Conference back40::soapbox

Another Klintoonite with a big-stick attitude in foreign policy.
Nothing special. Next.

m&m

    a great fantasy candidate, unlikely to be an effective president,
    however.

    
   | Another Klintoonite with a big-stick attitude in foreign policy.
   | Nothing special. Next.
    
    Considering the merits of his military record, calling him a 
    Clinton clone seems silly.  If Russia turns facist, who would
    you rather have at the helm, Billy or Colin?9

    Powell is another Eisenhower.  Popular military leader with no
    significant indication whatever that he will make a good prez.

    
    I agree, Dick.  To take away from his military contribution would be
    ludicrous.  I don't know enough about the man to make an informed
    decision with regards to his run for the Presidency.  I will hold
    judgement until I get more info.
    
    Mike

RE: .3

>    Considering the merits of his military record, calling him a 
>    Clinton clone seems silly.  If Russia turns facist, who would
>    you rather have at the helm, Billy or Colin?9

His political leanings are pro-government-liberal. His military record
isn't the issue, his political view points are. Or are you expecting
to be at war after the next election ?

m&m

    .6
    Grant also comes to mind.

    
    the three biggest issues facing the country are:
    
    - race
    - defining a post cold war strategy
    - balancing the budget 
    
    my *guess* is that powell would do very well on the first
    two issues.  this judgement is entirely based on my reading
    of his character, not on anything i have heard from him.
    i don't know where he stands on the budget.
    
    

>    i don't know where he stands on the budget.

I don't either. That's why he'd do well to leave that matter in
the capable hands of the Republican Congress.

    
    Who's this Powell guy?  Some kinda ball player or sumptin'?
    
    :-)
    

    
    Yeah, he goes by Boog.

    .....capable hands of the Reupublican Congres. 
    
    I agree.  Just as capable as any other group to totally flush the 
    country down the tubes. 

Colin Powell is not a sissy.

    .14
    Matter of opinion and not based on fact! :')

    People who think Colin Powell is another Eisenhower are sadly
    misinformed about Ike. They might look at Stephen Ambrose's excellent
    biography of the man from Abilene.
    
    
    Powell is a vaporous candidate, having his 15 minutes of fame.
    
    The Szep cartoon from last week said it all.

>> Another Klintoonite with a big-stick attitude in foreign policy.
    
    I thought I'd heard that he was opposed to our current
    involvement in Bosnia.  Aside from the obvious Gulf War,
    has he given any other indications that he's a big
    interventionist?  If he is, that would be enough to make
    me look elsewhere.
    
    Otherwise, he looks like a Democrat, who (like Bill Weld) is
    latching himself onto the Republican party simply because
    the lines are shorter.
    
    Chris

Bill Weld is a Democrat?

    "If you're not as right-wing as I am, you're a Democrat!"

    What a tiny little world you live in.
    \john

    
    | Otherwise, he looks like a Democrat, who (like Bill Weld) is
    
    typical right wing-nut nonsense.
    
    

    BOB PALMER FOR PRESIDENT! Oh, wait, he already is...
    
    

RE: .19

>    "If you're not as right-wing as I am, you're a Democrat!"

>    What a tiny little world you live in.
>    \john

I'm not as right wing as you think, but then you're probably a liberal-loon
with world-vision perspective so you probably miss me all together.

m&m

I want Newtie to run.

    >> "If you're not as right-wing as I am, you're a Democrat!"
    >> 
    >> What a tiny little world you live in.
    
    Aside from the fact that I didn't say that (and I'm more of a
    libertarian than a right-wing Republican; I wasn't a big fan
    of either Reagan, Bush, or Quayle), it's not inaccurate to say
    that someone like Bill Weld has not exactly adhered to the
    overall philosophies of the party to which he claims allegiance.
    I'm certainly not the only person to have made that observation.
    I don't see the connection with that observation and a "tiny
    little world".
    
    Besides, that works both ways; "conservative Democrats" are
    frequently criticized by liberals for not being "true to their
    party" or similar claims.
    
    How does a politician decide which party they'll belong to?
    Obviously many make the wrong choice, since so many are switching
    parties lately.  Some make the wrong choice intentionally because
    of timely opportunities and local circumstances, like Bill Weld,
    who most Massachusetts residents would most likely agree does not
    behave in a "typically Republican" manner.
    
    Chris

    Be careful what you wish for. You may see just that in another 4-8
    years, and will likely be less sanguine...

Taking stands: Powell backs abortion rights, gun control, death penalty


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

Excerpts from Powell interview to be broadcast Friday 
Powell starts book tour with campaign in background 
Dole says Powell would be 'worthy opponent' 
Gingrich won't run for White House if Powell does 

WASHINGTON (Sep 12, 1995 - 00:36 EDT) -- Gen. Colin L.
Powell favors abortion rights, affirmative action and gun
control. He opposes organized prayer in schools and objects to
the Clinton administration's lack of consistency in foreign
policy.

He still does not know whether he wants to run for president
and, if he does, whether he should do so as a Republican, an
independent or even as a Democrat.

Those are the among the disclosures that Powell makes to
Barbara Walters in an interview scheduled to be broadcast
Friday night on the ABC News program "20/20." Highlights
from the interview were made public by ABC News on
Monday.

Trying to piece together Powell's political profile has in recent
weeks become the Washington version of connect-the-dots,
and for that purpose the highlights from Ms. Walters'
interview provide only a few genuinely new dots.

On the abortion issue, for example, the general has in the past
expressed support for the right of a woman to choose; in the
interview, he described himself as "pro-choice" and called
abortion a matter between a woman, "her doctors, her family
and her conscience and her God."

In speeches around the country he has said he supports some
forms of affirmative action; in the interview he called himself a
beneficiary of affirmative action in the Army "because the
Army said, 'We're all going to be equal, and if anybody needs
a little bit more help to be equal, we're going to give him that
help.' "

Lucy Kraus, a spokeswoman for "20/20," said there was so
much "important information" in the interview that ABC News
had decided to disclose portions early. But the network
appeared to have speeded up its schedule to pre-empt other
news organizations that might have gleaned the same material
from their own interviews.

Powell, who retired in 1993 as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, is planning a series of interviews with various news
organizations this week in anticipation of the release of his
autobiography, "My American Journey," published by Random
House.

The publicity campaign planned for the book has been
orchestrated with such intensity that it makes a presidential
race seem almost low-key by comparison.

As with a political race, however, unforeseen events seem to
keep intruding on the publicity plans; for instance, although
Time had purchased the exclusive rights to the book for the
issue of the magazine that appeared Monday, Newsweek got
hold of the book and printed highlights last week.

On the issue of gun control, Powell told Ms. Walters that
although he owns a gun and believes in the right to bear arms,
he supports laws that require gun registration or a waiting
period to insure that gun owners are responsible citizens.

On prayer in school, the general said that he had "no problem"
with a quiet moment at the start of the school day but that he
would "be against any sort of stricture that says you will come
in and you will pray."

Powell, who writes in his autobiography that he turned down
offers from President Clinton to become secretary of State,
said in the interview that he was "not a fan of the manner in
which foreign policy issues are hammered out in this
administration." There is, he continued, "too much tactical
judging from day to day and week to week."

In his book, the general argues that "the time may be at hand
for a third party to emerge" to represent the "sensible center of
the American political spectrum."

Speaking with Ms. Walters, he said that it would be easier to
run for president as a Republican. At the same time, he
declined to rule out challenging Clinton for the Democratic
nomination, saying, "Why should I rule out anything?"



    
> I'm not as right wing as you think, but then you're probably a liberal-loon
> with world-vision perspective so you probably miss me all together.
    
    No, John Harney is NOT a LIBERAL-LOON!
    

    You make it sound like those things are mutually exclusive.

White House sees lots of common ground between views of Powell and Clinton


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Sep 12, 1995 - 23:18 EDT) -- Retired Gen.
Colin Powell's views on abortion and gun control are akin to
President Clinton's and "starkly different" from those of the
GOP presidential hopefuls, a White House spokesman said
Tuesday.

"There is some common-ground thinking there" between
Clinton and Powell, said presidential spokesman Mike
McCurry, citing the retired general's comments in an ABC
interview and trying to poke fun at Republicans.

While applauding Powell's comments on domestic matters,
McCurry bristled at his criticism of Clinton's handling of
foreign policy.

"The policy process for making foreign policy in this
administration is considerably advanced from the time that
Gen. Powell last checked in on it," McCurry said. "The world
has turned and time (and) things have moved on."

Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the early
part of the Clinton administration. He has kept the political
establishment guessing about whether he will enter the
presidential race. He won't even say whether he might run as a
Republican, independent or Democrat.

In the interview, Powell said he supports abortion rights, sees a
benefit in affirmative action and does not object to some gun
controls or to a moment of silent prayer in schools, as long as it
is not mandatory.

"I wonder how easy it would be for him to advance those types
of ideas within a Republican presidential primary process,"
McCurry said. He suggested that Powell represents a breed of
"liberal Republicanism" in the vein of Jacob Javits of New
York, Clifford Case of New Jersey and Charles McC. Mathias
Jr. of Maryland.

"I didn't think that (wing of the GOP) was alive and well but
maybe it is," McCurry said.

McCurry said Americans still need to hear detailed comments
by Powell on tax and budget policy and other issues. "So, I
can't make any judgment about whether he is an echo of
President Clinton at this point," the White House spokesman
said.

But on matters where Powell has spoken, his views "seem to
me starkly different than those that I've heard so far by
Republican presidential candidates," McCurry said.

Powell presented his views as part of his stated effort to reveal
more of himself during his upcoming book tour, to get reaction
and help judge whether he should try for the White House.



>> Gen. Colin L.
>> Powell favors abortion rights, affirmative action and gun
>> control. He opposes organized prayer in schools and objects to
>> the Clinton administration's lack of consistency in foreign
>> policy.
>> 
>> He still does not know whether he wants to run for president
>> and, if he does, whether he should do so as a Republican, an
>> independent or even as a Democrat.
>> 
>>     .
>>     .
>>     .
>>
>> Speaking with Ms. Walters, he said that it would be easier to
>> run for president as a Republican. At the same time, he
>> declined to rule out challenging Clinton for the Democratic
>> nomination, saying, "Why should I rule out anything?"


There, see?  This was my whole point.  Despite his well-developed
positions, he still doesn't know whether he's a Democrat, a Republican,
or neither.  And he said that it was "easier", *easier*!, to run for
President as a Republican.

So, like many other politicians (or wannabes), he's deciding his party
not on the basis of finding the best match between his political
philosophies and the long-established philosophies of the existing
parties (what else, after all, is the purpose of a political party?),
but instead on the basis of which one it would be "easier" to win from.

That's the view from my tiny little world.

Chris

    
    re:.29

    Gee, it sounds like Al should start worrying about job security...
    :-)

    Has a President ever changed running mates between his 1st and 2nd
    administration and won? (excluding of course the death of the previous
    V.P.)

.25

>Be careful what you wish for.

I'm always very careful.  I want Newtie to run now, in '96.
I want to see him put his booty on the line.  I don't think
he will, though.  

>>    Has a President ever changed running mates between his 1st and 2nd
>>    administration and won? (excluding of course the death of the previous
>>    V.P.)

    FDR did it all the time.  For some reason, more recently it's
    become a political faux pas, as if you'd made the wrong choice
    the first time, or the guy was a screw-up somehow.
    
    As an independent voter, I'd strongly support Powell if he ran
    against Clinton in the Democratic primaries.  It's pretty unlikely
    that I'd vote for him in November (I'm still checking out Harry
    Browne).
    
    Chris

Newtie's booty
Root toot tooty

 Heavy duty

    >I'm still checking out Harry Browne
    
    I've heard this name from a couple of differant forums. Is there any
    good info?
    

RE: .38

>    I've heard this name from a couple of differant forums. Is there any
>    good info?
    
He's on the web at 

http://www.rahul.net/browne/

    He might make someone a good veep. At least better than the previous 
    and current ones... 

    
    For gun control! Well, gak then!
    
    I'll have nothing further to do with him.
    
    -b

    
    OH MY GOD !

    I AGREE WITH BRIAN MARKEY!

    "...Dogs and cats living together...."  "Total hysteria!"
   
    

    :-)

    re: .42
    
    You have been given the special privilege of being correct
    about something.
    
    Don't get used to it though, history shows it will only
    last a moment.
    
    -b

re: Newt

I think Newt has enough good sense to realize that he is more valuable to
this country as Speaker of the House, and that he has made more of a positive
contribution to the country in that role over the past eight months than ANY
other speaker in recent memory, that for him to seek the GOP candidacy would
be a travesty, and for him to be installed as president would be a supreme
waste of ability.

    
    Newt wouldn't qualify as being "true Republican" given his stance
    on abortion, the environment, etc.
    

    .16
    
    > People who think Colin Powell is another Eisenhower are sadly
    > misinformed about Ike.
    
    I made the comarison first in this string, but I suggest you might want
    to read for comprehension.  I said nothing of Ike's qualifications, I
    said only that Powell is like him in being another popular military
    leader.

    Some people think like means "identical," dick.

I want to see Newt run because then even he will have
to take his ideas seriously.

I want Newt to run because then the reporters will stop
acting like seals around him and start acting like the
sharks they are.  

I want Newt to run so that he'll finally be exposed as
the intellectual hack that he is.

    I wonder if Powell will be able to stand up to the intense media
    scrutiny that would accompany a quest for the Pres?  A recent Newsweek
    article hinted at some past difficulties with both Vietnam (Mai Lai?) and
    Irangate.
    
    Dan

 I'm sure the dirt diggeruppers are working double time in order to dig
 something up on him.




 Jim

    
    
    COLIN : FOR THE WHOLE NATION.
    
    WE WANT OUR COLIN.
    
    PUCKER UP TO COLIN.
    
    WE WANT A COLIN FOR OUR LEADER.
    
    COLIN WILL PUT US IN THE PINK.
    
    I LOVE COLIN.
    
    EVERYBODY NEEDS A COLIN.
    
    VOTE COLIN : HE'S NOT AS LOOSE AS THE NEXT GUY.
    
    COLIN : TIGHT WITH A BUCK.
    
    I PICK COLIN.

    Sounds OK.  What's the pay?
    
    Colin.

    Maybe he can recruit Dick Assman as a campaign worker!

    
    How about getting Powell on the Harry Browne Libertarian ticket.
    
    Bumper Sticker "Harry Browne/Colin : They're a team."

    
    several entries back...
    
    It is fascinating to me to see the almost obsessive tendency
    people have to pigeon hole. I think the 2-party system here has
    done more than enough damage to the country already. I believe there
    is NO politician left with any integrity to rise above partisanship;
    EVERY issue it seems becomes a Republican or a Democrat issue, rather
    than for them to hold honest discussions to resolve the issue.
    
    It is pathetic!
    
    I hope Colin Powell will run as an independent. Even if he loses,
    I would like to see this corrupt and ineffective campaign shaken up.
    

