?),  so  for  the most part I assume he will follow Reagan's
    policies,  which have been incredibly damaging. I don't know where
    he has done the most damage.

    The Environment:  By  leasing oil exploration sites without regard
    to  the  environmental consequences we are in danger of losing the
    most  productive  fishery  in  the  world (Georges Bank). By doing
    nothing about acid rain, we are losing much of our eastern forests
    and ponds. Selling off timber in the North West (at a loss in many
    cases,  as  the  government paid more to build the roads than they
    got  for  the lumber) has lost some of the few remaining stands of
    big redwoods.  

    Civil Rights:  The  only  president  since  Eisenhower to publicly
    oppose civil rights legislation. Also worked hard to undermine the
    freedom  of  information act. (Since Bush is ex-CIA I'm sure he'll
    be  even  worse  in  that  regard). Tried to make this a Christian
    country.  There  are  an awful lot of us who would rather practice
    our own religions, thanks all the same.

    Family Planning: Tried to attack any form of family planning other
    than abstinance.

    Foreign policy:  Did  he  have  one? Managed to keep the Nicarguan
    government  in power by giving them an enemy to rally around, then
    used  the  same  technique  to keep Noriega in Panama. Got a whole
    bunch  of  soldiers  killed in Lebanon to no purpose. And spent so
    much  time worrying about the soviets stealing our technology that
    we couldn't sell the one product we have (high-tech), so we are in
    danger of becoming a colony.

    Economy: Took  us  from  being  the largest creditor nation to the
    largest  debtor  nation. You can live very well by borrowing for a
    while,  but  someone will have to pay (probably the next president
    will  look  pretty  bad,  no matter who he is, as the debts of the
    Reagan  years  will  come  due.)  Wiped  out our compettiveness by
    diverting  most  of  our technological efforts to the military. We
    may  do  well against Russia that way, but we'll be a wholly owned
    subsidiary of Japan very soon.

    The Supreme  Court:  Appointed  a  bunch  of turkeys who can't see
    discrimination  if  it  hits them on the head, and who have either
    not read the bill of rights or have forgotten it.

    Reagan was  a  great  head  of state. He looked pretty, he sounded
    good. His policies have nothing to recommend them except that they
    are  so  simple-minded  that the average 8 year old can understand
    them.  (I  actually heard a woman give that as a reason for voting
    for him.)  Unfortunately the world is not that simple.

--David Wittenberg

RE: 42.5 '*REAL* voting on taxes'

I once proposed that we have a page on our income tax form where each individual
could designate where *thier* taxes were being spent, instead of leaving it up
to the mercy of politicians.  It's certainly a practicable method these days,
and it would be a *real* vote with some punch.  It would also be the ultimate in
"Representation by Taxation". 

JMB

RE: 42.7

What do you feel would be a vote for a change?  It seems like all the choices
are the same shade of grey....

JMB 

    I'm voting for the Duke.  I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush.
    Bush (in my opinion) is totally insensitive to the problems facing
    the women voters of this country.
    Mary

To make a real change, vote for good people in congress.  The president has
very limited powers to set policy on just about anything.  The congress always
has the last word.  The president is, in the final analysis, an administrator,
not a policy maker. 

Unfortunately, there are very few people in congress these days with any kind
of vision or responsibility.  (Look at the budget.) 

As for Reagan, I recommend the recent book by Gail Sheehy of character profiles
of the major candidates, plus Reagan.  The Duke comes out as reasonable (not
surprising considering Sheehy's own politics).

Bush is the ultimate yes-man, who hates controversy.  He will say *anything* to
be liked.  Reagan is a zero. He really is just an actor playing president.  He
makes no decisions at all, and has no friends besides Nancy.  Jackson comes
across as mostly ego.  Hart is very screwed up, and self-destructive.  It is
interesting looking at what events in these people's history made them the way
they are. 

"IEEE Spectrum", July, 1988, pp 22--24, "U.S. Presidential candidates respond
on technical issues", by Erin E. Murphy, Associate Editor.  The article briefly
gives their stances on competitiveness, defense spending, space, and energy.
And if you'd like to ask how they stand on other issues, at the end, it says,
"The candidates' campaign staffs can provide press releases on various issues:
 * George Bush for President, 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington,
   DC 20005; 202-842-1988.
 * Michael Dukakis for President, 105 Chauncy St., Boston, MA 02111;
   617-451-2480."
(Sorry if there are any typos there, although I did take the liberty of using
the post office abbreviations for the district/state.)

>< Note 43.33 by ANGORA::ZARLENGA "Souvlaki? It's Greek to me." >
>
>.23>    of  people  who  are  convicted  unjustly.  You  may  also want to
>.23>    consider  the  fact  that the death penalty is given to blacks much
>.23>    more often that to whites.
>    
>    	The Supreme Court has looked at this and believes it's a point-
>    less fact.  It seems the death penalty is applied fairly (ie without
>    a detectable racist bias) when you also consider that the majority
>    of crimes that call for the death penalty are committed by blacks.
>    

    This is  exactly what's wrong with the Reagan apointees. The court
    ruled  that  despite  the  obvious  overall  racial  bias (and the
    majority  decision  doesn't  claim  that  there  is no statistical
    pattern  of discrimination) that each defendant would have to show
    racial  motives  in  his case. This is an almost impossible burden
    (We don't discriminate. It just happens that there are extenuating
    circumstances  for  all  the whites and none of the blacks. Right.
    Anyone want to buy a bridge??)

    It is very hard to show racial motives in a particular case. Until
    the  Reagan  appointees,  it  was  enough  to show a statistically
    significant pattern.  That's a much more reasonable requirement.

    It is  not  true that the majority of capital crimes are committed
    by  blacks. That's at best ignorant, and more likely merely racist
    drivel.

--David

    
<    	The Supreme Court has looked at this and believes it's a point-
<    less fact.  It seems the death penalty is applied fairly (ie without
<    a detectable racist bias) when you also consider that the majority
<    of crimes that call for the death penalty are committed by blacks.
    
	First off, other than professional hit persons I don't think murders
	think about the death penalty. You are much more likely to be killed
	in a crime of passion (ie, family and friends) than in a store
	robbery. 

	2nd from a button I saw,

	"why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing
	people is wrong?"

	I'm voting for Dukakis, he may not be best but he is better. liesl

.35 "why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing
	people is wrong?"

We don't.  Primarily, we kill people to prevent their killing more people in
the future. If doing this dissuades other persons from committing similar
crimes, all the better, but that isn't why there is a death "penalty". 

    re: .-1
    
    MAis ca n'est pas parce que quelqu'un tue une personne un jour,
    meme deliberement, qu'il devient un tueur !!
    
    Nous sommes tous potentiellement capables de tuer, mais nous ne
    sommes pas tous des criminels !!
    