    Anybody else notice the shameless coattailing being performed by the
    Whitehouse with Colin Powell. Clinton is incredible. He sees that
    Powell is popular, so his people do some gymnastics to show that
    Clinton and Powell are "closely aligned." Gimme a break. I don't think
    I've ever seen a sitting President attempt to coattail on an undeclared
    candidate, particularly one who's not even a part of his party.

    
    
    Yup, I noticed that yesterday, Mark.  Clinton and his cronies have no
    shame.
    
    

    
    How about:
    
    	DRAFT POWELL
    
    (Adams used it - I've seen lots of signs for Draft Sam Adams.)

    <<< Note 544.56 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "sunlight held together by water" >>>
                            -< positively shameful >-


You've got to be kidding, Doctah. This really, truly, honestly strikes you 
as "shameless" and somehow indicative of a sleaziness unique to Clinton? No 
bias there, eh?

Powell: Highly popular with right, center, and even some left of center. 
All kinds of talk about getting him into the race - especially from the 
recently empowered right, who have learned the lesson of Goldwater and know 
enough not to hang their hat on a Phil Graham or a Newt. So they hope that 
a popular, level-headed sort of chap like Powell will fall in their laps 
and align at least in the main with their politics - and dispell the cloud 
of white-power that hangs over the republican party in the bargain! As long 
as the general kept his political ideals secret, they could sustain this 
fantasy. 

Of course, when Mr. Powell finally did reveal his political soul, it turns 
out he is indeed a level-headed fellow. He's for a woman's right to control 
what goes on in her own body; he's for AA - though not for quotas; he sees 
some gun regulation as a sane thing for society to have. Not the most 
important issues of our time, but certainly among the most emotionally 
charged.

And Clinton says "Hey, wait a minute, folks. The good general whom so many 
of you want to draft to run against me is saying a lot of the same things 
I've been saying!" And you call that shameless riding of the coattails. 

Hate knows no reason.

    >a sleaziness unique to Clinton?
    
     Hardly unique, though his spin doctors seem to be working harder.
    
>Powell: Highly popular with right, center, and even some left of center. 
    
     As is frequently the case with public figures before they reveal their
    opinions of the major issues of the day. The more he talks, the less
    broadbased his support will be. And should he actually enter the race,
    you'd see a quick inflation of his negatives (which are all but
    non-existant, except for the most devout racists among us.)
    
>Of course, when Mr. Powell finally did reveal his political soul, it turns 
>out he is indeed a level-headed fellow. 
    
     Which is as much a problem for the left as it is for the right;
    ideologues dominate the loudest portion of each. Powell himself more
    closely aligns himself with republicans, despite the discrepancies
    between his opinions and those of the the louder constituents. He's
    fiscally conservative and socially moderate which puts him in the
    middle but slightly shading towards the right (to this observer.) Not
    that he couldn't be swayed either way.
    
    

    
    > Hate knows no reason.
    
    What did you mean by this?  Although a potentially true statement, I
    lost the connection to what you wrote.
    

    He's claiming my diatribe against Clinton's coattailing is predicated
    entirely upon a purported hatred of Clinton on my part, and that
    Clinton is perfectly innocent (and being picked on unfairly.)

    It's not at all surprising that Clinton is coattailing (and what
    a spectacle to see an incumbent president doing that to another
    candidate), mainly because so far Powell is demonstrating that
    he's a master at what Clinton aspires to do as well, namely
    fence-sitting.
    
    Powell would rather not see abortions (good news for the right),
    but would give the woman the right to do whatever to her body
    (good news for the left).
    
    Powell is in favor of "some" (good news for the right) gun control
    (good news for the left).
    
    Powell is in favor of affirmative action (good news for the left),
    but not for quotas (good news for the right).  (By the way, how
    can you have AA without quotas?)
    
    In other words, perfectly Clintonesque � la carte policy posturing.
    Pick and choose the parts you like, and ignore the rest, because
    the ones you like are surely the ones he really believes in.
    
    Nevertheless, I'd still support Powell over Clinton if Powell would
    have the nerve to run against him in the Democratic primaries.
    
    Chris

    
    > He's claiming my diatribe against Clinton's coattailing is predicated
    > entirely upon a purported hatred of Clinton on my part, and that
    > Clinton is perfectly innocent (and being picked on unfairly.)

    aahhh, thank you.  The reason for my missing that is because I never
    thought of you as hating Clinton.  If you do, it was not apparent to
    me.

    
    qualifications or lack there of aside, how many of you _seriously_
    believe that country is ready to elect an African American as a
    president.  I say we are far from it, yet.

        
    > qualifications or lack there of aside, how many of you _seriously_
    > believe that country is ready to elect an African American as a
    > president.  I say we are far from it, yet.

    I'm afraid that I can't speak for the country as a whole, but I don't
    have a problem with it.  There are some blacks I would consider voting
    for, and there are some that there's no way on God's green earth I'd
    like to see in that office.  The same applies for women, asians, etc.

    As with any other candidate, it depends upon how they are packaged and
    presented.  Powel has a pretty good chance of election based upon his
    performance in the Gulf War.  If he can play to the right audiences, he
    may be able to swing it.  Based solely upon my impression of his
    performance in the Gulf War, I would vote for him over the other
    candidates already on the field.  
    
    Brian

	anyone know what his background is on the economic front?
	can he help get us out of debt?
	does he think war is good for the economy? ;>

    >anyone know what his background is on the economic front?
    
    as someone who has worn a uniform on capitol hill in testifying before
    Congress, he is well aware of how the system works (and how it doesn't)
    and probably has strong opinions about the budget process.  whether he
    is a free trader or buchananite protectionist is an unknown to me.
    
    >can he help get us out of debt?
    
    depends on both the known and the unknown mentioned above.  If he's a
    protectionist, certainly not.
    
    >does he think war is good for the economy? ;>
            
    no.  good soldiers consider the cost in human potential as an expense
    to the economy- the loss of lives and capabilities- and powell is
    reputed to be, at the least, a very good soldier.
    
    DougO

    The nooz geeks will assuredly invent some scandals to pin on General
    Powell. Truth and reality have nothing to do with news-gathering 
    these days... SInce he doesn't have any political baggage, they will
    assign him with a load of allegations and innuendo aboout his military
    career.

    <<< Note 544.60 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "sunlight held together by water" >>>

>>Of course, when Mr. Powell finally did reveal his political soul, it turns 
>>out he is indeed a level-headed fellow. 
    
>     Which is as much a problem for the left as it is for the right;
>    ideologues dominate the loudest portion of each. Powell himself more
>    closely aligns himself with republicans, despite the discrepancies
>    between his opinions and those of the the louder constituents. He's
>    fiscally conservative and socially moderate which puts him in the
>    middle but slightly shading towards the right (to this observer.) 

Not sure which shade he is, but whatever it is, I hope he's a genuine 
centrist, not one of political convenience, a la Clinton, Dole,...

In fact, anyone genuine would be refreshing given today's political 
landscape. 
    

    There are some blacks I would consider voting for, and there are some 
    that there's no way on God's green earth I'd like to see in that office.  
    The same applies for women, asians, etc.
    
    It seems like any white guy will do though, huh??

    
    <----
    
    Huh?
    

    Priscilla?

    
      Will the Brits lend us Maggie Thatcher for 4 years ?
    
      bb

    
    It depends upon the person and not the color of their skin for me.  I
    mean what black person has run?  Jesse Jackson?  I didn't vote for
    Clinton and I certaintly wouldn't vote for Jesse.  I have voted for
    black candidates in the past, whos views were mostly in line with my
    own.
    
    
    Mike

    
    You're very welcome to Barren-ness Thatcher, but I can't for the life
    of me see why you want the 12-20% unemployment that goes with her.

	Glenn, r u referrin to the queen of the desert?

    
    That's cuz you all were already arseole deep in government to begin
    wiht.

    This arseole some kind of wine or sumtin?

    
    Would that we were only bum-deep in gov't.   Trouble is, if we were rid
    of them, the unemployment rate would be 50%.
    
    
    .78  Was that a ref to Barren-ness? (Baroness).  It describes her
         economic policy.
    
    Colin.

    
    	Arseole would be a PERFECT name for a French wine.
    

    Mouton d' Arseole?

    
    
    and would you stop it up with a bung???
    

    Only if it's Chateau Veroux

    Entre Deux Arseoles?
    
    

    Bum de Venise?

  .87  tush-�

    .88  
    
    Alsass or something rHiney?

    
    the race angle... you know, when I see Powell or hear about him,
    I do not see color. I mean "oh, he is a Black American" didn't even
    register. For me if he can do the job, I don't care if he is purple,
    let him do the job!
    
    for those who've accused Clinton of shameless coattailing, well,as
    someone pointed he is not the first or be the last. Witness another
    nominee wanna-be, Pete Wilson of Ca. Now ask yourself, would you
    vote for someone without an ounce/gram of integrity in his bones!
    The man changes ideologies as fast as Superman changes clothes!
    Whatever works in the polls, you know. The whole presidential election
    is pathetic and worse corrupt by design.
    
    

    Just finished a bio on Powell; he's certainly didn't get anything
    handed to him the easy way.  He deliberately avoided questions
    about how he votes politially, but the book did mention that
    Powell's family (including grandchildren) used to spend a lot of
    time at Camp David as guests of the Bush's.  He does not enjoy
    such a relationship with the Clintune's :-)
    
    If I were to guess, I'd go for moderate Republican.  Considering
    all the candidates in the running right now; I'd vote for Powell
    in a heartbeat.  
    
    

    
    The big question for domestic politics in 1996 will be whether
    or not the current vacumn of moderate politics will cause a 
    redefinion or marginalization one or both of the major parties.
    If this occurs, it most probably will be triggered by a Powell
    entry into the race.
    
    

    >> for those who've accused Clinton of shameless coattailing, well,as
    >> someone pointed he is not the first or be the last.
    
    True, true... but it is highly unusual (if not unprecedented in
    modern times) for the coattailer to be a sitting president, who
    traditionally has a huge advantage towards getting re-elected
    (or certainly re-nominated), and should not need to do any such
    coattailing.  That's what makes this so special.
    
    For a classic boot-licking coattailer, check out Bill Weld who
    follows Pete Wilson around like a lovesick puppy, almost totally
    ignoring his own state that he was elected to govern.
    
    As for Powell, as much as I'd like to see him go against Slick,
    he would indeed have an "easier" time going Republican, because
    after this latest welfare reform fiasco in the Senate (where
    twenty Republican senators sided with the Democrats to maintain
    the sure-have-more-babies---we'll-pay-you status quo) and the wide
    variety of presidential aspirants, the Republicans are going to be
    in complete disarray going into this next election.
    
    For the Republicans to so accurately shoot themselves in the foot,
    even with the tremendous momentum they've enjoyed coming out of
    November 1994, speaks volumes about their overall incompetence and
    lack of unity.  They seem to have forgotten why people put so many
    of them in there last year.
    
    Chris

    
    
    
       I believe also that Powell is a "moderate" Republican. If he did
       run, I don't think he'd get much support from the "extreme" right.
       However, that would be offset by the Black vote. 
    
       If he runs,...the vast majority of Blacks and other people of
       color who are Democrats will probably switch to Republican.
    
       I remember when Edward Brooke ran for the senate here in
       Massachusetts,.....Blacks overwhelmingly switched parties.
    
       I believe that Powell would be "good for the nation",...I
       think that he'd make everyone feel as though they're "part
       of the picture".
    
    
       Ed

      There is one thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding the
      race angle.  Powell is a very light skinned black man.  Its
      a drag that this is reality (how I see it anyway), but I don't
      think he'd stand a chance if he was a dark skinned black man.
    
      I'd take him over Clinton in a heartbeat.  I'm not sure about
      the Republicans though.
    
    						Tony

    
    > Powell is a very light skinned black man.
    
    REALLY!?!  I hadn't noticed.
    

    
        Put me amongst the doubters on third party candidates.  It's
     still my contention that third parties can only act as spoilers
     in the USA presidential race.
    
        As to ethnicity/gender, etc, well in my view this is a very
     minor consideration.  It only changes votes around a little -
     the candidate draws a small devoted following from the group
     they belong to, but lose an equal count of nameless people who
     don't like it much.  More important are the political skills of
     the candidates, and their general positioning within the conflicts
     of the time.
    
       So, I think Powell is viable only if he goes with a party, and
     his chances would then depend on how well he executes a strategy.
    
       bb

    
    the weekend spin by clinton apologists is that powell is running
    around sounding like clinton, as if there isn't a difference.
    
    

    >the weekend spin by clinton apologists is that powell is running
    >around sounding like clinton, as if there isn't a difference.
    
    
    Must be why Powell voted for Bush.  :)

    Colin SNARF

    
    
    |        Put me amongst the doubters on third party candidates.  It's
    |     still my contention that third parties can only act as spoilers
    |     in the USA presidential race.
    
    historically this is correct.  a strong third party has typically
    been an indicator of a major realignment to one of the two existing
    parties, however the realignment was predicated on the capacity 
    of one of the two major parties to adequately molify voter discontent.
    this might not happen this year.
    

    In interview with Katy Couric this AM, Powell said he definitely
    did not want to be a spoiler.
    
    Barbara Walters' interview on Friday night showed a visit back
    to Jamaica (parents were born there).  He mentioned that he knows
    he's a combination of Jamaican, British and some Jewish blood (he even
    speaks Yiddish, but I think he picked that up growing up in NYC :-)
    
    I was impressed with him in both interviews because he didn't seem
    to try and dodge answers.  He admitted he's pro-choice (something
    that won't make him popular with extreme right wing of Republican
    party).  When asked if he benefitted from Affirmative Action, he
    answered "of course I did".  But he went on to point out that when
    AA opened doors for him in the army he was prepared and competent
    to take on more responsibility.
    
    When asked if he had the "fire in the belly" to face all the muck
    that will be thrown at him if he does run, he said he feels he's up to
    the task.  He said even with AA, he had to have plenty of savvy and
    stamina to move up and wind up heading the Joint Chiefs.  He said
    a big factor in deciding whether to run or not will be how his
    wife feels about it.  He said she's sacrificed a lot during the
    years he was in the Army and she'd made it clear she'd like the two
    of them to enjoy his retirement.
    
    I hope he runs (as a Republican, of course) :-)
    

I chuckled when Katie Couric asked Powell if he had any desire to be a leader.
Earth to Katie, you don't end up as the head of the Joint Chiefs if you have
no desire to lead.  Sheesh.

Jim

Powell praises Christian right, saying it's positive


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service


WASHINGTON (Sep 19, 1995 - 23:36 EDT) - Saying the
"pilot light" on his U.S. presidential bid may be lit, Colin Powell
praised the Republican party's Christian Right on Tuesday and
said "their efforts to make America shape up ought to be
applauded."

In an interview at his spartan office just outside Washington,
the retired four-star general said the choice on whether to run
for president will be the toughest decision of his life, but said
he could add qualities to the race that others -- including
Republican frontrunner Bob Dole -- lack.

The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has kept
his political views a closely guarded matter during his
35-year-long military career, also indicated that if he did run
he would have no trouble finding a home in the Republican
party.

Powell said the American people had turned off President Bill
Clinton because he promised one kind of leadership and
ideology and delivered another, and called Dole a man with a
vision who would bring "many decades and years of experience
as a legislator to an executive position."

"I am someone who believes in this country, is dedicated to it
and who knows how to get things done," Powell said. "I know
how to solve problems. I am considered a faciltiator, someone
who knows how to bridge differences, who can bring people
opposed to each other together to find a compromise."

Despite criticism from conservatives and especially rightwing
Christians on his support of abortion rights, gun control and
affirmative action programmes, Powell said he supported family
values as "strongly as anybody in the Christian Coalition."

He added, "I think the Christian right and the Christian
Coalition ought to be applauded for their efforts to make
America shape up again and start concentrating on the family
and restoring the nuclear family and putting structure back in
our schools."

The first black to be named America's top soldier described
himself as having "lived a life of family values." He said his
only difference with the Christian right was on questions of
legislative goals.

He said that many Republicans he had been in contact with
would not go as far in legislative goals as the Christian right.
He called the party much broader than it has been painted in
the press.

But he cautioned Republicans not to be seen in the black
community as sending a message of harshness and lack of
understanding on such issues as welfare reform.

Powell has said he would not make up his mind on whether to
run for president until after his tour to promote his
autobiography "My American Journey" ends in October. Then
he said he would decide if he has "the fire in his belly" to
undergo such an ordeal.

Asked if he was feeling the start of such a fire, Powell smiled
broadly and said, "There may be a pilot light burning."

He added so far in his book tour he has signed 5,500 books in
two days and 7,200 bookplates and was receiving advice from
former Vice President Dan Quayle on what to do to avoid
writer's cramp.

He said that the advise was simple -- move the wrist in
signing a book, not the fingers.



    This Cuomoesque coyness is starting to wear thin real fast.
    Either he's in or he's out, c'mon, otherwise he seems indecisive
    and unsure about whether he really wants to do the job (as opposed
    to wanting to be called "Mr. President", like George Bush).
    
    In any event, at least he's made his party selection pretty clear,
    so that's a start.  We know the reason (because it's "easier"), but
    that's not very relevant in the end.
    
    He seems to be setting himself as Dole's running mate, which is
    probably a pretty good strategy, especially since it's unlikely
    that Dole will get through two full terms, and he'd likely take
    over, even if in an acting capacity during medical absences for
    Dole, for example.
    
    A Dole/Powell ticket would win in a landslide.  Clinton might as
    well start the transition now, and figure out what he'll do after
    Jan '97.  It's an interesting question:  What do you do when you're
    a young ex-president who was run out of town after one term, and
    still have lots of time left?
    
    Chris

    
      Well, I'm intrigued, and will read the book.
    
      bb

    >In any event, at least he's made his party selection pretty clear,
    >so that's a start.  We know the reason (because it's "easier")
    
     I disagree with your assessment that it's the path of least resistance
    as opposed to the closest fit. Did you see his interview with Baba
    Wawa?

Yeah, he sounds more like Bush-Plus than Bush-Lite (Klintoonite).

Still, anyone with an attitude like this ...
although he owns a gun and believes in the right to bear arms,
he supports laws that require gun registration or a waiting
period to insure that gun owners are responsible citizens.

I won't consider, period. I guess paying taxes and living within
the law aren't enough. I have to register and prove myself worthy.
Not something I would expect to hear from someone who served this
country and took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.

m&m

    He supports gun control?  
    
    Won't get my vote.  NEXT!

    >> I disagree with your assessment that it's the path of least resistance
    >> as opposed to the closest fit. Did you see his interview with Baba
    >> Wawa?
    
    But it isn't my assessment, Doctah, it's Powell's own words, from
    an earlier reply probably somewhere in this topic.  If he's saying
    something different to Baba, then I'll chalk it up as more of the
    same kind of fence-straddling that we've been seeing to date, but
    he actually did say "easier to run as a Republican".
    
    Chris

    The "easier" thing appears in 544.26, which looks to be extracted
    from the Baba interviews, actually.  Now I'm confused... :-)
    
    In light of recent developments and press coverage, 544.26 makes
    for a good re-read, regardless of the party-choice motivation issue.
    
    Chris

>So, like many other politicians (or wannabes), he's deciding his party
>not on the basis of finding the best match between his political
>philosophies and the long-established philosophies of the existing
>parties (what else, after all, is the purpose of a political party?),
>but instead on the basis of which one it would be "easier" to win from.
    
     This is what you said, Chris, this is your assessment of the nebulous
    but accurately quoted "it would be easier to run as a republican." He
    went on to say that he had fewer problems with the republican party
    than he did with the democratic party, and that's why he felt it would
    be easier. Not because he thought that it would be easier to win by the
    mere fact that he had adopted the republican party name.
    
     re: support for gun control
    
     You have to be VERY careful about accepting the press' rendition of
    his support for gun control. He didn't say "I support registration and
    waiting periods as a way to control crime." He said that as a gun owner
    he accepted the inconvenience of such things as a price to be paid to
    ensure people who shouldn't have guns don't. I don't recall the exact
    wording, but in watching the interview it was less than the ringing
    endorsement that the media made it out to be. He's an intelligent man;
    I think he could be persuaded by the facts to be more supportive of
    other, more effective means to achieve crime control. I wouldn't write
    him off based on a blurb proferred by some media hack, particularly
    given the fact that a republican congress isn't going to move anti-gun
    legislation in the first place.

    Okay, well that's an interesting usage of the word "easy" on his
    part, to mean "fits my philosophies" as opposed to "simple to do,
    expedient, not difficult".  He's going to be quoted a lot as a
    candidate, and the context won't always be there to make his
    meaning, er, "easy" to follow.
    
    And in this case, the context of the article was his indecision
    on party selection and whether or not to consider running against
    Clinton in his own party, so the "expedient" interpretation jumps
    out.  Thanks for the information on what he'd said afterwards in
    the actual interview.
    
    Chris

    The press/media hasn't thrown him any hardballs yet. Of course they'll
    invent some nebulous scandal or skeletons in his closet, if he does
    announce an intention to run for president.
    
    Gen'l Powell is in Boston today, signing books.

    re: .112
    
    Oh, okay.  I'll pull my knee back to a normal position, then.  
    
    Of course, it would seem that he may be for abortion rights and AA- two
    things I do not agree with, so I reserve the right to jerk my knee
    again in the near future on this subject.
    
    
    -steve

           <<< Note 544.114 by CSSREG::BROWN "Common Sense Isn't" >>>

>    The press/media hasn't thrown him any hardballs yet. Of course they'll
>    invent some nebulous scandal or skeletons in his closet, if he does
>    announce an intention to run for president.
 
	There has already been some speculation about how much dirt can be
	thrown on Powell. Two areas that were mentioned were, some sort of
	involvement in the investigation of the My Lai massacre and his 
	role in Iran-Contra.

Jim

    
    | It's an interesting question:  What do you do when you're
    | a young ex-president who was run out of town after one term, and
    | still have lots of time left?
    
    in clinton's case, prepare for divorce proceedings.
    
    

     <<< Note 544.108 by MARKO::MCKENZIE "CSS - because ComputerS Suck" >>>


>Still, anyone with an attitude like this ...
>although he owns a gun and believes in the right to bear arms,
>he supports laws that require gun registration or a waiting
>period to insure that gun owners are responsible citizens.
>
>I won't consider, period. 

Boy, you got that right. There is ONE and only ONE issue of importance 
today: my right to buy a gun with the same casual ease as  buying a candy 
bar. In fact, we should have pistol vending machines. Compared to our 
sacred right to bear arms, issues like the deficit, crime, our 
competitiveness in the world economy, entrenched poverty are no more than 
yellow water running down the drain.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Snap out of it, will ya! Or move to Idaho.

> Boy, you got that right. There is ONE and only ONE issue of importance 
> today: my right to buy a gun with the same casual ease as  buying a candy 
> bar. In fact, we should have pistol vending machines. Compared to our 
> sacred right to bear arms, issues like the deficit, crime, our 
> competitiveness in the world economy, entrenched poverty are no more than 
> yellow water running down the drain.

> Yeah, that's the ticket...

> Snap out of it, will ya! Or move to Idaho.

Get a clue pinhead. All issues are of equal importance. He fails that one.
And doesn't bring anything new to the political arena on the other issues.
Quit sounding like a media driven liberal-loon.

    
      On ex-Prexies, you have at least three models :
    
      (1) write children's books - Jimmah just published one
      (2) celebrity golf, a la Ford
      (3) fade away into history (my preference) a la Reagan
    
     bb

       re .120:
       
       You've got GRF and RWR right (except you missed Ron's
       $multi-million appearances in Japan et al.), but you missed Carter
       by a mile.
       
       Instead of the traditional post-Presidential schmooze, Carter has
       been working his butt off, more often than not for little/no money
       and little/no fame.  He's more than a spokesperson for Habitat for
       Humanity; he puts in time and sweat equity.  Nor does he shy away
       from mediating international issues, even when there's absolutely
       no political benefit either to him or to the US.  He simply acts
       on principle, a concept so foreign that many do not even recognize
       it, let alone applaud it.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    
    Yup, Carter's been doing quite a bit and much of it very admirable.
    
    
    With regards to Ron Reagan, I think saying that he faded into oblivion
    (or whatever) is a bit unfair.  Anyone who's had experience with a
    family member who has had or currently has alzheimers, I think, will
    agree.  
    
    

     <<< Note 544.119 by MARKO::MCKENZIE "CSS - because ComputerS Suck" >>>

>Get a clue pinhead. All issues are of equal importance. He fails that one.
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you say so.

Unreal. :-/

    
      I'm starting to think he will run for the GOP nomination.
    
      If so, it will turn the GOP topsy-turvy.
    
        bb

    
    Tom, yes it is one issue, but, if like me, people rate the important of
    an issue.  If the issue is important enough, then it may be enough to
    eliminate the candidate for that individual.  I have several key issues
    that I use to grade a politician.  There are 4 or 5 that I use in the
    primaries to determine who I will vote for.  If there is more than one
    person who meet the criteria of the 4 or 5 issues, then I go further
    into the platforms and see who comes out on top.  
    
    In the general election, I can usually use the 4 or 5 big issues to
    determine who will get my vote.  
    
    Mike

   <<< Note 544.125 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA fighting for our RIGHTS" >>>

That's very sensible, Mike. But it's not what McKenzie does, apparently. He 
has some number of AND gates. Fail one and you fail 'em all. I'd hate to 
think what his ideal candidate would be, 'cept the fella in the mirror.

Tom

Yeah, sure Tom. I guess you can read minds. I better start
wearing my aluminum foil hat. Unfortunately the only ideal
candidates are in an insignificant 3rd party. But you probably
think I write myself in as a candidate anyway so what the hell
does it matter to you. As I said, get a clue pinhead.

    
      Well, as a matter of fact, I distrust "issues" in the Prex race,
     in a way I don't in legislative races.  Here's why :
    
      (1) Constitutionally, the President actually has less to do with
     "the issues", and I like it that way.
      (2) I've seen time and again that the decisions that turned out
     to be foremost in the term, weren't even foreseen in the election.
      (3) Character is far more important.  This is the executive - it's
     job is to carry out the policies, and to look confident and spiffy
     doing it.
    
      So, in Powell's case, I'll not be looking for particular stands
     on abortion, guns, the budget.  I will be looking for (1) the dirt,
     any hint of scandal and he's gone; (2) waffling - he can't afford
     much of that either.  Also, here's what I want to see :  humility,
     and an indication he can get along with Congress; courage; humor -
     for goodness sakes, tell some jokes out there, and DELIVERY of a
     major policy address.  After all, we'll be hearing any Prex for
     years.  It is an embarassment when they can't handle the oratory.
    
      Because Powell is black, seeking the Republican nomination in a
     country in which blacks are overwhelmingly Democrats, I think he has
     to consider a passage in his stump speech specifically designed to
     appeal to middle-aged white males, potentially a tough group for him.
     I'll be looking for this, as evidence of political savvy, and the
     ability to perform the most important single part of a prexie's job :
     picking advisors and officers of the executive and judicial branches.
    
      bb

He has already stated that he won't run as a democrat and won't run as
an independant because he would become the republican spoiler.

He won't run a republican either. If he did he would expose himself and
his family to public scrutiny for a nomination he won't win. 

Right now, he's holding his cards close to the vest as a way to keep focus 
on him and his book tour. After that he'll announce his decision not to run.

Doug.

    So, is this whole 'I may run for President' thing just a way to sell
    a lot of books?  :/
    
    If so, it's pretty brilliant, actually.  (And it's working wonderfully.)

> 	I don't agree with all of Colin Powell's opinions on issues,
>        but I do believe the man is brutally honest and will keep his
>        word to the American People. To me, this is the most important
>        job requirement. 

	It is easy to keep ones word when one hasn't spoken them yet  :-)

Doug.

They loved him in Boston; a few thousand "My American Journey" 
autobiographies walked out the door; Lyden had the Colonel on
his talk show - he was gushing all over him.

One interesting comment from an avid Powell supporter:  Americans
are tired of voting _against_ someone; with Powell they'll
actually be voting _for_ someone (if he runs).

 I wonder if all those people who say they support him know what his views are.





 Jim

    Powell calls himself a moderate who identifies with the Republican
    party.  He hasn't dodged questions about being pro-choice etc.,
    shouldn't be too difficult to determine his views.
    
    Don't know where the idea he wouldn't run because of scrutiny to
    his family is concerned came from; anything's possible I suppose,
    but I doubt the skeletons in Powell's closets (if he has any) could
    compare to Clinton's.
    
    There has been speculation about Powell running for political office
    for some time now; I think if there was any real dirt we'd have been
    given a hint by now.
    
    

 >   Don't know where the idea he wouldn't run because of scrutiny to
 >   his family is concerned came from; anything's possible I suppose,
 >   but I doubt the skeletons in Powell's closets (if he has any) could
 >   compare to Clinton's.
 
 It comes from the fact that once you become a candidate it becomes open
 season on you and your family (read: your private life ceases to exist
 as the press decends on it).

 Who would want to inflict this on their family in this day and age?
 Since he has already limitted his choices of conditions to run to the
 republican party, and that party is not likely to choose an unknown outsider
 as their choice, he has effectively limitted himself to the vice presidency.
 I'm pretty confident that he would not consider this.

 Doug. 

RE: 544.136 by BRITE::FYFE

> Since he has already limitted his choices of conditions to run to the
> republican party, and that party is not likely to choose an unknown
> outsider as their choice

Poll shows him neck and neck with Dole.  

With most of the Republicans fighting over the Radical Religious Right
vote,  it's quite possible to nominate a moderate.  


Phil

     <<< Note 544.127 by MARKO::MCKENZIE "CSS - because ComputerS Suck" >>>

You'll never get me to change my mind, no matter how often you flatter me.
;')

You can hold off on the foil hat (for now).

It doesn't take a clairvoyant to read this...