    
    Zoziau-contre-la-peine-de-mort

    Translation of .38 [Vanille, is this right?]
    
                                 -< !!! >-
    
    re: .-1 [.37]
    
    But it's not because someone kills a person one day, even deliberately,
    that he becomes a killer!! 
    
    We all have the potential to kill, but we aren't all criminals!!
    
    Zoziau-against-the-death-penalty

    According to an article in the Globe last week by Kathleen and Martin
    Feldstein, women have made more gains economically in the last 8
    years than ever before. They claim "that women have been less favored
    than men during the [economic expansion] is simply contrary to the
    facts. Other info from the article....
    
    During the Carter years the female unemployment rate averaged 1.5
    percentage points hogher than men. In 1987 the figures were equal.
    In 1988 the female unemployment rate had actually fallen below that
    of men.                               
    
    Among full time workers women's earnings have been rising 20% faster
    than men's in the 1980s. In contrast, there was no such narrowing
    of the gap in the 1970s.
    
    Other general facts....
    Unemployment is at it's lowest level in more than a decade, about
    5 1/2 percent. Inflation is at 4% compared to the double digit
    inflation of 1980.
    
    They close the article with this paragraph.
    "The irony is that Dukakis is trying to turn the favorable economic
    performance of the past seven years to his own advantage. Dukakis
    has stated repeatedly that jobs are what this campaign is all about.
    If that is true, the economic record makes it clear that Americans
    should be voting for Bush, not Dukakis."
    
    P.s. If anyone would like a copy of the full article, send me mail
    and I'll be glad to send you a copy.

    Unemployment figures:
    
    My understanding of these figures is that they don't represent the
    number of people out of work, but rather the number of people who
    are actively looking or whose unemployment benefits haven't run
    out. So if someone's out of work and they've given up looking for
    a new job, they're no longer counted in the figures.
    
    Also, the Reagan government has played lots of statistical games
    with the unemployment figures. One month a while back they changed
    the measurements so that people in the armed forces would be counted
    in the numbers of employed people. Lo and behold, the following
    month, the unemployment rate went down (because they were comparing
    about the same number of unemployed people with a larger number
    of employed people) and no one batted an eyelash.
    
    Liz

    re: .40
    
    Also consider that during the 70's we had I believe two major increases
    in oil prices, which had a great deal to effect on the inflation
    rate.  In the 80's we've seen the price of oil fall.
    
    During the Carter administration the national debt was reduced.
    This administration has boosted it to an all time high!

    
    	Would anyone who is sitting on the fence, or only slightly
    	in favor of Dukakis change their mind if Bush selected a 
    	woman as his Vice Presidential candidate?  Some of the names
    	I've heard thrown around:
    
    		Elisabeth Dole
    	 	Jeanne Kirkpatrick
    	 	Sandra Day O'Conner
    		Nancy Kassebaum
    
    
    	Sharon

    If he chose Dole or Kirkpatrick, I would seriously consider voting
    for Bush, depending on how far Dukakis backs off a liberal
    platform. 

    I'm not familiar with Kassebaum and I think O'Connor should
    stay on the Supreme Court.
    
    --bonnie    

    I, too would vote for him if he chose Kirkpatrick.
    
    Actually, anythings better that Dukaka.

    I wouldn't vote for Bush no matter who he ran with.  He had
    Noriega on the payroll on the payroll when he was running the 
    CIA and yet knew nothing about his major drug dealings.  He knew
    nothing about the Iran/weapons/drugs dealings.  In my opinion he
    is a part of the sleazy, elitist Regan administration and I don't
    want any part of him... no matter what kind of "gesture" he makes
    to bridge the "gender-gap".  He isn't sincere in caring about 
    woman and children.
    
    Mary
    

    	A very brief lesson on the economic reality of U.S. Federal
    Gov't interpetation and calculation of unemployment rates.
    
    	1.  There is no universal formula (the unemployment levels of
            most countries are calculated using a formula somewhat
            unique to the country being analyzed - unemployment in
            Japan, for example, is reported by the Japanese Gov't to
            be around 2%, calculating the unemployment in Japan
            using the formula used in the U.S. would place the figure
            above 5%)
    
    	2.  Open enrollment was forced through by LBJ's administration
            to reduce the unemployment statistics (a person who is
            enrolled in college is not unemployed even if she or he
            is looking for employment)
    
    	3.  Stating the unemployment statistics for an entire country
            does not begin to qualify the situation relative to
            unemployment.  Employment might be excellent in one
            region and terrible in another.  If the employment is
            high in areas with higher population levels then the
            unemployed in the less populated areas tend to be 
            lost, statistically.
    
    	4.  Statistics are simply numbers analyzed with a given set
            of biases (sp?).  For example, if unemployment was at
            1% but disposable income was declining would you draw
            comfort from the the unemployment level?  Or, if 
            unemployment was at 4.5% and there were insufficient
            people willing to take lower paying jobs then payscales
            would have to be increased to make the jobs more attractive
            causing increased inflation.  How much pleasure should we
            take from the reported unemployment level of 4.5% given
            the lack of buying power and competition the increased
            pay scales cause?
    
    	Editorial:  The Carter administration had less control over
    the economy than the Reagan administration.  Under the leadership
    of the former administration we had both high unemployment and very
    high inflation.  The 'sin' of the latter administration is to be
    seen in the Federal Debt.  But, the Reagan Administration isn't
    the sole cause of the problem.  Our manufactures chased profit while
    ignoring quality (some manufacturers) and the consumers sought out
    imports in a search for quality.  The Congress has been spending
    money far in excess of income.  (Remember, the Reagan Administration
    called for a decrease in income taxes but Congress put the decrease
    into law - Congress voted in favor of a tax decrease which we could
    not afford).  Congress is strongly controlled by the Democrat Party.
    Reagan is a Republican.  Reagan is strongly in favor of a reduced
    Federal Government.  The Congress is strongly in favor of as big
    a Federal Government as can be forced upon the shoulders of a sometimes
    too lax electorate.
    
    Douglas

    We've had democratic majorities for a long time.  Our country became
    the biggest debtor nation during the Regan administration.  The
    interest we pay on our national debt could well supply numerous
    social programs.  Its that kind of short term gratification and
    self-serving short-sightedness that I'm voting against this time.
    I'm voting for any democrat running.
    Mary

    I've decided to write in Betty Ford for president!!!  (^:
    
    Seriously, I've already decided to vote for Bush, but having Elizabeth
    Dole on the ticket would certainly make me feel better about it.
    Not good, but better...
    
    							Pat

    If Dukakis doesn't pick Jesse for veep (and especially if he picks
    Mayor Koch....ah...excuse me I meant whatsis name Gore), I might vote
    for Bush is he ran with Dole or O'Connor.  Although, I think O'Connor
    would be crazy to give up the Supreme Court.
    