>Still, anyone with an attitude like this ...
<stuff supporting gun registration and waiting periods>
>I won't consider, period. 

and this...

>Get a clue pinhead. All issues are of equal importance. He fails that one.

and arrive at this conclusion:

>He 
>has some number of AND gates. Fail one and you fail 'em all. 

The rest is, I admit, playful speculation.

What else can you expect from a pinhead?

Tom

Tom,

You're right, I lied. I consider rights and responsibilities of citizens
a higher issue than any other issue, all rights that is. I think it seperates
our society from all others. And he failed my highest requirement. His position
on abortion and gun-control I consider to be confused and/or hypocritical.
Of course, as previous people mentioned, if his statement about gun-control is a
misquote, and his idea of registration is really for an instant check of a
criminal data-base, I will reconsider. But for now, he doesn't sound any
different than Clinton or Luger.

m&m

re: BOXORN::HAYS 

>Poll shows him neck and neck with Dole.  

He has to win the parties nomination. That's a very different
crowd than the public at large. And the polls are based on the publics
current ignorance of the man which places him at the top of his popularity
at this point in time. As folks learn more about him there will be a pearing
down of his support.

Doug.

Heard on the radio that Powell suggested that, because there was no vocal
comdemnation of his published positions, that he may have a better shot at
the post than originally thought. He also indicated that running as an 
independant may be easier for '96 than it was in '92.


Sounds like he may be changing his tune towards GOP spoiler ...


Doug.

RE: 544.140 by BRITE::FYFE

> {Powell} has to win the parties nomination. That's a very different
> crowd than the public at large.

Agreed.  That's a real problem with a moderate running as a Republican.
The recent history is that the Radical Religious Right has enough control
over the Republican party to make it hard to nominate a moderate.  I think 
it's also clear that a Radical Religious Right candidate would go down to
overwhelming defeat in the general election.


> As folks learn more about him there will be a pearing down of his support.

Maybe,  maybe not.


Phil

    
    
    Not true, Phil.  Fact is, Republicans are usually more up on the issues
    that people who vote democratic and will stick to these issues.  The
    democratic platform looks better on the surface than that of republican
    platform.  That's why I was a democrat when I was younger.  Then, when
    I got into the meat of the political landscape, I realized that it was
    mostly smoke and mirrors (the dem platform).  There are some democrats
    who truely believe that the platform is a worthy goal and some of it
    is.  I find the repubs to be more honest than the majority of the dems
    when it comes to the actual politiskunks.  The dem pols talk about
    helping the poor and all, but most of them are filthy rich and use the
    process to line their own pockets.  The repubs say that business and
    free market is the way to go and that makes them, on the surface, look
    like they don't care which is absolutely false.  The old give someone
    some food and feed a person for a day, or teach them to fish and feed 
    them for a lifetime.  That's how I see it.
    
    
    Mike

    
    re: .142
    
    > Maybe,  maybe not.
    
    
    Gee! Sounds a lot like Colin!!
    

    Mike, I remember reports about Nixon giving someone advice about how to
    get the presidency as a republican.  First you run as far to the right 
    as you possibly can to get the radical right wingers in the primaries
    and the convention, then you run as hard as you can back towards the
    center to get the moderates in the general election.  That doesn't
    require that republican voters be 'up' on the issues; in fact, to get
    through the primaries with a chance, it requires that they ignore the
    majority of voters' position on abortion (keep it legal) to pander to
    the religious right.  
    
    DougO

    
   | Mike, I remember reports about Nixon giving someone advice about how to
   | get the presidency as a republican.  First you run as far to the
   | right as you possibly can to get the radical right wingers in the
   | primaries and the convention, then you run as hard as you can back towards
   | the center to get the moderates in the general election.  That doesn't
   | require that republican voters be 'up' on the issues; in fact, to get
   | through the primaries with a chance, it requires that they ignore the
   | majority of voters' position on abortion (keep it legal) to pander to
   | the religious right.
    
    things have changed since the 68 doug.  that ancient advice doesn't
    fly anymore and is one of many reasons people are so cynical about
    politics in this country and is why incumbents who try such nonsense
    have been tossed of their office.  it happened to bush in 92 because
    he had run as a no tax-increase candidate and it will happen to 
    clinton in 96 because of his false posturing with the dnc as a 
    moderate dem.
    
    
    
           

    ancient advice huh.  With a resurgent religious right, with the '92 GOP
    hatefest convention, with Buchanan and Gramm out there on the fringes
    and Dole chasing their constituencies pretty hard, it doesn't look that
    far off to me.  GOP frontrunners are running hard to the right wing. 
    Will they stay out there once one of them has the nomination?  Will
    the vast majority of centrist voters in the country watch the GOP get
    hijacked by the right-wingers again?
    
    Lets hope not, but 'ancient advice' or no, that looks like the script
    they're using for now.
    
    DougO

    Early news this AM indicated Powell would beat Clinton by fairly
    large margin if he ran as Republican.
    
    

    
    Doug,
    
    I would say that the people in this forum as well as many others don't
    fit the bill of who I was referring to because people who discuss the
    issues tend to be up on the issues.  I am referring to the people who
    don't do any homework at all.  
    
    Mike

RE: 544.148 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround"

> Early news this AM indicated Powell would beat Clinton by fairly large 
> margin if he ran as Republican.

Polls like this ignore the hard question.  Which is "can Powell be
nominated as a Republican"?

    
    | ancient advice huh.  With a resurgent religious right, with the '92 GOP
    | hatefest convention, with Buchanan and Gramm out there on the fringes
    | and Dole chasing their constituencies pretty hard, it doesn't look that
    | far off to me.  GOP frontrunners are running hard to the right wing.
    
    the advice comes from nixon and represents a strategy that has 
    become transparent to a lot of folks.
    
    the point i was trying to make is that an electoral strategy can set
    the stage for administrative failures.  there is a history of setting
    false expectations amongst core constituenties and then paying lip 
    service to them once in office.  that's not to say that politicians
    won't try, but i sense the electorate is getting a lot smarter.
      
        

RE: 544.148 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround"

> Early news this AM indicated Powell would beat Clinton by fairly large 
> margin if he ran as Republican.

    
    the nashua (n.h.) telegraph ran a front page article today
    on the new hampshire draft powell organization.  they have
    been at work since last february and in the past couple of
    weeks have been swamped with phone calls.  
    
    

    If there are enough "moderate" Republicans around, I believe he
    can get nominated.  He certainly appeals to me more than any of
    the other R candidates that are in it so far.
    
    

    Vote NOTA.

    
    What's all this I hear about "calling Al pal"?
    

    I noticed that "SeaQuest 2032" had a subtle little promo for General
    Powell for President, in the new captain's quarters...
    
    

    
    <--- It's called folk culture.  Inserting current trivia/news into the 
         storyline.

    I presume they were referring to an ex-prez Powell, in 2032, he'd be
    in his 90s. Maybe they have good life-extension technology ;-)

    Yeah, but Slick should still be around in 2032, so maybe Seaquack
    should've showed a picture of an elderly Clinton in his jail cell.
    
    Chris

    Slick'll be 85 in 2032, maybe a tad too old to be breaking rocks
    at Club Fed... or for chasing bimbeaux, for that matter, if he should
    escape the clutches of the Law.

    .161
    Do we still have to provide his security until he is dead or has that
    changed.

    
       Hmmm.  So Pete Wilson pulled out.  This leaves Patrician Bill
     wandering Beacon Hill aimlessly.  Methinks the good Gen'l now has
     a big hole to run through.
    
       bb

    
    > ... 85 in 2032, maybe a tad too old ... for chasing bimbeaux
    
    Speak for your self !
    ;-)
    

    Powell for pope
    Why Stop at the White House?
    
    On October 4th, a figure of surprising influence and frenzied
    speculation will alight at Newark International Airport.  The next day,
    from a custom-made throne errected in the Giants Stadium, he will
    address 88,000 people impatient for his blessing.  This paragon is not
    Colin Powell on the final leg of his book tour, nor Ross Perot firing
    up New Jersey with his formation of a third party; it is the pope.  But
    with John Paul II as frail as he is, and deserving a rest, it is
    abundantly clear which candidate has the qualifications to succeed him.
    
    The problem, too, is easily diagnosed.  The Catholic Church badly needs
    a strong and disinterested figure to unite it.  At present, right and
    left barely speak to each other.  The right, from its position of power
    in the College of Cardinals, fulminates against condoms, gays, and
    secular government; it longs for the good old days when priests turned
    their backs to the congregation and women knew their place (sewing
    vestments and baking wafers.)  The left, where all those uppity women
    have gone, whines about freedom of choice, political justice and equal
    rights; most of its energy is directed towards turning "He" into
    "She/He" in the works of the Founding Fathers.  Certain places have
    suffered an unsustainable flood of biretta-wearing immigrants from
    regions stricken by sympathy towards women priests; and these are
    proving hard to assimilate.  The old ideal of "Many sheep, but one
    shepherd" has become "Let each sheep do its thing."
    
    General Powell is the perfect candidate to bridge these divisions.  As
    a black, he offers an intriguing alternative to the starchy white
    establishment.  His motto, "First we cut it off, and then we kill it,"
    suggests a novel approach to the labrinth of sexual politics.  He has
    already proved himself valiantly against evil in all its forms, from
    the pock-faced Noriega to the Satan of Baghdad.  His avid sponsorship
    of the Base Force and the Bottom Up Review confirms his commitment to
    the principle of swords-into-ploughshares.  He does not bow the knee to
    Larry Kind or David Frost; indeed, his ring still gleams with the
    kisses they have planted there.  "How many divisions has the pope?"
    sneered Stalin.  Under Pope Colin, better not to ask.
    
    Beatus et immaculatus
    
    Most important of all, he is the slave of no faction.  He does not 
    know yet whether he is Catholic or Protestant, since he has never
    registered, and "neither suits me in its present state."  In recent
    years both churches have sought him, only to find him commited to God,
    family and traditional values in the most frustratingly non-sectarian
    way.  Indeed, the surest proof of his suitability for the Chair of
    Peter is his failure to be stained by any issue whatsoever.
    
    As tension mounts, will this man dip a finger in the water and declare
    himself?  He says he would do so "only if I had a vision."  Pray for a
    revelation lest, God forbid, the tiara settles on Pope Perot instead.
    -----
    The Economist, 30 September 1995

    What, too subtle?
    
    DougO

    Just because Catholics aren't an officially protected minority doesn't
    mean that hatred against them is any less despicable. Even under the
    guise of a "joke."

    
    
    
    .167 ok, I give up. How was that Catholic-hate.
    
    

     The satire of the piece was overshadowed by the fact that it resorted
    to derision of the Catholic Church, such that it only added to the
    Catholic bashing which has become so trendy in certain circles. If you
    don't see hatred in derision and bashing, what can I say? Perhaps when
    a group that you belong to is singled out and attacked on many fronts,
    perhaps then you will be sufficiently sensitized to find "humor" at
    your expense unfunny.

   i didn't see any "hatred" in the piece either.  

    Depends if your sacred cow is being prodded or not. (cartoon cow
    notwithstanding.)

    Protestant Fundamentalists are constantly made fun of in this
    notesfile. To equate that with hatred is a stretch. To equate to pope
    powell story with hatred is a stretch.

    offense is in the eye of the beholder, they say.

    If you find something offensive that doesn't mean it was intended as
    hatred.

    Anyways, if you want to see the Catholic church made fun of, you ought
    to watch some of the comedy that comes out of Qu�bec, one of the
    strongest Catholic regions of the world. They don't hold
    anything back. I still wouldn't see it as hatred. Disrespect,
    certainly, but not hatred.

    
    
    	Maybe WAHOO::LEVESQUE is right and something like this is how the 
    	Inquisition started.
    
    	First a joke, then....
    
    

    >If you find something offensive that doesn't mean it was intended as
    >hatred.
    
     Yep, the slams are so commonplace that nobody even recognizes their
    offensiveness- like sambo jokes used to be.
    
    >Anyways, if you want to see the Catholic church made fun of, you ought
    >to watch some of the comedy that comes out of Qu�bec, one of the
    >strongest Catholic regions of the world. They don't hold
    >anything back. I still wouldn't see it as hatred. Disrespect,
    >certainly, but not hatred.
    
     That works for the same reason that Eddie Murphy can make jokes laced
    with the word "nigger" and nobody bats an eye, but when a white man
    like (Whoopi Goldberg's ex-beau, former star of Cheers) shows up in
    blackface at his girlfriend's birthday party, people line up to call it
    offensive and demand he apologize.
    
     To be perfectly honest, I've only been half serious. I've overstated
    the offensiveness of the little, relatively benign and frankly boring
    piece of satire. I just wanted to call attention to the fact that
    Catholic bashing in is vogue, and how easy it is to contribute to an
    atmosphere where disrespect for someone else's religion is seen as
    acceptable when in fact it is not.

>>    atmosphere where disrespect for someone else's religion is seen as
>>    acceptable when in fact it is not.

	who says?

    
    RE: .175  Well put, Mark.  I don't take offense at such things as much
    as I am just plain sick and tired of hearing about them and it being
    okay while if these things were done at the expense of other groups, it
    would be condemned from the mountaintops.
    
    
    Mike

    guess it was too subtle.  to my way of reading, it wasn't catholic
    bashing at all- it was much more vicious to the democrats and
    republicans, satirized in the piece as the left ("uppity women")
    and the right ("its position of power in the College of Cardinals" 
    = Congress), ad then again later as Catholics and Protestants ("both
    churches have sought him").
    
    It certainly elegantly spoofed the Dems and Repubs using the church
    verbage and current issues, but the target wasn't really the church at
    all.  Just the current parties - and the wanna-be Perot.
    
    hth.
    
    DougO

    My father plays dominos better than your father plays dominos.
    
    

    
    "Crush the Papist swine beneath the iron boot 
     of Protestant enlightenment!"
     

>but the target wasn't really the church at all.
    
    No kidding. That doesn't mean that the church didn't get splashed in
    all the byplay.

    DougO:
    
    Use Bishops, Deacons and Elders.  These terms are not restricted to one
    denomination!
    
    -Jack

    >That doesn't mean that the church didn't get splashed in all the byplay.
    
    if one can't speak piously of 'em don't speak of 'em at all, eh?
    too sanctimonious for me, but it takes all kinds.
    
    DougO

    > Use Bishops, Deacons and Elders.
    
    I didn't write the piece, Jack.  And the comparison with the presidency
    is obviously too plain to use any other term.
    
    DougO

    >if one can't speak piously of 'em don't speak of 'em at all, eh?
    
     Piously, schmiously. You remind me of one who takes umbrage at being
    upbraided for telling jokes at the expense of <ethnic groups>.

    
    Yeah!  Senorita Olson!
    
    ;^)
    

    
      Bwahaha !  Wasn't DougO in on the brouhaha with "chink in his armor"
     causing some irate comments about insensytyvyty ?
    
      bb

    That may have been wordy rather than dougo.  I just don't understand
    why dougo won't concede that mark has a point.  If derision is bad
    for group x, it should still be bad for group y.  Especially since not
    all members of group x or y will ever be stellar, but one can't
    continually apply the broad brush due to the vocal minority.

    Oh, I see.  The Catholics *don't* really suffer any of the topical
    issues raised as parallels in the satire, that was all made up.  Give
    me a break!  If they weren't so exquisitely vulnerable then the stingers
    wouldn't have landed.  Just what was said that was unfair to the
    Catholics?  No, you're whining because they were skewered *accurately*,
    even in passing.  Well, too bad.
    
    DougO

    Steve Jong did target me for using that phrase but I stood up to him
    and refused to be intimidated for using a homonym that is not remotely
    related to the racial slur to which he objects.
    
    DougO

    Oh, i thought corky used it, not you Dougo!
    
    As for the targets landing, can't that be the same for any group which
    suffers derision?  Ie:  Catholics wouldn't get upset about comments 
    regarding 'priestly pedophilia' if it wasn't something that occurs?
    Women are more nurturing than men, so they should stay home with the
    kiddies and leave the important stuff to the men?
    
    I don't see much difference in the two.  In the first example, yeah,
    it does happen.  But not to every priest and not to every Catholic
    child, so the focus is insulting, as tho this is all there is to the
    Church.  As to the second, hey, I don't believe this and you may not,
    but I know lots of women and men who find this acceptable.  Yet, it's
    not ok to espouse this, but it's ok to espouse the first?  I just don't
    get it.  I think they are shades of the same colour.

    >If derision is bad for group x, it should still be bad for group y.

    membership in group y is voluntary.  hence, support of the leadership
    of group y is a political act.  as is treating those leaders with derision.
    religion gets kid glove treatment in lots of ways but this is purely
    political and I won't pretend it isn't.
    
    but really, the Catholics were merely used, 'splashed', as Mark
    suggests.  Given that they've been an active institution for centuries,
    it isn't the first time nor the last that they've inspired satire.  Its
    like someone comparing Congress to a baseball game filled with errors. 
    Is this a slur against ballplayers?  I simply can't believe that we've
    spent 25 notes discussing the vehicle by which satire was delivered
    rather than the topic, which was, humorously- why is the Powell
    presidential candidacy being taken so seriously, what are his
    vulnerabilities, why is seen to be so attractive to the electorate,
    and so frightening to the current pols?  Can't we talk about that?
    Is there *no* hope for literacy in this forum?

    DougO

    
    
    Tine, one nit in your last note.  There are those who would argue that
    the raising of the children is the important stuff.
    
    
    Mike
    
    

    DougO, sure you can talk about Mr. Powell's candidacy.  As a matter
    of fact, prove your literacy by sharing what information you have on
    the questions you posed.  I admit, I don't know much about him as a
    viable candidate, but am willing to learn.
    
    As to the other, has it been 25 notes?  It just caught my eye and I
    responded.  While I see your point about the kid gloves, I'm just 
    commenting on Mark's point that for all that folks get het up about
    one group or another being disparaged, there does seem to be a strong
    bent towards acceptability of the disparagement of other groups,
    typically those seen as being the power groups vs. the disenfranchised. 
    Strikes me as hypocritical (not you, just this trend).  Seems to me
    that if folks are pushing for equality, crushing your opponents under
    the heel of your shoe ain't the way to reach for it.

    >Oh, i thought corky used it, not you Dougo!
    
    That happened too.  I used it much more recently, having forgotten all
    about wordy's sensitivity.  But really, the homonym is not a fair
    target.  Its a different word.  I was appalled at the misplaced
    emphasis in the accusation, really.
    
    > As for the targets landing, can't that be the same for any group
    > which suffers derision? Ie:  Catholics wouldn't get upset about
    > comments regarding 'priestly pedophilia' if it wasn't something that
    > occurs?
    
    They'd get one heckuva lot more upset if the accusations were being
    made falsely, wouldn't they?  But they aren't.  This is interesting,
    people seem to think that religion is off-limits for political comment. 
    I'm sorry, Pope JPII just presumed to lecture Americans on issues of
    public policy- that's an overtly political act to those of us who see
    it differently (even some who see it similarly ought to be able to
    recognize the political nature of his remarks) and it is really
    incredible to pretend that merely because he is a high muckety-muck of
    some religion that his political acts are above comment.  His position
    does not exempt him from scrutiny once he enters politics.  Just like
    those pedophilic priests don't deserve exemption for their positions,
    either.  Play criminal, go to jail.  Play politician, get political
    comment.  That's the way it works.
    
    > Women are more nurturing than men, so they should stay home with the
    > kiddies and leave the important stuff to the men?
    
    That doesn't seem to me to be a good example of a "target landing," its
    much mushier (stereotyping)and throws in a behavioral proscription.  Do
    you really see them as similar?  Women don't choose to be women,
    they're born that way.  Anybody who stays Catholic is making a choice.
    
    > so the focus is insulting, as tho this is all there is to the Church.
    
    It would get a lot less attention if they hadn't institutionalized ways
    to cover up the problem instead of fixing it; if their institutional
    coverup hadn't enabled these criminals to hide from prosecution and
    injure a lot more kids.  the Church itself deserves a decade or more of
    very tight scrutiny to prove that the old ways have truly been cast
    aside.
    
    > Yet, it's not ok to espouse this, but it's ok to espouse the first? 
    > I just don't get it.  I think they are shades of the same colour.
    
    I really see things differently.  The clear differentiators are the
    voluntary nature of one vs the involuntary nature of the other; the
    specificity of institutional acts vs the stereotyping of women as
    nurturing (hay, many aren't, why should they be assumed to be?) and
    finally, the prescriptive nature; it is not ok to argue that because
    *some* women are nurturing that *all* women should be denied job
    opportunities to encourage them to stay at home.  While it is perfectly
    ok to argue that the One Church has a lot of covering up to answer for
    in literally hundreds of cases in scores of locations covering decades.
    Not the same thing at all.
    
    DougO

    >prove your literacy by sharing what information you have on
        the questions you posed.
    
    Well, the perspective embedded in the satire was what I was referring
    to.  It is true that both Dems and Repubs have sounded out Powell on
    running on their ticket.  He hasn't commited; and they can't get a
    grip on him because he isn't registered with either party!  It is true
    that he espouses delightfully non-sectarian approaches to family
    values; Powell won't play that coy little 'cultural war' hatefest game
    to satisfy the radical right, in fact he says neither party as it
    addresses the issues suits him.  And yet he is keeping mindshare in the
    great middle-of-the-road, and that is scaring the pants off of all
    those GOP candidates who are currently running so hard to secure the
    fundy vote.  On one issue, even *I* am to the right of Colin Powell- he
    is willing to accept gun control, which I see as the camel's nose and
    worse (with Brady, the nose is already in the tent.)  It is probably
    for that particular stance, in fact, that the Economist, particularly
    europhilic on that issue, likes him so well as to write such a nice
    puff piece for him showing how much more grounded he is than the rest
    of the candidates combined.  
    
    I don't even think he's a serious candidate!  I think he's pretending
    to be so he can sell a lot of books.  One wishes that by his stature he
    could impress the rest of the field.  Lugar said something interesting
    the other day; as the GOP candidate with the best foreign policy
    credentials, he mentioned that Clinton's recent foreign policy, in
    helping stabilize Macedonia, in the Holbrook shuttle in Bosnia, and
    with the Arafat/Rabin signing at the White House, was respectable.
    Impossible- but it may raise the level of the debate.  I attribute it
    indirectly to Powell's influence- the rest of them should be embarassed
    that their candidacies all look so petty.
    
    So, there's a snapshot of what I think about Powell, kicking off from
    the satire's points.  Anybody else?  Is anybody else besides the
    Economist and the GOP afraid of Ross Perot?
    
    DougO

    	re .189
    
    	So your intention WAS to skewer the Catholic Church after all!
    	You indignance at the Doc's suggestion of this seems pretty
    	transparent.  His .185 is right on -- especially considering 
    	your behavior when everyone else initially ignored what you 
    	posted.  Now that you have your little brawl going (which you 
    	really couldn't get rolling on your own, it seems) you are in 
    	your glory as you can turn the skewer with glee.

RE: 544.196 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto"

> I don't even think he's a serious candidate!  I think he's pretending
> to be so he can sell a lot of books.

I think he is running.  His book reads like a campaign book.


Phil

    Setting up....help yourself!

 No thanks

    > So your intention WAS to skewer the Catholic Church after all!
    
    First- I repeat, I didn't write it.  Second, catch the phrase "in
    passing" in the statement from .189.  I think the skewering was not the
    intent, but simply an ordinary side-effect since the real intent was to
    skewer the dems and repubs.
    
    .189>> No, you're whining because they were skewered *accurately*, 
        >> even in passing. 
    
    >    	your glory as you can turn the skewer with glee.
    
    Well, actually, you may note I've been trying to get back to the topic
    of Colin Powell, rather than having to explain how satire works.
    
    DougO

	dougo, this is unfreakingbelievable, ain't it? ;>
	it's almost funny.

    No, actually I think it's very believable!  You sit at your terminal
    and bang your head on the monitor!

    > unfreakingbelievable,  almost funny.
    
    Too true.  I was really not kidding when I lamented the demise of
    literacy in the box.
    
    DougO

    Just remember DougO...
    
    Bullcrap usually stunts critical thinking!

    
    
    .205
    
    >Bullcrap usually stunts critical thinking!
    
    	Doug, could you get a more expert opinion than that?
    

re: .205
    
>    Bullcrap usually stunts critical thinking!

I can't believe you're tarnishing the good name of bulls, even if
only in passing.  I mean, if it's not good to disparage animal A,
why is it ok to make offhand remarks about animal B to take a swipe
at DougO?

\john

    
    Bwahahaha, I forgot all about the "chink in his armor" flap.  Ah, 
    memories...
    
    This seems to me to be the same kind of misunderstanding.  The 
    Economist piece in question only used the structure of the Roman
    Catholic Church as a framework to satirize the on-again, off-again, 
    Cuomo-esque attributes of Colin Powell's quasi-candidacy.  It offered
    no substantive discussion or criticism of the Church.  Fanciful 
    assertions in the piece that state that Powell does not know whether
    he is Catholic or Protestant (but has been courted by both groups,)
    or that the Church needs a "strong but disinterested" leader to guide
    it into the next millenium, should have made that clear to everyone.
    
    I was brought up as a Roman Catholic (altar boy and everything, even
    considered becoming a priest,) and I often take some measure of offense
    at the frequent Catholic-bashing I see going on in this and other files,
    especially by ignorant and misinformed bigots like Mike Heiser, or
    people like DougO who may be blinded by their fervent disagreement with
    some of the policies and dictates of the Church.  However, I am honestly
    at a loss as to why the Economist piece would be considered offensive.
    
    I certainly thought Mark Levesque had a thicker skin than this would
    indicate, but I guess this was merely the straw that broke the
    camel's back...
    
    
    
    Rob
         

    .208 et al
    
    >However, I am honestly
        at a loss as to why the Economist piece would be considered
    offensive.
    
    Can we get some clarification on what parts of the Economist piece were
    offensive? I'm confused, too.

    Ah but Rob, you underestimate the power of the Scriptures which, when
    you're right of course, can be used as a weapon of mass destruction or
    a compact yet lethal little dagger that can be thrust in ones back,
    ever so quietly, always in righteousness.

    >I certainly thought Mark Levesque had a thicker skin than this would
    >indicate, but I guess this was merely the straw that broke the
    >camel's back...
    
     May I point you all to the last paragraph of .175, wherein I explained
    that I was making a point rather than really finding the satire
    offensive? The point being, for those who may have missed it, that
    people tell jokes, write satire, etc all the time using protected
    minorities as their vehicle, and the ultra sensytyve left goes
    absolutely bananas. But the Catholic Church, among others, is not
    afforded the same level of protection; indeed the same people who rail
    tirelessly about bashing of other groups heartily endorse Catholic
    bashing to the point where it has to be really bad to even be noticed
    in the first place (and even then it's "well, too bad.")
    
     The piece was hardly the most severe bit of Catholic bashing I've seen
    lately; indeed, as I stated earlier, it was relatively benign. My
    righteous indignation, such as it was, was embellished only enough to
    call attention to the fact that our dear liberal brethren operate with
    multiple yardsticks- one that applies to the duly annointed protected
    societal groups, and one that applies to their enemies. It makes their
    own calls for tolerance, an end to bigotry, and avoidance of
    inflammatory and discriminatory language seem less than forthright when
    viewed in that light. Watching DougO play the part of Jack Martin in
    denying that any offense could be taken to the piece that he posted was
    simply humorous. I half expected him to say "some of my best friends
    are Catholic."
    
     So while the particular piece in question was but a drop in the bucket
    in terms of the increasing proliferation of anti-Catholic messages
    being seen these days, I found it a convenient vehicle to expose the
    hypocrisy of the politically correct and to bring attention to the
    larger issue of Catholic bashing. Such is the nature of Soapbox, to use
    fulcrums of this nature.
    
     DougO ought to thank me for calling attention to his posting, which
    had otherwise generated so little interest that he had to add a reply
    asking if anyone had seen it. :-)
    
     The Doctah, smiling

    I'd still like to know what was offensive in it. I'm just curious.
    Maybe I can learn something.

    I see way more Christian Fundamentalist bashing going on than Catholic 
    bashing. There may be more Catholic bashing going on than there used to
    be. I think part of the problem is that religious leaders and followers
    in the U.S. cannot separate their political affiliations with their
    religious ones. I speak of Christianity as a whole. 

>    I think part of the problem is that religious leaders and followers
>    in the U.S. cannot separate their political affiliations with their
>    religious ones. I speak of Christianity as a whole. 

Should they?

Are you saying that because a political opinion is based on a religious
teaching it is somehow improper to express it, but that it's ok to
express one based on some other teaching?

/john

    Jesus didn't seem to give two hoots as to who was in power. He
    certainly had a lot to say about the religious leaders though. Politics 
    just makes a mess of the message. It becomes a question of agenda and
    not the gospel. 

>Are you saying that because a political opinion is based on a religious
>teaching it is somehow improper to express it, but that it's ok to
>express one based on some other teaching?
    
    When the religious reaches into the political sphere it becomes a valid
    target for political criticism. That's the bottom line. Thus the lines
    between the religious and the political become blurred.

    ZZ    Watching DougO play the part of Jack Martin in
    ZZ    denying that any offense could be taken to the piece that he posted 
    
    Could it be that I'm getting a reputation here?  Hmmmmmmmm?????

    > When the religious reaches into the political sphere it becomes a
    > valid target for political criticism. That's the bottom line.
    
    Not only that, it becomes part of the political landscape.  As such it
    is liable to be used as a vehicle for satire- as just happened.  Mark,
    you are calling it double standards- I don't see it.
    
    DougO

    I agree with DougO

    
    <---- I disagree with that.
    

    
    
    
    
    			---------------->

    <-------------------------
    
       AAAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    
               -------------------------------------->

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\
               ~  \__U_/  ~

                 -------|------|------------
                        ++    ++
                        ||---M||
                        ||     |
                       /\-------\
                      (00)       \
                      (  )        *
                    /
                 moo?
    