    I still wish there were a "none of the above" choice on the ballot.
                                                               

there isn't a "none of the above" choice on the ballot, but you can vote for
other offices (or none) and submit your ballot with no one selected for
president. it's not recorded as "none of the above", but it is interpreted
as such.

I don't think that Bush's putting a woman on the ballot is a commitment to
feminist politics as I see them. If he does choose a woman, i'd view that as
his trying to close the "gender gap." I'd be happier to have a male VP who
shared my views on feminism (and other kinds of equality) than to have a
woman who might be only a token. If she was Bush's VP, i'd have to assume
that a woman was a token, because I can't see him being really committed to
women's issues. Of course, I can't see him as president at all, but that's
another story.

Justine's personal-name field made me think of something. Her message is
something like "Evelyn for governor". I'm assuming that she's pushing for
Duke to be elected so that our Lt Gov, Evenlyn Murphy, can become the
governor. From what i've heard about Duakakis, he hasn't given her much
opportunity to be involved in the running of Massachusetts. Anyone have any
info on that? if it's true, it's not much of a sign.

A comment on my own note (.53) -- it's one thing for the republicans to say,
"Yes, we're considering XYZ for the vice-presidency", but it's another thing
for that to be the truth. Talking about it makes them seem more open, more
liberal, more of a lot of things that aren't *nececesarily* so (such a
cynic). The only valid consideration here is who is finally chosen.

    -- hs

    I don't think not voting is seen as a nota -- you don't usually
    hear election results quoted that way.  A writein, or voting for
    a minor party candidate (which helps the party stay on the ballot,
    at least in Calif.) is an alternative.
    
    As for putting a woman on the ticket being a committment to feminist
    politics, I had more in mind two things:  the possibility that the
    President dies (or gets impeached) in office, and the leadin it
    gives her for the following elections.
    

    It's not entirely clear to me why a woman in the VP slot should be 
    viewed as a step forward: after all, he'd be naming a woman to the 
    least powerful, most uninfluential position in Washington. (So long 
    as he remains healthy, of course.)

    re:.45
    
    �Actually, anythings better that Dukaka.�
    
    Even disregarding the fact that I find myself backing Dukakis for
    the lack of someone better...
    
    (1) I personally feel that making denigrating jokes on people's
    names is rather juvenile. Perhaps I'm just sensitive because I'd
    been the victim of such throughout my school years.
    
    (2) Do you literally mean *any*thing? How about Lyndon LaRouche?
    
    re: the question at hand
    
    Well, I can't see myself voting for Bush no matter who he chose
    as his running mate. As I'm not particularly fond of the two
    women in that list that I know of (Kirkpatrick and O'Connor), I
    would especially not vote for him.
    
    --- jerry

    Well, aren't we a bit testy today,  hmmm?
    
    First:
    
    As far as the name game.... Don't tell me about that.....
    Hows "FARTIN MARTIN" for starters?  Or even (and this one still
    happens today by adults, accidental or otherwise) MARTIAN?
    
    
    Big deal, whats in a name?  I could see you making gaga over
    someone trashing YOUR name, but WOW!  Where do you live???  If
    you live in (here I go again) TAXachusetts then you can help yourself,
    have a ball. Praise the man up one side and down the other if youd
    like. The guys a first rate Jackass (personally that is)
                               
    A lastly, who are you to call ME a juvy?  You don't even KNOW me!
          
    (Sorry, I am gonna do it again)  La roach?  Get real huh?
    *****DISCLAIMER*****
    These PERSONAL opinions do reflect the opinions of this company
    or its successors......

    re:.59
    
    If you've been the butt of similar derogation, then I would think
    that you'd have more sensitivity than to do it to others.
    
    Secondly, if you, who I'm willing to believe doesn't know Dukakis
    personally, can call him a "jackass (personally that is)", then
    why am I being censured for implying that you're juvenile when
    I don't know you personally?
    
    I don't feel that I have to know you personally. If you engage in
    practices I consider juvenile, then that's all I need to know.
    
    Incidentally, I don't consider plays on people's names to be
    inherently juvenile, only when it's meant to belittle the person,
    to be cruel and mean-spirited.
    
    And yes, I live in Massachusetts. While it's certainly not even
    a reasonable facsimile of Nirvana, there are a lot worse places
    to live.
    
    --- jerry

    
	Granted that the Vice Presidency isn't exactly a dynamic job.
    	It is a "heart beat" away from the number one job, however.
    
    	Though I can't imagine voting Republican, I tend to think that
    	the first woman in the White House (Pres or VP) will be a 
    	Republican.  The white male establishment will be more likely
    	to accept (read - "put up with") a woman if she is a conservative.
    	Maggie Thatcher, for example.  All of the women I listed as
    	choices for George fit that bill.  

    	I guess that will be a step forward for women.  Not necessarily
    	the step I would like to see, but a step none the less.
    
    	(As an aside, my mother refused to vote for Mondale-Ferraro
    	 not because of the platform, but because Ferraro hadn't taken
    	 her husband's name.  This from a woman who surprised me by 
    	 helping me obtain signatures for the ERA at the local grocery
    	 store years ago . . .)
    
    	S
        

    RE: .54
    
    I too read that Dukakis hasn't included Evelyn Murphy in many
    of his high-level meetings.
    
    

    Speaking as a moderator I would like to request more light and
    less heat than in some of the current answers...if you just want
    to 'bash' and call names could you move your conversation to
    soapbox.
    
    Thankyou
    Bonnie

I for one wouldn't vote for a man who 
  
 1) At a time when the country was creating 400,000 manufacturing jobs, his 
    state lost 5.7% of it manufacturing jobs.

 2) In a state state that has had virtually no population growth, increased 
    his states budget by 65% and added 10,000 jobs to the state payroll.

 3) Goes around touting some sort of miracle when every economists who has 
    ever looked into his states performance comes to the conclusion that he 
    had nothing to do with it.


In short, it looks like I'm voting for Bush.


Stephen

    [moved by moderator] 
    
TFH::MARSHALL "hunting the snark"                    19 lines  13-JUL-1988 15:52
                             -< very conservative >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re 42.12:
    
    > I know he's considered a conservative, but I believe that's
    > primarily in the fiscal sense.  Does anyone know what his voting
    > record is on human rights issues?  Family issues?  Technology?
    > Trade and industry?  Science?  The arts?
      
    - for school prayer amendment
    - for balanced budget amendment
    - for B1 bomber
    - for MX missle
    - during Korean War, advocated use of nuclear weapons on "selected"
    	targets.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .64
    
    � I for one wouldn't vote for a man who
    	.
    	.
    	.
    