British paper says Powell will run for president


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

LONDON (Oct 24, 1995 - 08:24 EDT) - Gen. Colin Powell is
expected to launch an all-out bid to capture the U.S.
presidency next month with a formal declaration that he will
seek the Republican nomination, the Guardian newspaper
reported Tuesday.

The paper quoted unnamed Republican party sources in
Washington as saying the Gulf War hero, former chairman of
the U.S. armed forces Joint Chiefs of Staff, was set to make
his move as early as Nov. 11, which is U.S. Veterans' Day.

His entry into the 1996 race would give the Republicans a
better-than-even chance of dashing President Clinton's
re-election hopes, according to the sources. If elected, Powell
would be the first black president of the United States.

The Guardian said the party's upper echelons increasingly
view the retired general as a savior and are convinced he will
declare his candidacy before Nov. 23.

It added that Powell has been emboldened by the runaway
success of his autobiography, 1,550,000 copies of which were
printed in the first month, and a pop-star reception he received
during his promotional campaign.

Powell has been saying he would decide in November whether
to run, either as a Republican or as an independent. Polls show
he would beat Clinton if he were to stand as a Republican.



    
    
    I wonder if Dole were to win the primary, if Powell would take the VP
    spot if offered.  I still hope Phil Gramm gets the nod.
    
    Mike

	Phil Gramm????? Thank God I haven't eaten anything yet. I'd be spittin
it up all over the place now. 

	If Dole were to win, he would do better to have Powell in his court.
Dole could appeal to both sides of the fence, instead of just the side that
always seems pissed off at someone.


Glen

    
    It'd serve you right Glen, it's what the rest of us have been doing
    since slick won.
    
    
    Mike

    
      A lot would have to happen, but just suppose you get a Prez Powell
     to start 1997.  Generals are cautious (and he's no exception - see
     his book).  Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower.  Periods of
     normalcy, centrism, the status quo.  No new wars, few initiatives
     domestically.  Calm upon the waters.
    
      It's actually attractive at this time in history.
    
      bb

	Gee, Mike.... I would think your number 1 concern would be to turn this
country around, not make people sick.... ;-)

    
    
    Well, in my opinion, getting back to the constitution is a major part
    of turning the country around, Glen.
    
    
    Mike

    What a mistake.  This will definitely allow Heir Klinton to retain
    the presidency.  The repubs will be so weakend that whoever will
    face the prez will get clobbered.  Also watch for perot to toss
    a wrench into this deal again.
    
    The repubs are screwed up.  The average voter will hold thier nose
    and pull the "D" lever and the rest is history.
     

    After having seen Powell speak, albeit sparingly, on a few issues, I like
    him.  The thing that saddens me about his attraction as a politician
    isn't so much his fiery conviction on certain issues but the total lack
    of babbling rhetoric as can be found by <insert pundit> on either side. 
    I hope he garners the repub nomination as the presidential candidate
    and not a running mate to Dole.  
    
    Brian

 >   What a mistake.  This will definitely allow Heir Klinton to retain
 >   the presidency.  

  How say. Klinton is not sitting pretty these days. Even the press 
  seems to be loosing their patients with him. He couldn't stand for anything
  desireable in his 1'st two years and has become almost imponent in his second
  two. He won't get half the votes people expect him to get. 


 >   The repubs will be so weakend that whoever will face the prez will get 
 >   clobbered. 

  How do you figure this? Powell is not likely to run, and if he did, he would
  have a hard time getting past the convention. The best he can hope to do
  is bring a few issues to the forefront of discussion, but they are already 
  there. He doesn't bring anything new to the debate.

  Powell running for Prez is mere wishfull thinking ...

 > Also watch for perot to toss a wrench into this deal again.
 
   This I agree with.

 > The average voter will hold thier nose and pull the "D" lever and the 
 > rest is history.

   I think you should note that the average voter held their nose and pulled
   the "R" lever in 1994 ...

   Doug.

                       <<< Note 544.234 by BRITE::FYFE >>>
                 -< The man is selling books, that's all ... >-

>  How say. Klinton is not sitting pretty these days. Even the press 
>  seems to be loosing their patients with him. He couldn't stand for anything

I don't know about the press, but I know the good Doctah lost patients with 
the prez a looong time ago.

    My crystal ball says "watch the media".
    
    It's still too early.  "Dole looks great."  "Clinton is in trouble".
    When it gets down to showtime... watch what happens.  Dole will
    prolly "not be available", the repubs will have some big huge
    screw up story (They cut welfare, they cut my pork!!! those
    bastards!!!).  BillC will pull something out of the bag, all his
    waffling will be forgotten (sure I bonked her... but me and hillary
    got over it.  I'd didn't inhale.  blah blah blah).
    
    Remember how Bush got savaged "read my lips".   "Anybody but bush".
    The media got clinton elected.  They can keep him in, or they
    can just as easily cause public opinion to want to dump him.
    Clinton is a stooge.  He's sitting pretty since he's
    the incumbent.  The repubs got to clobber him.  How well they do
    this depends on the what's going on at the moment, and you know this
    is swayed heavily by "public opinion".  A simple crisis in mid '96
    and clinton won't be going anywhere.  Especially if the repubs
    get messy before the primarys and how fed up many would be voters
    get.
    
    It's too early yet.
    
    My real big "fear" is some totally lame combo will win the repub
    nomination and then go down in flames to clinton.  Someone like
    powell would do this.  "He's nice and all, but no experience..."
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

>>    My crystal ball says "watch the media".

The media seems to like Powell.


>    My real big "fear" is some totally lame combo will win the repub
>    nomination and then go down in flames to clinton.  Someone like
>    powell would do this.  "He's nice and all, but no experience..."
    

Polls show Powell ahead of Clinton if he were running as a
Republican but behind as an independent candidate. Polls show Dole
behind Clinton. Polls also show Dole ahead of Clinton with Powell as
a running mate. Gingrich is also concerned enough about Doles showing
in the polls to encourage Powell entering the race as a Republican.
Of course polls are like the weather, so ...

 >   The media got clinton elected.  They can keep him in, or they
 >   can just as easily cause public opinion to want to dump him.
 
  The media ignoring all the lies is what got Klintoon elected. They've
  continued this trend until recently. Lately, the sunday talking political 
  heads have been pointing out the nature of Klintoon always rewriting history
  to suit the current retoric or political position or mispeak.

  Now that he is reduced to only being able to block legislation, their hero
  has been reduced to the cause of gridlock. I think the whale has bled.

  Nice to see the media is finally waking up to the fact that Klintoon isn't the
  Rhodes Scholar he'd have us believe. 

  Look what's up next, Bosnia. You think anyone wants troops over there?
  He fights against balancing the budget, a big sticking point with the
  american public.

  > He's sitting pretty since he's the incumbent.

   They said that about Bush  :-)

  Doug.

                     <<< Note 544.237 by MARKO::MCKENZIE >>>

>Gingrich is also concerned enough about Doles showing
>in the polls to encourage Powell entering the race as a Republican.

    	I don't understand this.  Are you suggesting that Gingrich
    	is so eager to see Dole fail that he would rather fragment
    	the party?

 >   	I don't understand this.  Are you suggesting that Gingrich
 >   	is so eager to see Dole fail that he would rather fragment
 >   	the party?

My impression from Gingrich's statements was that he was interested
in having the Republican party gain from Powells popularity in the polls.
Polls which also showed Dole sliding. I suppose he wants to keep all
options open to the Rep. party to improve the chances of regaining the
White House as opposed to seeing any one candidate fail in their attempt.

    
    powell's organization in n.h. is spinning up 1-800-nh-powell.
    it would be pretty humorous to see the general debate the
    grand waffler.
    

re: .239 (Joe)

>    	I don't understand this.  Are you suggesting that Gingrich
>    	is so eager to see Dole fail that he would rather fragment
>    	the party?

I don't understand this.  Are you suggesting that Gingrich somehow
owes Dole his support?  What of the other Republicans running?  What
if Powell is (or becomes) a Republican?

\john

    
      Actually, endorsements are tricky.  Is it good or bad for Dole
     that Kaliph gov Pete Wilson came out for him yesterday ?
    
      Gingrich probably won't endorse anybody till he knows they've
     got the nomination.  And he'll be more than happy to deep-6
     Klintoon at this point.
    
      bb

    I wouldn't count Powell out if he decides to make a run for it.
    There were plenty of people wearing Powell for Prez in '96 buttons
    when he was here last week.  Personally, I hope if he runs he does
    so as a Republican; he'd definitely give moderate GOPers someone 
    we could support enthusiastically.  I'd hate to see him settle for
    being VP on either ticket!
    

| <<< Note 544.231 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed" >>>



| Well, in my opinion, getting back to the constitution is a major part of 
| turning the country around, Glen.

	He ain't gonna get back to the constitution. Graham is a very angry
man. More so than Bob Dole.


Glen

    
    
    I don't think so, Tim........

    
      As decision time approaches for the general, there's a lot of blather
     in the air.  Of course, the most mean-spirited comes from Buchanan.
     But even Dole got into it with a few gentle (and funny) pinpricks
     yesterday.
    
      This is going to decide what kind of political year 96 will be.
    
      bb

    You cannot be fiscally conservative and a moderate.
    
    Taxation is theft!

RE: 544.248 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

> Taxation is theft!

And War is Peace!

    Taxation is Constitutional, taxation is necessary for CONSTITUTIONAL
    matters.  Anything otherwise is theft!

    I was driving home early this afternoon (whoops, a vacation half-day,
    not one of those "long lunches" :-)), and I heard some of Rush
    Limbaugh's show, something I don't usually get to listen to.  He was
    trying to figure out what kind of lowlife leaked some medical "news"
    on Colin Powell's wife (at least I think it was his wife; I came in
    during the middle of the segment), i.e., that she has some kind of
    "chemical imbalance" and is on medication of some type.
    
    He wondered who would have access to this kind of private medical
    information, and he said that he'd try to find out whether the source
    of the leak was one of the Republican prez hopefuls or someone at the
    White House.
    
    His impression was that these were the two most likely possible
    sources, and that the intent was clear: to send a message to Powell
    that "they" can and will dig up and publish any private information
    on him and his family, supposedly to intimidate him into passing up
    a presidential run.  Somehow I think this is not a well-thought-out
    move on their part...
    
    Chris

    Chris,
    
    There's always the possibility that Mrs. Powell has a chemical
    imbalance that is corrected by hormones ;-}
    
    It's a shame if this crap is starting already.  Maybe it won't be
    a factor; I think the message has gone out loud and clear that
    most Americans aren't interested in getting "two for one" as we
    did will Bill and Hill.
    

       
    | You cannot be fiscally conservative and a moderate.
      
    not true.  lot's of social issue do not fall into the arena of
    balancing budgets.
    
       

    
    >     There's always the possibility that Mrs. Powell has a chemical
    >     imbalance that is corrected by hormones ;-}
    
    EXTRA ! EXTRA ! READ ALL ABOUT IT !
    
    WHORE MOANS CORRECT A COLIN-RELATED PROBLEM !

    .254
    
    Ummm, was that supposed to be funny?
    
    

    
    No. Why ?

|   He was trying to figure out what kind of lowlife leaked some medical
|   "news" on Colin Powell's wife....
    
    Think, Rush.  Think.
    
    								-mr. bill
    
    
    Activists on right unite to oppose Powell candidacy 
    
    By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff , 11/03 
    
    WASHINGTON - A group of prominent conservative activists yesterday
    attacked the character and positions of retired Gen. Colin Powell and
    vowed to unleash thousands of volunteers against him if he runs for the
    Republican presidential nomination. The conservatives said they decided
    to launch their opposition to Powell because they believe he is too
    liberal on issues ranging from taxes to abortion. They said they are
    concerned Powell's popularity has grown so great that he could divide
    the party if he gets into the race. 
    
    Paul M. Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee warned Powell to stay
    out of the race, citing ``character'' questions. He called Powell the
    ``Trojan Horse of the establishment.'' ``Like the figure from Gilbert
    and Sullivan, he became `ruler of the queen's navy' by polishing the
    handle on the big front door'' rather than through his own military
    achievements, Weyrich said. 
    
    Carol Long of the National Right to Life Committee vowed that thousands
    of antiabortion volunteers would work against Powell. ``When prolife
    citizens spring into action, and they will, the bubble that the media
    has blown around Colin Powell will burst,'' Long said. 
    
    But the activists assembled by the American Conservative Union may have
    been undermined by the fact that many who spoke yesterday support other
    candidates. 
    
    David Keene, the union's chairman and organizer of yesterday's event,
    acknowledged he is a longtime friend and supporter of Senate Majority
    Leader Bob Dole of Kansas. Keene said he is not being paid by the
    campaign. Others said they supported Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas or
    commentator Patrick Buchanan. 
    
    Still, the groups that gathered yesterday have a combined total of
    hundreds of thousands of active members, who typically are conservative
    Republicans. Representatives of groups that helped to elect a
    Republican majority in Congress, including the Christian Coalition,
    said they oppose Powell's views on domestic issues and worry that he
    could undo the party's Contract with America, the campaign manifesto
    that Republicans have used to push through legislation this session. 
    
    While it is far from clear whether the groups could affect Powell's
    chances, they might be able to orchestrate a direct-mail and television
    campaign against him. 
    
    No elected official attended the event. To the consternation of some
    conservatives, House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia has spoken
    favorably about Powell getting into the race, although he has expressed
    concern about whether Powell supports the Contract with America. 
    
    While the gathering was touted as a conservative blockade against
    Powell, it also served to underscore the deep divisions within the
    party about the retired general. 
    
    In a poll of Republicans released yesterday by the Wall Street Journal
    and NBC News, 38 percent backed Dole and 34 percent chose Powell. Some
    leading conservatives who didn't attend the news conference - such as
    former education secretary William Bennett and former Housing and Urban
    Development secretary Jack Kemp - have spoken positively about a Powell
    candidacy. 
    
    The underlying message yesterday was that the generally favorable
    publicity surrounding Powell's recent book tour could be countered by
    an aggressive and negative attack, something most politicians expect
    but which Powell has yet to experience on a campaign level. 
    
    A Powell spokeswoman said she had no comment on the criticisms. 
    
    But Charles Kelly, managing director of the Citizens for Colin Powell,
    an independent committee, attended the news conference. 
    
    ``I was revolted at these people who preach virtue while deliberately
    distorting the truth,'' Kelly said. ``These people make a good living
    off their direct mail'' businesses that solicit funds from
    conservatives. ``They must really be frightened that a unifying popular
    candidate is going to eliminate their market for paranoia and distrust.
    What makes you think these guys have anyone behind them?'' 
    
    Among those criticizing Powell were: 
    
    Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition, who
    delivered a written statement that said Powell is ``to the left of
    center of where the country is today.'' Reed said Powell ``has
    indicated that he's proabortion, against voluntary school prayer, in
    favor of affirmative action'' and ``he's willing to accept some forms
    of gun control.'' 
    