    � In short, it looks like I'm voting for Bush.
    
    It sounds to me more like you're voting against Dukakis.  I'd be
    interested in learning the reasons people have for voting for 
    Bush - along the lines of Justine's original question of what
    it is we're voting *for*.
    
    Steve
    

    if I recall correctly what I heard on the news last night, Bentson
    is for civil rights, against abortion, and that's about all I can
    remember because my brain was swiss cheese at the time (I've got
    to stop taking those afternoon naps, I lose all sense of everything
    when I wake up)...
    
    -Jody
    

RE: 42.11 NSG022::POIRIER

"forced prayer in school"

Now who is pushing that???  I've never heard of anyone advocating *forced*
prayer...  All I've ever heard of was being *allowed* to pray in school.

JMB

    Yes, of course I will.

    Among the various other positions of Bentsen's that have been
    mentioned, he is also in favor of US aid to the Contras, which
    gives him a black mark in my book.
    
    Still, though I disagree with many of his positions on the issues,
    I do approve of Dukakis choosing someone who has a different
    enough ideology from his own. It provides for a moderating
    influence. In general, I approve of the choice of Bentsen, even
    though I disagree with many (if not most) of his viewpoints.
    
    re:.68
    
    The problem is that any number of communities will read "Yes, it's
    OK for the children to pray in school" and think it says, "Za children
    *vill* pray in school!" There are also those (on both sides of the
    argument) who feel that praying in school implies a Christian approach.
    
    OK, so let's say an amendment is brought up that specifically deals
    with these questions, that spells out that prayer is not mandatory,
    that prayer will not be directed by the teacher, that each child
    may pray as he or she wishes and to whom he or she wishes, in short,
    that prayer is allowable, but not forced.
    
    What difference would it make?  The fact is that prayer is not
    banned in school anyway, only organized group prayer. Any child can
    pray at any time during the school day, as long as he does it silently
    to himself. I'm sure that a good percentage of students do it right
    before a test. :-)

    Re: .70
    
    It still doesn't address the problem of the implied ostracism of
    the children of athiests or agnostics.
    

    re: .71
    
    Wait a minute.  I thought I already said several notes back that
    implied ostracism (I didn't use those words) was a problem -- and,
    I should add, one I don't see a solution to. 
    
    But on the other hand, I don't think denying the existence of
    religion and religious beliefs [which appears to be the present
    trend, at least around here] solves the problem, either. Ignoring
    it doesn't teach you to respect another person's strong religious
    feelings.  The impression a lot of schools are giving isn't that
    all religions should be respected equally but that all religion is
    of questionable validity at best. 
         
    The original point wasn't that such an amendment should or
    shouldn't be passed, but rather that you can't use it as an
    instant diagnosis of a person's [i.e. Sen. Bentsen's] beliefs in
    other areas. 
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie, I've never heard of any school that taught that "all religion
    is of questionable validity at best".  I think the question is whether
    the amendment should be passed at all.
    Mary

    Two general points first:
    
    (1) There seem to be a few men who haven't observed that 42.*
    is flagged "FWO".
    
    (2) If this rathole about prayer in school continues, perhaps it
    should be given it's own note?
    
    re:.71
    
    Why doesn't it address the problem? If the prayer is personal and
    silent, then no one but the person praying will know what that
    person's religious preference (including "none of the above") is.
    
    Also, in most communities, there will undoubtedly be a number of
    students who won't pray (even if they do have some religious
    preference) because they either (a) don't believe that school is
    a place for religious observance, or (b) are just being contentious.
    How can these kids be differentiated from those who are atheist
    or agnostic?

>    (1) There seem to be a few men who haven't observed that 42.*
>    is flagged "FWO".

     Sorry, you are right, I hadn't noticed.  I've deleted the responses
     from where they did not belong.

     I suppose there are those who have to spell words out so we
     bigots/fools will get the point.  Actually, I belong to one of those
     religious minorities (only 2 members of my faith in my high school),
     and probably my children would be one of those who could be ostracized.
     Despite my presumed religious intolerance, I still believe group
     prayer to be a right that shouldn't be denied, rather than a privilege.
     (Should that be r-i-g-h-t and p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e ?)  I'm surprised that
     Yale, liberal as it was back under Kingman Brewster, admitted me.
    
>    (2) If this rathole about prayer in school continues, perhaps it
>    should be given it's own note?

     I'll drop the subject; it seems to be causing to much contention and
     hurt feelings for me to want to pursue it here.

     Back to read only mode ...

    I'm a not-very-political person, but thought I'd comment anyway(!).
    It's certainly true that a candidate's stand on one issue doesn't
    necessarily indicate the overall suitability of the candidate for the
    position, but I suspect that more often than not, people will make
    their decisions based on one or two issues which are key to them. It
    may be just the lazy way out; people are so confused by the campaign
    hype, or are so disgusted at the choices offered, that they jump at the
    first clear-cut question they can find. [Yes, I have made my decisions
    this way at times. "Gee, I don't know much about either of these
    people, but this one wants to ban role-playing games so I'll vote
    for the other."]
    
    When I'm feeling thoughtful, it occurs to me that I would rather know
    *why* a candidate has taken a particular stand, and what that candidate
    would do if the House and Senate disagreed with his or her views on
    that subject. For example, I wouldn't mind an anti-abortion candidate
    (as much) if s/he stated that it was their personal belief but
    indicated a willingness to abide by whatever decisions resulted from
    due process. And if that candidate also happened to be better at
    budgets or foreign relations, I think I'd find him or her a preferable
    choice than someone whose only attribute was being pro-choice.
    
    Likewise, a person's reasons for supporting "prayer in schools"
    (plus their definition of the term) would mean more to me than a
    simple "yes" or "no". Do they see a "yes" as indicative of supporting
    individual rights, or of "restoring this great nation to its Christian
    heritage"? Do they see "no" as maintaining separation of church
    and state, or as avoiding potential lawsuits from agnostic parents?
    [And, of course, would any of the candidates admit their true reasons
    to the public?]
    
    Sadly, the choices are seldom simple, and even after studying track
    records and analyzing personalities, we can't tell what someone
    will do once they're in office. Maybe we should just roll dice...
    
    At this point I have no idea who I'll vote for. I may just manage
    to forget the whole thing, and can then be guilty for the next four
    years - or vote, and then feel guilty for everything that goes wrong
    under Whoever's leadership!
    
    -b

    re .75 
    It isn't really whether group prayer is a right or a privilege.
    Its whether group prayer as a policy within school is a right or
    a privilege (or perhaps a more appropriate word).
    
    Do you also feel that all of us should be required to stand at our
    desks at work and engage in an officially conducted "group prayer"
    ceremony every morning?  NSA Buddists chant out loud.  Should they
    be forced to prayer in a different manner?  Should everyone pray
    out loud then?  Should Wiccans be allowed to conduct a ceremony
    in place of the morning prayer?   

re -.1

    I used to think you were quite reasonable in discussing subjects.
    After the last paragraph, I guess I no longer can't believe it at
    all.  I was quite expressive in 42.* before deleting those notes
    that I have no sympathy with forced prayer, and I suspect you must
    understand that.

>   Do you also feel that all of us should be required to stand at our
>   desks at work and engage in an officially conducted "group prayer"
>   ceremony every morning?  

    No, but I think if several people wanted to get together before
    work started and wanted to pray together, I think it would be good
    for business to give them a private place where they could do so.

>   NSA Buddists chant out loud.  Should they be forced to prayer in
>   a different manner?  

    No, let them pray out loud.

>   Should everyone pray out loud then?  

    That would be their own business.

>   Should Wiccans be allowed to conduct a ceremony in place of the
>   morning prayer?   

    I would have no problem with that.



    When I was in college, a few high school students wanted to walk to
    a house nearby where they could pray together before school started.
    The law said that when students got on the school bus, they were
    school responsibility, and the students were not allowed to leave the
    high school campus for a few minutes, BEFORE SCHOOL STARTED, in order
    to have a private, communal prayer.  Some people suggested these
    students be suspended for doing so.  While I wasn't too high on
    conservatism before then, I decided that the cause against school prayer
    infringed too much on individual rights.

    I suppose there is nothing you can say that would change my mind.
    I don't see anything wrong with giving a group of people a short period
    of time before school to have a prayer together.  I'm not saying it
    should be forced upon everyone, nor have I ever suggested it, despite
    what LDYBUG::PARE seems to be implying.  I'm not suggesting that anyone
    has the right to request to do so anywhere on campus that they chose.
    However, I think it very reasonable to be allowed to ahve a private room
    for a few minutes before school starts to have a group prayer.  I think
    that right should be recognized for any group that wishes it.

    There are some zealous right-wing nuts who would want to force Christianity
    on everyone.  This is not what I am for.  There are some zealous left-wing
    nuts who act as though anyone who can see value in allowing some form
    of school prayer is an evangelic tyrant.  These left-wing zealots are as
    much of an ass as the right-wing zealots, in my opinion.

    Well, I've flamed all I will.  Back into read only mode, permanently ...

    Anyone who thinks that kids don't pray in school should drop by
    during finals week!
    
    

    
    re: 42.45
    
    I am intrigued that the impression expressed here (that Dukakis
    would be more inclined than Bush to pander to popular taste, especially
    in regard to Supreme Court nominations) is the *exact opposite*
    of mine.

    I thought Ann Richards' keynote address at the Democratic convention
    last night was terrific.  What did others think?
    
    (BTW, I'm a Dukakis supporter.)
    

    Ann Richards in '92!

    re: .81
    
    I don't mean that Dukakis would pander to popular taste but rather
    that he would use almost anything as a bargaining chip to get
    something he wants.  If, for example, appointing a conservative
    supreme court justice would get him the votes for a piece of
    legislation he wanted, I think he'd make the appointment. 
    Or vice versa, give up important legislation in order to get
    a key appointment approved.  
    
    I don't know that he would be "more inclined than Bush" to operate
    this way.  I haven't been able to get any real feel for what Bush
    will do when he's on his own -- my guess, and only a guess, is
    that he'd pander to the Republican party powers-that-be rather
    than "popular taste."
    
    --bonnie

Re:  Note 43.78       

>    I used to think you were quite reasonable in discussing subjects.
>    After the last paragraph, I guess I no longer can't believe it at
>    all.  I was quite expressive in 42.* before deleting those notes
>    that I have no sympathy with forced prayer, and I suspect you must
>    understand that.

Sorry, I haven't read what was deleted from 42.* (and I didn't understand 
that).

The issue isn't strickly about college or even high school children.  Its 
about elementary school children too.  They are the most impressionable, 
the most vulnerable, the most easily intimidated.  

What we allow the state to do to the least of us ('least' in terms of power 
and control) sets a precedent for the treatment of all of us and for the
standard of government control over the individual.  
An official government policy that states that group prayer be conducted 
in the schools is an attempt by the government to foster religion in 
children whoes parents, tradition, and culture may or may not be amenable 
to the concept of 'prayer' as a form of worship.  

Those families who wish their children to pray may conduct a family prayer 
session in the morning before school, without forcing the issue on other 
children.  It isn't an issue of just their children praying, its that
everyone's children will be effected, regardless of their religious background
and beliefs.

I suspect that the school you are describing didn't allow the students
to leave the school grounds because the school is responsible for the 
physical well-being of all students from the time they step on school
grounds.  The school probably wanted to avoid a potential law suit (in case
of a sudden accident or injury) rather than prevent the students from joining 
in group prayer.
     
Leaving this rathole behind,... I rather think that Bush already panders
to special interest groups.  Noriega was on the CIA payroll when Bush
was Director of the CIA remember?  The money for the Iran scam supposedly
came through drug/Noriega connections.  
    
   Mary         

    re: 42.40
    
    Good points, Justine, and I'd add one other - appointments to
    the bench in the federal court system.  Several years ago
    someone made the comment that even if he were not re-elected
    (in '84), Ronald Reagan, by being able to appoint so many
    federal judges, had already ensured that his influence would 
    be felt well into the next century.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  and thanx, J, for the gentle tap on the shoulder. . .

	Given that Jesse has decided that party unity is the best way
	for him to have an effect this election what do you think of
	him as a possible secretary of HEW? That seems an ideal place
	in the hopefully democratic administration to come. I'd also
	hope that Dukakis will appoint more women to roles of importance.

	Just as a side note, my biggest worry is that when women are finally
	in places of power that they will turn out to be just like the men.
	It seems that certain TYPES of person go for both political office
	and corporate offices and I fear we'll just see female verisons of
	the same power hungry bottom line types. liesl

    Some people have said they'll vote for Bush because they're angry at
    Dukakis for not picking Jackson.  I really don't understand! If you
    support Jackson (and his policies), how can you possibly support Bush
    and his--since they're opposite on every issue?  If you're to the left
    of Dukakis,  why vote for someone so far to the right? Very confusing
    to me. 
    
    Nina

    ....and you'd lose
    
    :-)
    
    --DE
    

    Of course, .91 refers to .89
    
    Argh.
    

    re: .91, .89 
    
    We're all, men and women alike, human, with good points and bad
    points and generosity and understanding and caring and greed and
    power-hunger and ambition unequally mixed.  There are going to be
    a lot of greedy power-hungry women attracted to politics the same
    as there are greedy power-hungry men attracted to politics. 
    