    Gary Bauer, of the Family Research Council, who has advised the Dole
    and Gramm campaigns. He said: ``The surest way to sunder the
    conservative coalition that has brought the GOP to the zenith of its
    influence in modern America would be to nominate an individual whose
    credo drags the party into the `mushy middle.''' 
    
    Frank Gaffney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, who once
    worked with Powell at the Pentagon. Gaffney said he was ``reluctantly''
    opposing Powell's candidacy. While he had been ``privileged to call
    Colin a friend for over a decade,'' Gaffney said, Powell ``would not
    make a good president'' because of ``dubious'' foreign policy and
    defense decisions. Gaffney criticized Powell's reported advocacy of
    economic sanctions against Iraq instead of military action, the failure
    to destroy Iraq's army and his opposition to certain antimissile
    programs. 
    
    Frank Gaffney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, who once
    worked with Powell at the Pentagon. Gaffney said he was reluctantly
    opposing his candidacy. Though he had been ``privileged to call Colin a
    friend for over a decade,'' Gaffney said, Powell ``would not make a
    good president'' because of ``dubious'' foreign policy and defense
    decisions. Gaffney criticized Powell for the length of time he
    advocated economic sanctions against Iraq instead of military action,
    the failure to destroy Iraq's army and his opposition to certain
    antimissile programs. 
    
    Phyllis Schlafly, an antiabortion activist and president of the Eagle
    Forum, who said in a statement delivered by an aide that Powell's
    comments about being a ``Rockefeller Republican'' disqualified him as a
    viable GOP candidate. ``Nelson Rockefeller represented everything this
    party has vigorously rejected for more than 30 years.'' 
    
    This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe on 11/03. 

    
    > Think, Rush.  Think.
    
    Think, billy.  Think.
    
    Powell seems more of a threat to Bill C. if he runs than a threat to
    the right.
    HTH
    

    
    
    Bill,
    
    You little conspiracy monger you....

    re: .257
    
    Limbaugh was willing to entertain the notion that it could be
    either side, and that it was equally reprehensible regardless
    of which side was responsible.
    
    Some extreme conservatives might have motive to "leak" something
    like this, as might the Clinton administration (because Powell is
    one of the more viable potential '96 opponents).  But who's more
    likely to have access to such private medical information?  You
    can't leak what you don't have.
    
    Chris

    
      It wouldn't surprise me one bit if pack journalists are
     sifting his garbage as we speak.  Who says it had to be a
     political opponent ?  Connie Chung could be planning a comeback...
    
      bb

    
    
    Go ahead bb..... start a conspiracy theory!!! You damned nutter, you!!!
    

    Let's recap.
    
    10/31 - Rush asks "who put out this slime?"
    11/02 - Group of right wingnuts holds press conference to announce
    	    "watch out General, we are prepared to slime you!"
    
    Gosh and golly, this is a tough call.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Of course the dims are fine telling of the "cuts" and the starving
    kiddies in the skules cuz of the skule lunch program, and how granmaw
    is gonna live in a box cuz of the "cuts" in medicare.....

    Well, if Phyllis doesn't like him, then he's moved up a few more notches
    in my estimation.
                                           

    re: .264
    
    Yeah, but that's DIFFERENT!  8^)

    
    Nooz says Powell will announce his decision (run/not run) 
    by tomorrow.
    

    
    at 3:00 p.m. today.  apparently dole will try to steal some of
    the thunder (presuming powell jumps in.) by announcing that 
    steve merrill (gov. of n.h.) supports dole.
    
    anyone for a quick straw pole?  
    
    yes - powell will run
    no  - powell won't run
    
    
    
    

>    anyone for a quick straw pole?  

McGraw doesn't sound Polish to me.

    AP is saying that at 1PM today Powell will announce that he is *not*
    running.
    
    If true, it's a disappointment for me.  I wanted to see what he would
    add to the election race (NPI) this year.
    
    -- Jim

    
      My guess is he won't.  It's too bad, in a way.  But I certainly
     understand the unwillingness to go through the terrible ordeal
     that awaits anybody who tries seriously for this unappealing office.
    
      bb

    
    An article in the Boston Globe this morning stated he would have to
    raise 10 million before the end of the year to have any sort of decent
    campaign... They said it was a formidable challenge, but not
    impossible.
    
     I wonder if that's the kicker in his decision...
    

	Couldn't he take a loan from Ross Perot?

    I predict he'll enter the race.  Easier/better to join now and quit
    later, than quit now and join later. And he's got to do something,
    'coz the impression of being indecisive is harmful.

    I heard in the news that he's not going to enter the race.

    Even if he announces he's not running now, he may still be
    available for VP... see if he dodges questions about this.
    In one possible scenario, he could have cut a deal with Dole,
    leaving the field (more) open for Dole, and in the meantime Powell
    doesn't have to bother doing all the fundraising and campaign
    stuff.  He could just kind of coast in there without too much
    fuss, and most everyone would be happy to see him there.  And
    then he's all set for 2000, because no way is an 80-year-old Dole
    going to run for re-election in 2000, if he makes it that far.
    
    Chris

    
    <-----
    
    reasonable scenario Chris... I thought about that one too...
    
    Although, I don't know about Powell's personality and whether he can
    stand being second fiddle for 4 years...
    

    	A guy like Powell probably wouldn't settle for an Algore role.
    
    	Were he VP, I think he would be one of the most active VPs ever.

    A VP is only active because the President allows him/her to be.  The
    President is in charge and all events/loyalty/money/power revolve
    around the President.  If Powell were a VP and the President wanted him
    to maintain a low profile, then Powell would.  Powell is a soldier and
    is use to taking orders (from the President, not VP) from his
    superiors.  One of the ways he got where he is is by being a good
    soldier.  Powell would like like a soldier in his position as a VP.  He
    would do the job he was ordered to do, but would probably speak his
    mind "when asked."  I could see him taking an active advisory role with
    the President in the areas of national security, defense, ethnic,
    Carribean and other issues where he has expertise.  Powell on the other
    hand, would be in the perfect position as a learner, closely watching
    the President and the party work the areas of congressional relations,
    money raising, constituent services, arm twisting, political disaster
    recovery, spin control, ect.  All of the things a President must be
    good at to be successful.  Powell could probably learn a few things in
    these areas.  So if Powell becomes a VP, I think he will show loyalty
    to the President, do what he is asked, pay attention to what is going
    on (be a good student), be a good soldier and lay the groundwork for a
    run at the WH in 2000 (get the party behind him).  He cannot get the
    party behind him by crossing up the President.  

    It's official.
    
    He's not running.......

    
    I mean no offense, but GOOD!

    Only because:

    1. I was concerned he would run third party and we would repeat
       the nightmare scenario of '92...

    2. What I do know of him politically, I could not support. On
       gun control alone, he runs afoul...

    -b

    
    powell's exit could easily the flames for a serious third party
    given that moderates have no place to go.  
    

    
    Perhaps a  Colin L. Powell as VP might help to sway the moderates??
    

He said he's not running for VP either.

    
    >2. What I do know of him politically, I could not support. On
    >   gun control alone, he runs afoul...
    
    	Oh, you mean he's against gun control?
    
    	8^)
    

    
    Hardly. He said he supports "reasonable gun control laws", and
    as anybody with even half their wits about them knows, there's
    no such thing as "reasonable gun control laws".
    
    -b

He probably didn't want to end up like Rabin.

    
    that was probably his wife's biggest concern.   

    Well I think it's a shame; Parts was correct, there is no one
    for moderate Republicans to support.
    
    I admire him for putting his family first; so his wife suffered
    from depression in the past, what's the big deal?  She wasn't
    going to be running for the office.  From what we now know Betty
    Ford was in pretty bad shape for a lot of her years in DC, yet
    she's helped a lot of other women and is greatly admired for the
    work she has done with educating people about breast cancer and
    alcoholism.
    
    Maybe (with any luck at all) he'll get drafted to run for VP and
    won't pull a Pat Paulson.
    
    

> there is no one for moderate Republicans to support.
    
Well, with any kind of luck, we'll end up with no third party decoy and
SOMEONE coming out of the Republican National Convention that's electable.

I don't know who it's going to be, but as long as it ain't Robertson or
Buchanon, they've already got my vote.

    I find it interesting that for the next few years the Dims are going to
    have more than usual difficulty dealing with the Repubs now that Powell
    has said he's joining the Repubs.  For the past few decades the Dims
    haven't had to confront a Repub who actually had both brains and
    integrity.

>For the past few decades the Dims
>    haven't had to confront a Repub who actually had both brains and
>    integrity.
    
     Qualities which are unknown and hence exceptionally difficult to
    counter by the democratic party. I'm sure they're preparing the new
    scare tactics even as we speak...

    
    | 2. What I do know of him politically, I could not support. On
    |    gun control alone, he runs afoul...
         
    you're entitled to your opinion, but i question the value of
    these kinds of litmus tests when it comes to choosing a president
    especially when it is on a marginal issue.
    

For gunnuts, gun control isn't a marginal issue.

    
    Marginal issue for you... for many of us (including myself)
    it is the line that separates big/intrusive goverment and
    individual liberty. The 2nd Amendment is a big "reset"
    button... exactly one person currently running for President
    passes this important litmus test: Phil Gramm.
    
    -b

    
    this is interesting.
    
    are you saying that gramm is the only candidate that supports
    the 2nd Amendment?
    

    
    He is the _only_ one that has the record which matches the
    rhetoric. The _only_ one.
    
    -b

    mark, if you're up to the challenge, name one politician on the
    American scene today who has both brains and integrity.
    
    i came up with only one possible candidate: sam nunn (?)

    
    	"Interesting" is if Markey votes for the guy based solely on his
    	position on [no] gun control.
    

    He's the only one whose support of the 2nd amendment isn't spotted by
    caveats and affected by the latest poll results. He seems to be the
    only one who is serious about his support, vs those who use 2nd
    amendment "support" to shore up votes from a constituency.

    
    I cannot support _anyone_ who would be willing to lie when
    they take the oath of office, which is what someone who
    supports gun control does when they promise to uphold the
    constitution:
    
     "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security
    of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
                     _____________________________________________
    shall not be infringed."
    ------------------------
    
    -b

    
    TTWA:
    
    Will Shawn fall for the "regulated" trap...
    
    ;^)
    

        
    | He's the only one whose support of the 2nd amendment isn't spotted by
    | caveats and affected by the latest poll results. He seems to be the
    | only one who is serious about his support, vs those who use 2nd
    | amendment "support" to shore up votes from a constituency.
    
    An issue can be marginal for a couple of reasons.  One is that it isn't
    intrinsically important.  The other reason is that the issue is
    important but is not seriously threatened politically.  I put gun
    control in this second camp.  I don't see any broad based concensus
    calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.  It didn't occur during
    Clinton's first two years which enjoyed the most liberal president
    and Congress in history.  It certainly won't happen now.
     
     

    
    The repeal of the 2nd Amendment is not the issue; the issue
    is whether someone supports gun control and in doing so violates
    their oath of office... Bill Clinton has done this. And that
    is why BC is pond scum.
    
    -b

    
    re: .302
    
    >Will Shawn fall for the "regulated" trap...
    
    
    
    Will he stay in the shallow end???
    
    
     Film at 11:00!!!!
    

    
    I see Andy's gone off the deep end...
    
    ;^)
    

    re: .303
    
    One does not have to repeal the 2nd amendment to render it useless.
    
    Bob

    
    |    Marginal issue for you... for many of us (including myself)
    |    it is the line that separates big/intrusive goverment and
    |    individual liberty. The 2nd Amendment is a big "reset"
    |    button...
    
    a few notes later...
    
    |   The repeal of the 2nd Amendment is not the issue; 
     
    ??

    The actual repeal of the 2nd is not the issue, the emasculation of it
    is.

    
    Reading comprehension Private Parts!

    The issue is NOT the REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment; there is no
    viable movement afoot to do that.

    However, gun control is a sneaky way of achieving the same
    thing.

    -b

    
    | The actual repeal of the 2nd is not the issue, the emasculation of it
    | is.
    
    so where does SCOTUS fit in here? 
      
    

    SCOTUS fits in by declaring ANY gun-control law Constitutional.

    
    > so where does SCOTUS fit in here? 
    
    Another example of a group that has failed to do their
    constitutional duty.
    
    -b

    >so where does SCOTUS fit in here?
    
     SCOTUS has seen fit to shirk, bypass and otherwise fail to do its
    job in this area.

    
    scolia and renquist (sp?) shirk and bypass constitutional issues?  
    baloney.
    

    Scalia and Rehnquist haven't had the votes to accept a 2nd amendment
    case for review.

    
    	Well, I happen to believe that the 2nd amendment has more than
    	outlived its relevance anyways.  Why was it written in the 1st
    	place?  Because back in those days we had armed "civilian" cit-
    	izens ready to defend the country against foreign attack.
    
    	We have an armed "non-civilian" military to do that now, and
    	considering the fact that nuclear weapons could destroy the
    	world 5 times over by the time the military has loaded their
    	clips, it's almost useless to depend on wimpy weapons like guns.
    
    	"Gun control" doesn't necessarily mean that all guns will be
    	taken away.  It could mean that regulations could be a little
    	more stringent.
    

    
    Yeah whatever Shawn... far be it from me to suggest you try
    a little reading before you voice your ill-informed opinion.
    
    -b

    
    	Ill-informed opinion.  Hmmm.  How much fact is required to voice
    	an opinion these days, anyways?
    

    
    i don't agree that the 2nd amendment has outlived its relevance
    it's just that the issues that i've seen being debated in congress
    seem to focus on issues of banning assault rifles and other exotic
    hardware.  i don't see this as a serious emasculation of the 2nd 
    amendment.  my guess is that SCOTUS feels the same way, and that's
    why these cases haven't acheived significant critical mass to make
    their way into the SCOTUS proceedings.  
    

    >	Well, I happen to believe that the 2nd amendment has more than
    >	outlived its relevance anyways.  Why was it written in the 1st
    >	place?  Because back in those days we had armed "civilian" cit-
    >	izens ready to defend the country against foreign attack.
    
     That would be a new one on the people who drafted the amendment,
    that's for sure. But what could they know?

Colin Powell, people, Colin Powell!

    .317
    
    IT's been pointed out many times in here that the point of an armed
    populace is to protect from tyrants WITHIN as well as from an enemy
    WITHOUT.  The first thing a totalitarian government does is take away
    its citizenry's guns.  Ever wonder why?
    
    .320
    
    > banning assault rifles and other exotic
    > hardware.
    
    Too bad that the "assault" rifles that are banned were chosen
    specifically for their appearance, not for their deadliness, isn't it. 
    Such things as a wire stock and a bayonet bracket do not make a rifle
    more dangerous, especially given that it's easy to saw off a wooden
    stock and VERY FEW of today's shooters bother to fix bayonets before
    driving by.  The ban is a feel-good measure that does nothing
    meaningful.  The pleasure of owning a Kalashnikov AK-S, even if the
    thing is NEVER shot, is denied to serious gun collectors so that Jim
    Brady's wife and her ilk can feel virtuous.  And the ban violates the
    Second Amendment, which states explicitly that ZERO abridgment of the
    right to bear arms is Constitutional.