    But that won't mean that every woman in politics is greedy and
    power-hungry any more than it means every man in politics is
    greedy and power-hungry. 
    
    --bonnie

    re: .90
    
    � If you're to the left of Dukakis,  why vote for someone so far to 
    � the right? Very confusing to me. 
    
    As you said, ". . .they'll vote for Bush because they're angry. . ."
    
    It appears that some folks won't be using the logical side of their
    brains when they go to the polls. . .
    
    Steve
    

    Something to think about...
    
    Doesn't it make you wonder about the societies people live in when
    they elect politicians to be their leaders?
    
    ;-)
    Barb

    ....makes me wonder more when they elect *actors* to be their
    leaders...
    
    --DE
    

Some people will vote for Dukakis because he is of Greek heritage.  One
woman from a tobacco-growing state told Dukakis that she was going to vote
for him becase Kitty smoked.  Recent studies show a noticable percentage
of people of voting age have no idea where the Persian Gulf is located.

Rationality play a part in chosing the president?  Nah.

We get the government we deserve.

    re .99:
    
    > One woman from a tobacco-growing state told Dukakis that she was going 
    > to vote for him becase Kitty smoked.
      
    While I usually abhor hearsay, I must enter this one. I remember
    reading a article in the Globe (Boston, that is) where there was
    a brief mention of Kitty's smoking. I swear that I remember reading
    that Dukakis said that if he was elected President that Kitty would
    quit smoking. And it's not like he said, "She's promised to quit
    if I'm elected", he said something to the effect of, "If I'm elected,
    there would not be a smoking first-lady in the White House".
    
    Can anyone verify this for me?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: .100
    
    Yes, I heard Dukakis say in his acceptance speech something similar
    to what you quote last.  The way I heard it, I inferred that Kitty
    would quit if he was elected.  I can't imagine any other plausible
    reading of that statement.  (That Kitty would live elsewhere is
    unthinkable...)  This will probably enrage the tobacco lobby, but
    it delights me.
    
    				Steve

    re:.101 re:.100
    
    They probably would like to keep it as the White House, rather than
    making it the Yellow-Brown House.
    
    --- jerry

    re .101:
    
    What I was trying to subtly point out was the phrasing. The second
    implies that he would make her quit smoking, rather than she promising
    to quit of her own will.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .103
    
    I heard the same thing, and had a problem with the phrasing as well.
    

    This MUST be discussed if it's true, but I haven't been following
    the voting notes and I can't spot it by title. I beg your indulgence,
    and will offer up a fatted MicroVAX to the notes goddess as penance.
    
    I've heard that there's an alternative ticket with both presidential
    and vp candidates being of the female persuasion. Can someone confirm,
    and offer some more info (or pointer to previous notes)?
    
    Thanks,
    Chuck

    Here is some news coverage of the Republican platform statement.
    I've reserved my comments for a later reply.
    
    	Sharon
    
    

    From the Saturday, August 13, 1988, Boston Globe:

    [reprinted without permission]

    New Orleans - With an apt oxymoron, Gov. John Sununu of New Hampshire 
    said that drafting the 1988 Republican platform was like "walking a
    broad tightrope."

    The journey ended yesterday, when the platform committee completed
    work on a statement of principles to guide the party through the 
    fall campaign. 

    Republican strategists said their detailed document will shame the
    Democrats for adopting a short, vague platform.

    But in the end, the length of the GOP platform accomplished the same
    purpose as the Democratic brevity: It fuzzed the party's ideological 
    edges.

    As Vice President George Bush's representative on the platform 
    committee, Sununu helped choreograph the high-wire act.

    It was a tricky stunt: toeing the line on the conservative dogma of 
    the Reagan revolution, while still trying to address the wider
    concerns of this year's voters.

    Instead of rewriting the platform, and opening old wounds on 
    sensitive issues like abortion or the equal rights amendment, the
    vice president's lieutenants accepted the conservative "tightrope",
    the platform drafted by the party in Dallas in 1984.

    Then they "broadened" the tightrope by adding planks on issues 
    such as South Africa, AIDS, education and day care, crafted to 
    reflect Bush's more moderate positions and to appeal to women,
    conservative Democrats and independents in the fall.

    Bush's lieutenants stood with the right wing against amendments 
    that would liberalize the platform's antiabortion planks or 
    promote the ERA, but opposed their more conservative colleagues
    to defeat suggestions that the party take a hard-line stance on 
    AIDS or defend South Africa.

    At roughly 30,000 words, the Republican platform, to be presented
    to the full convention Tuesday, was both specific and
    encompassing.  Committee leaders said they were confident no
    platform fights will be taken to the convention floor.

    "We rejected both extremes," Sununu said.

    Yet, as much as the Democratic platform is rooted in liberalism,
    the Republicans, despite nods toward the center, kept their 
    feet firmly grounded on the right on the major issues:


      o Defense.  The GOP platform calls for the "rapid and certain
    	deployment" of the Strategic Defense Initiative to provide
    	protection, if not immediately against a Soviet onslaught, 
    	then at least from an accidental launch or attack by a 
    	"rogue nation" with a limited nuclear force.

    	The GOP supported military spending at current levels to 
    	pay for modernization of strategic forces, and military aid
    	to the Nicaraguan rebels, or contras.

    	Hailing Israel's role as an ally, the platform firmly rejected
    	the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

      o Abortion.  The committee endorsed a constitutional amendment
    	barring abortions, and opposed federal funding for them.  It
    	defeated attempts by the Republican moderates to support Medicaid
    	funding of abortions in cases of rape or incest.

      o Taxes.  The Republicans vowed no to raise taxes, and promised 
    	to cut the capital-gains tax and to preserve the mortgage
    	interest deduction, while proposing to slice the federal deficit
    	a "flexible freeze" on spending.

      o Education.  The GOP urged schools to adopt "abstinence education"
    	to protect children from AIDS, drugs and teen-age pregnancy, 
    	but went on record against public school programs that provide
    	information on birth control or abortion.

    	The Republicans endorsed voluntary school prayer, voucher 
    	systems to spur alternatives to public schools, and tuition
    	tax credits for private schools.

      o South Africa.  The delegates declined to endorse economic
    	sanctions against South Africa.  They did describe apartheid 
    	as "morally repugnant," and defeated a right-wing amendment 
    	that defended the regime.

    
      On several issues, the GOP broke moderate ground:

      o Day care.  In a major addition to the platform, the 
    	Republicans backed Bush's "toddler tax credit" to help 
    	low-income working parents pay for their children's day care.

      o AIDS.  Given President Reagan's failure so far to act on the
    	recommendations of the presidential commission on AIDS, the
    	committee declined to endorse the commission's 
    	antidiscrimination measures to protect those who carry the
    	virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

    	But the GOP said that those who suffer from the disease
    	"deserve our compassion and help," and urged "expedited review
    	of drugs" to fight the virus.

    	The platform encourages society to respect the confidentiality
    	of AIDS tests and the choice of those who carry the AIDS virus
    	to stay at work or in school.  The committee defeated the
    	attempts of some conservatives to dilute this language.

      o Health care.  The platform committee approved a plank, 
    	offered by moderate delegates, that recognizes the need for
    	government to help children stricken with catastrophic illness.

      o Environment.  The GOP now pledges to fight to protect 
    	endangered species, to oppose ocean dumping, and to address 
    	complex global environmental problems, such as the destruction
    	of tropical rainforests and the loss of the protective ozone
    	layer.

    
    
.106> New Orleans - With an apt oxymoron, Gov. John Sununu of New Hampshire 
.106> said that drafting the 1988 Republican platform was like "walking a
.106> **broad** tightrope."
      -------------------
     
                                                               
      I was happy to hear that there was at least Some mention of
    women in the "Republican Platform;"  or is That Too an oxymoron??
                                                            ;^}
                                                              
    Let's Draft **Betty Dole for VP!!**
    

    Is a woman who left a Cabinet post in order to support her *husband's*
    bid for the presidency the right model here? (To be fair, that made
    a good excuse, as I recall some other nastiness was about to hit the
    fan in Transportation at the time. Still...)
    
    Why would Libby Dole be a better choice than, say, Jean Kirkpatrick?

	Tina Totenburg (sp) of NPR said it best;

	"the republican delegates are mostly white, mostly middle aged
	and mostly male... they are broken into conservative and more
	conservative"

	No one ever used the party platform after the convention so don't
	count on any crumbs they have thrown to women and minorities in
	this document to mean anything. liesl

    Right on, Marge! (.111)  I first decided that Mrs. Dole would be
    a great Vice Presidential candidate at my graduation exercises at
    D.W. College in 1986 (O.K. - Better late than never!)  Her presence
    and knowledge (she was Sec. of Transportation at the time, delivering
    the keynote speech to an audience that included a number of future
    pilots and air traffic controllers) were exceptional.  She was not
    Senator Dole's wife - she was one of the most capable politicians
    I have had the pleasure of seeing.
    
    I decided that she would be a great VP candidate because I know
    the male-dominated culture of the US of A is still not ready to
    elect a woman to thePresidensity (as Walt Kelly put it!).  The next
    thing you know, they'll have blacks, Hispanics, ....  Oh, God! 
    What will become of us??  ;^}
    
    Now let's see if the good Mr. Bush has the b*lls to select the one
    running-mate who can bring some dignity, as well as Capability!,
    to the office.
    
    Jack

    
    	So, Bush has chosen Dan Quayle of Indiana, in what is being
    	said to be an attempt to close the gender and age gap.
    
    	I am insulted!  I can't judge directly Bush's reasoning in 
    	the selection, but I can react to the analysis that Quayle
    	was chosen for his youth and good looks (read that -- women
    	will vote for the Bush-Quayle ticket because of Quayle's
    	looks).  Obviously, women can't see beyond the surface of 
    	the candidates and will vote for someone because he is
    	cute!?!  
    
    	I guess I though that we had come farther than that. 
    
    	Sigh . . .
    
    	Sharon
    	

    re .113
    		We have come farther than that, Bush hasn't.
    
    Dondi

    re .113:
    
    > We have come farther than that, Bush hasn't.
      
    Did Bush say that he thinks Quayle's looks will get the women's vote?
    Did anyone close to Bush say that was a factor in choosing Quayle?
    Or was it merely media speculation?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

    RE: .114
    
    That was GREAT, Dondi!  It had me laughing till I was crying!
    
    Or was I really crying all along??
                   
    Jack

    
    	Notice in .113 that I said that I can't judge Bush's 
    	reasoning for selecting Quayle (tho I can certainly
    	speculate, based on other Bush qualities).
    
    	I was reacting to the media analysis of the selection,
    	not the selection itself.  My problems with Quayle 
    	have nothing to do with his looks -- he is to the
    	right of Reagan on his views, and I am not fond of
    	Reagan's stance on many issues.
    
    	There are many unknowns about Quayle -- time will tell,
    	although I would guess the Bush camp has scrutinized
    	his background thoroughly.  
    

    	Sharon    	

    re. 113
    
    Well, this morning on WBOS radio, the newscaster announced that
    Bush had chosen Quayle as a running mate "because of his good looks
    that appeal to the women voters".  I hadn't realized that I was
    supposed to vote on looks.  I always thought I should look at the
    issues.  Silly me.

    	From what I've heard so far, Dan Quayle is a well
        educated 2 term senator. He spent 18x more than 
        his Dem. foes to get elected. He's the heir to
        the Huntington Press fortune and he's already
        got $600,000,000.00 of his own from trusts. He's
        a lawyer.
    
    	His views are very conservative. 
    
    	Quote heard this AM : "They beat the 'BUSH' for a QUAYLE"
    
    Ken

    WELL, Gurrrrls, I say if we're voting on the basis of *looks*,
    let's get Quayle in a Speedo and make him parade down a runway...
    
    I mean, let's get a *GOOD* look so we know what we're voting for!
    
    [Do I *really* need a smiley face here? Well, now maybe I don't
    want one, now that I thnk about it....]
    
    --DE
    

    I have to disagree with whichever media analysts punted this one
    forth.  A few back, someone pointed out that Quayle was to the right
    of Reagan.  Republican political traditions have usually had a
    "middle-of-the-road" and a "very-conservative" camp.  In 1980, the
    conservative wing candidate Reagan beat out the middle-of-the-road
    camp Bush.
    
    point being that the far-right wing of the party isn't ALL that
    comfortable with George.  I think Quayle is intended to bring *them*
    in, not the women.  The Republicans are trying to do this campaign
    with issues, not image- the media pundits called this one wrong.
    
    DougO

    The radio station I listen to here in colorado, said that Quayle
    is so very conservative that women issues are at risk. He is of
    anti-abortion and women in the home mentality.  don't know if the
    dj was expressing what his impressions were or whats "known".
    
    anyone heard any of the above???
    
    vivian

       re the Quayle trust fund: his parents were interviewed on
       breakfast time TV this morning and said that there is a trust
       fund, but that it isn't much money (whatever that means). I dare
       say that the facts will come out in a few days, but for now we
       seem to be running in rumor mode.

       Pat Schroeder (who for the sake of readers not intimately
       following the US political circus, is a Democrat and as such can
       be expected to make critical remarks about a Republican
       candidate) commented on his money, but a network commentator said
       (on what grounds I don't know) that Quayle has "far less" money
       than Teddy Kennedy...

       As for Quayle's looks: this seems to be a hangover from one of
       the times he was running for senator when he was siad to look
       like Robert Redford (and Redford sent him a telegram asking him
       to stop saying it). At least one of the political commentators
       said that Bush did not say that he picked him for his looks, or
       because he would help him with women voters. Since network
       commentators tend to lean towards the left I would have thought
       they would have picked up on such putative remarks much more
       solidly had there been any proof they were made.

       Schroeder also commented that Quayle "used his influence" to
       avoid serving in Vietnam. He was in the National Guard... I have
       no evidence of why he wasn't drafted, but I suspect there is an
       outside chance that his number simply didn't come up in the
       lottery. If this is so, then at least he did serve in some
       capacity rather than using his money to run away to Canada or
       Europe to live out the war in the luxury his money could have
       bought him.

       /. Ian .\

    RE: .124
    
    He voted against the ..er..(right title?) Voting RIghts ACt
    
    He's anti-ERA and anti-choice.
    
    If I heard correctly, he also seems to be in the camp which favors
    more serious "restrictions" for dealing with AIDS patients and/or
    potential AIDS patients.
    
    The fact the Bush is considered "moderate" is scary. And *this*
    guy is way to the right of Bush.
    
    --DE
    

    	BTW,
    
    	Did anyone pick up George Bush's comment to Reagan as they were
    walking near a group of children playing? "The brown ones are mine".
    Refering to his grandchildren, who's mother is of Spanish extraction.
    
    Since we're beating Bush and Quashing Quayle........
    
    Why don't you ask these men what their views on women's rights,
    abortion, etc are. The previous note said it best, that we're
    digressing to rumor status. That is unfair. I believe that when
    we write, "it's been said that Quayle...." or "Quayle appears to
    be...." we should state our sources and the author or whether it's
    our opinion.
    
    Ken

    Last night on channel 7, sometime around 11:20, they had one
    of Bush's sons comment on the Quayle choice.  Among other
    things (gaffes) he said was (and I'm paraphrasing as closely
    as I can remember), that in response to the "gender� gap"
    issue, Quayle is a "really handsome guy" and as such would
    do a lot to close said same gap.  But that wasn't all (cackle,
    cackle).  Young Bush found enough room in his mouth for the
    other foot and went on to imply that the midwestern housewives
    would be particularly enamoured of Quayle.
    
    Are we having fun yet?
    
    Steve
    

       �But that wasn't all (cackle, cackle). Young Bush found enough
       �room in his mouth for the other foot and went on to imply that
       �the midwestern housewives would be particularly enamoured of
       �Quayle.
       
  Is  that  such  an  enormous gaffe? My understanding is that Quayle is from 
  Indiana.  Given  my  limited  understanding  of  US geography I would place 
  Indiana in the "mid west". Several commentators last night and this morning 
  commented   that  in  both  his  elections  for  the  Senate,  despite  his 
  anti-abortion, generally conservative position "he appeared to do well with 
  women  voters".  If  this  is  true  for  Indiana, it is perhaps not so far 
  fetched that he would do equally well throughout the mid-West.

  Of course the choice of the word "housewife" will raise a few hackles.

  As  a  slight  aside,  I attend a local (Nashua, NH) Lutheran Church of the 
  Wisconsin  synod.  From  what I gather from others at the church, Wisconsin 
  (not  a million miles from Indiana) might well have a significant number of 
  voters  who  *would* subscribe to the pro-life position and who would *not* 
  be  unduly  upset  at  describing  an  archetypical  woman  as a housewife. 
  Assuming  my  interpolations about Wisconsin are true, is this also true of 
  the mid-West?
           
                                  /. Ian .\

    My mother *is* an Indiana housewife* -- when I call her up later
    this week, remind me to ask her what his constituents think of Sen.
    Quayle.                             
    
    * She lives in Terre Haute; about 70 miles west of Indianapolis
    along interstate 70.

    re: .128
    
    Apologies for not being clearer.  What I consider the gaffe to
    be is the implication that the midwestern housewives would
    vote for Quayle because he's such "a handsome guy".
    
    Steve (I may go with Pat Paulson (sp) again. . .)
    

    re:.125
    
    According to the question/answer session this afternoon, Quayle
    enlisted in the National Guard at the same time that his (younger)
    brother enlisted in the Marines. This was in 1969, when he got
    out of undergrad school. The lottery didn't begin until 1971, so
    that wasn't a factor. It could well be that Quayle joined the
    Guard to keep from getting his "Greetings", but that would be
    difficult to prove and probably not worth the effort (just the
    speculation will do him some damage).
    
    --- jerry

    
    Imagine that, enlisting in order to duck the draft. What a scumbag,
    using his "pull" like that.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

                     
    Wouldn't be the first time some priveleged rich kid avoided
    mixing with the unwashed masses in some dangerous and/or
    lonely outpost...
    
    These ang's went home after their boot, to do their weekends
    and summers. Their poorer cousins spilled most of the blood
    after they went on to greater glory in the main event.
    
    Its wrong in my estimation to equate ang service with the real 
    thing...
                     
    This really isn't the place for this, but I just had to say 
    something.

someone sent this to me, from yesterday's SF Chronicle, front page: 
 
What They Said About Quayle:
 
"I was supporting Jack Kemp, but he sort of looks like Jack Kemp."
				-- Phyllis Schlafly

    

       Re Quayle's service: admittedly being in the NG reduced his risk 
       of  active  duty, but some Indiana NG units did go to Vietnam... 
       He  has  said  that his reason for choosing this form of service 
       was simply that he wanted to attend graduate law school and this 
       allowed him to do so whilst still serving his country.

       I'll  be  interested to see what the Vietnam vets say about this 
       in the VETERANS note file.

       I  have  my  own opinions but I don't see them as relevant since 
       I'm not a US citizen so shan't be voting in November.

       /. Ian .\

       PS: Though I am a British army vet, not an American vet, I *did* 
       see  active  duty in Vietnam, my tour of duty in Saigon included 
       the period of the Tet Offensiv...

    re .130
    I finally got hold of my "Indiana housewife" mother last night,
    after trying for several evenings in a row to reach her, so among
    other things I asked her what his constituents think of Sen. Quayle.
    She did not mention what he looks like (*I* don't think he is
    particularly good-looking myself, but then I don't think Robert
    Redford is good looking either; I like men with curly hair, as far
    as that goes).  She says she does not care much for him, but prefers
    him to his predecessor in that senate seat (Birch Bayh! Ugh...).
    She thinks she may vote for Bush anyhow because he "seems intelligent",
    and asked me what us Massachusetts residents think of Gov. Dukakis.
    I told her that I would vote for him but that I think that our economy
    here is more a result of Ken Olsen than any politician.  We did
    not discuss poilitics for long; neither of us has much patience
    for the subject anyhow!