    It's certainly a historic decision, since he'd probably have won
    both the Republican nomination (not because he's my favorite, but
    because I believe he'd have emerged as "the" front-runner) and the
    November election.
    
    On such things history is made.  How many times have I said to myself
    over the years, "If only so-and-so had been president during some time
    period, such-and-such would or wouldn't have happened."
    
    This makes things interesting, to say the least.  I cannot support
    Dole.  And yet I want to support a Republican who (unlike Buchanan,
    for example) can actually beat Clinton in November, because that
    is the primary goal for me.  I'll have to learn more about the other
    Repubs in the field; is there a Phil Gramm topic in here somewhere?...
    
    Chris

    
      |  IT's been pointed out many times in here that the point of an armed
      |  populace is to protect from tyrants WITHIN as well as from an enemy
      |  WITHOUT.  The first thing a totalitarian government does is take
      |  away its citizenry's guns.  Ever wonder why?
    
      the question is how likely is this scenario given the current 
      political environment, and why it should be paramount in the
      decision process of choosing a president?  the constitution is
      continually challenged on various fronts.  the first and tenth
      amendment come quickly to mind, and are always being subjected
      to review and reinterpretation.  i see the second amendment in
      the same light.  there is legitimate grounds for debate when
      one is trying to strike a balance between people's right to
      bear arms and the need for police to be able to keep the peace.
      ascribing vain or self-glorious motivations to the efforts of
      mrs. brady is a misreading of character.  
    

    
    
    
    	.325 >      the question is how likely is this scenario given the
    >current      political environment, and why it should be paramount in
    >the
    
    
    	If you listen to the fringe, "tyrants WITHIN" are already here.
    
    	But I agree. "Well regulated" and "Shall not be Infringed"
    	clash. So much has changed in the past 200+ years, exactly
    	how this amendment should be understood is in the providence
    	of the Surpreme Court. 
    
    	Since the Court hasn't struck down any gun control laws.
    	It's not unconstitutional and Powell would be keeping his oath of
    	office.
    
    

    .326
    
    > "Well regulated" ...
    
    ...meant, when the Second Amendment was written, "well organized and
    trained."  It did not mean "controlled."  The Minutemen were a well
    regulated militia, as the framers of the Constitution intended the term
    to be understood.  Ain't it a bitch that language changes over time?

    Re:
            Since the Court hasn't struck down any gun control laws.
            It's not unconstitutional and Powell would be keeping his oath
    	    of office.
    
    Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing.
    
    Just this past summer the SCOTUS overturned a ruling that the Fed's may
    regulate that guns are not allowed within (1000? I forgot the number
    exactly) feet of school grounds.
    
    Granted, they overrulled it on 10'th rather than 2'nd amendment
    grounds, but it has been done.  Clinton and Reno were trying to find
    away aruond this, but I haven't heard anything about it since then.
    
    Rob

    
    
    
    .327 
    
    >Ain't it a bitch that language changes over time?
    
    Apparently the Supreme Court hasn't agreed with you yet. 
    
    I'd be interested though in a pointer that shows this is true.
    Preferably something not written for pro-gun ethusiasts.
    
    To stay with the Topic, Being Pro-Gun Control has yet been
    anti-consitutional. Since it is the S.C's role to decided what
    is and is not Constitutional.
    
    So the writer of the notes a few back, calling C.P. a liar is
    dead wrong. Unless he believes he is above the S.C.
    
    Which I don't doubt.
    
    
    

    
    
        .328 Seems to me that you have proven my arguement had I been wrong
    						 ---------
    	 you would have had the second amendment rights to use for your
    	 example and something alot broader.
    
    
    	 Admittedly, I remember your point now and the statement is wrong
    	 but restated differently would fit into the arguement nicely.
    
    
    	 
    

        
    > Apparently the Supreme Court hasn't agreed with you yet. 

    The SC hasn't been given the chance really. No one has
    challenged a law on 2nd Amendment grounds. The SCs do
    not just rule because they feel like it.

    > I'd be interested though in a pointer that shows this is true.
    > Preferably something not written for pro-gun ethusiasts.
    
    Go read topic 21. You can do it as well as anyone, I'm sure.

    > So the writer of the notes a few back, calling C.P. a liar is
    > dead wrong. Unless he believes he is above the S.C.

    Reading comprehension! I said I could not support someone
    who is pro-gun control because such a position is at odds
    with the Constitution. Colin Powell, in case this minor
    little detail has escaped you, has never held elective
    national office. He has not had the opportunity to act at
    odds with the oath of elected office. Bill Clinton, on the
    other hand, has taken an oath of office and then summarily
    defecated on it with the so-called Crime Bill.

    > Which I don't doubt.

    You don't even know enough about the subject of gun control
    or national politics to be aware of the "school zone"
    ruling this summer, and yet you are convinced you know
    what I think.

    -b

    re: .329
    
    I'm tempted to start up a SC limitations string, but I'll resist for
    now (partially).  The SC is not the SOLE interpreter of the
    Constitution, though.  This responsibility rests mainly with Congress.
    
    What happens when SC justices are corrups and are bought by an outside
    force?  Can they sit on the bench and rewrite the Constitution via
    bench rulings?  How do you insure this does not happen?  Why would the
    FF give so much power to this one branch of government that is the
    least mentioned in the Constitution? (they didn't)
    
    How things work today is not necessarily how things are supposed to
    work. 
    
    
    
    -steve

    
   | The SC is not the SOLE interpreter of the
   | Constitution, though.  This responsibility rests mainly with
   | Congress.
    
    why do you think that? 
    

    
    
    
    .329
    
    
    You should start that string.
    

    .329
    
    >> Ain't it a bitch that language changes over time?
    
    > I'd be interested though in a pointer that shows this is true.
    > Preferably something not written for pro-gun ethusiasts.
    
    If you're referring to the general "language changes over time" point,
    I suggest you look up the meaning of "charity" in a dictionary and
    compare that with what you find current translations of the Bible using
    where the King James Version uses "charity."
    
    If you're referring specifically to the change in the meaning of
    "regulated," I refer you to the etymology of the word.  It comes from
    the Latin "regula," meaning a straight stick (ruler), a standard, an
    example, or a model.  NOWHERE in the Latin meaning, with which you may
    rest assured the classically educated Founders were familiar even
    though you are not, is there the slightest implication of government
    power - that's imperium, not regula.  To regulate something is to bring
    it into a pattern, not to bring it under government authority.
    
    There, see, nothing the pro-gun enthusiasts can use.  It's a simple
    matter of language.

    
    Shawn has *definitely* left the shallow end *now*!
    
    ;^)
    

    re: .333
    
    Congress makes the laws. 

 >   You don't even know enough about the subject of gun control
 >   or national politics to be aware of the "school zone"
 >   ruling this summer, and yet you are convinced you know
 >   what I think.

    >-b
    
    
    And...I vote 	Scary isn't it?
    Well I'm sorry that my love for guns is gone. My membership to the
    NRA lapse years ago and minor picks about gun control don't wield
    in my head any longer and the Crime Bill seems to me common sense.
    It's weakness is its lack of teeth.
    
    .335
    
    No I understand that words change means over time. I meant to look 
    'regulated' up at home last night. I have a couple of books on
    word origins and their changes.  
    
    
    That leaves me with still more questions but not for this topic,
    and I have digressed.
    

    RE: .335

    >To regulate something is to bring it into a pattern, not to bring 
    >it under government authority.

    So the founders wanted the militia to conform to a model (an organized
    and well trained model).  How did they intend to bring individual armed 
    citizens together into this organized model?  Under who's authority
    was this organizing and pattern-matching to be carried out?

    *Some* measure of government control is clearly implied.  

    I'm no Handgun Control Inc. supporter.  Much of what I've heard from gun 
    control advocates has been misguided - a lot of it, pure B.S.  But
    I just can't accept this dogmatic position that we as a society have
    NO legal rights whatsoever to legislate gun ownership.

    
    	Do we know that Latin was the basis for "regulated"?  For all I
    	know, "regulated" was based on an Italian word that means "very
    	strictly restricted".
    
    	But if it did, that wouldn't matter because the Latin word is
    	more in line with the "nutter" philosophy.
    

    .340>  "regulated" was based on an Italian word that means "very
            strictly restricted".
    
    Exactemento.  ... And that word is
    
                                       "ragucci"
    
    |-{:-)
    

    Shawn, buddy...the Constitution is posted in one of the first topics of
    this conference.  Give it a read.
    
    As far as I know, none of those who penned the Constitution (or BoR)
    were Italian.  8^)
    
    FWIW, you can pass local ordinance restricting where you can carry a
    firearm; however, federal laws restricting firearms are absolutely
    illegal according to the Second Amendment.
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    	re: words and strict meanings
    
    	Hmmm...how many words do we have today that mean things different
    from the original meaning? Anyone care to start a list? I offer the
    first word:
    
    	Gay
    
    	definitely has changed in meaning over the years, wouldn't you say?
    
    
    jim

    
    	I don't know ... Glen's a happy, carefree sort, IMO.
    

	YEEEHAAAA!!!!!  <insert several skips and a clicking of the heels!>

    
    .343
    
    Different topic I'd say....But I have lots of good ones.
    
    
    About....The immediate area around a dwelling. As in Out and About. 
    
    
    Incase nobody else moved to Gun-Control. 
    
    Regulate origins really comes from "According to the King's Rule"
    References are posted in Guncontrol topic.                             
    
                                                                       

    
    	Dennis, like I said, people will choose the definition that best
    	fits their scenario, regardless of the accuracy.
    
    	Just like statistics.
    

    
    	.347
    
    	I gave the exact wording from non-biased sources.
    	
    	I'm opened to other sources that might convince me.
    
    	> Dennis, like I said, people will choose the definition that best
        > fits their scenario, regardless of the accuracy.
         
    	Of course this also fits my arguement that there is room for
    	interpetation until the S.C. makes some clear rulings.
        
    	

    
    >out a rather obvious flaw in your argument. You really don't
    >believe that the Founding Fathers, writing the Constitution
    >of a new nation after defeating the Hanovarian's armies,
    >meant "According to the King's Rule", now do you?
    
    	But recently, someone here said "the basic right to defend one-	
    	self comes from European Common Law" or something like that.  And
    	that is OK?
    

>European Common Law

If it was said, it would have been English Common Law.

Europe doesn't have common law; that is unique to England and those
countries which inherited their legal systems from her.

/john

    
    	No WONDER a search on European came up empty.
    
    	Thank you.
    

    re: Note 544.332 by ACISS2::LEECH
    
    } The SC is not the SOLE interpreter of the Constitution, though
    } What happens when SC justices are corrups and are bought by an
    } outside force?  Can they sit on the bench and rewrite the
    } Constitution via
    
    This is where the jury comes into play.  Joe average that spends more
    time trying to avoid jury duty...
    Remember prohibition?  The people are the ultimate judge (unless
    they're lead around by the nose which is quite common).
    
    Nobody has the balls to challenge something on 2nd amendment grounds.
    That gun free school zone was about the regulation of commerce.  The
    issue was the gun was interfering with commercial activity and the
    sC said "you have no jurisdiction here".  (10th amendment),
    
    MadMike

    re: Ain't it a bitch that language changes over time?
    
    Changing language can't change a law.  If you get put in this 
    position you can demand that the legal definitions for this particular
    action will come from a certain edition law book.  If you fail to
    do this and the court uses the New Websters abridged deal, it was
    nice knowin ya...

    
    
    
    
    .349
    
    I agree. "I" think gun control is at least a "State Right" and is
    Constitutional.
                                                       

    
    RE: .355
    
    Which brings us back to what started this whole argument:
    My refusal to support anyone who would run for president
    who thinks the federal government has a right to control
    guns. Bill Clinton thinks so, and so his oath of office
    is at odds with his actions... he lied. We owe it to
    Colin Powell to keep him out of office. He's a good and
    honest man and we shouldn't let political office ruin
    him and turn him into another liar!
    
    -b

    
    	What's to stop the federal government from "influencing" all the
    	states to adopt the same gun control laws?  Maybe threaten to
    	withhold highway funding or something like that.
    
    	Then even though it would appear to be a state-mandated ruling,
    	it actually came from the federal level.
    

    .355
    
    > "I" think gun control is at least a "State Right"
    
    Huh?  What gives you the idea that a "state" has rights?  The
    government of the United States of America is, according to Abraham
    Lincoln, a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. 
    It is, according to the Constitution, a government designed to benefit
    the PEOPLE, and although the Constitution enumerates POWERS of the
    state, it enumerates no RIGHTS of the state.  The Bill of Rights
    recognizes rights of the PEOPLE without recognizing anything but
    LIMITATIONS wrt the "state."  The "state" HAS NO RIGHTS.  People who
    think it has rights are the major problem with government today.

                                          
    
     .356
    
    Thanks for reminding me exactly why we are here.
    
    Indeed you did say that. I certainly didn't think about State vs Federal
    rights when I started argueing whether the amendment was open for
    interpertation.
    
    My point of view was strictly that without guiding rulings from the
    S.C. there was room to interpert the Constitution that did not make
    a Protector of the Constitution a liar. Simply a different point of
    view of the same fact.
    
    
    There may be other arguements...like State vs Federal Power, pre and
    post civil war or 'due process of law' that open up 
    interpertation for federal laws but I'm not familar with any. 

    
    re: .358
    
    I was the one that mis-worded my reply and brought up
    "state's rights". You are correct, there is no such
    thing as "state's rights". The correct wording would
    have been "power of the States." Mea culpa.
    
    -b

        >	What's to stop the federal government from "influencing" all the
    >	states to adopt the same gun control laws?  Maybe threaten to
    >	withhold highway funding or something like that.
    
    >	Then even though it would appear to be a state-mandated ruling,
    >	it actually came from the federal level.

    Well, nothing stops them really. We threw out one bunch of
    rascals who like to bully states with their agenda and
    replaced them with another bunch of rascals who like to
    bully states with a different agenda.

    Either way it sucks.

    Which is why at least the people who currently dominate the
    Capitol are better: their party philosophy is supposed to be
    reducing the size of Federal Government, which means reducing
    the amount of things the Fed Gov pays for... like roads.
    If they toe this line, no matter how much certain factions
    of the Republican party would like to muck with state abortion
    laws, they'll have no money to actually muck with! This is
    exactly why TRUE Republicans tolerate the religious right. Their
    support helps us and keeps them in check at the same time!

    -b

    re: Note 544.355 by MIMS::WILBUR_D
    
    You seem to be local:
    
    Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
    but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in
    which arms may be borne.
    
    Constitution for the State of Georgia.

    re: Note 544.357 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY
    
    } What's to stop the federal government from "influencing" all the
    } states to adopt the same gun control laws?  Maybe threaten to
    } withhold highway funding or something like that.
    
    What's to stop the federal government is the 10th Amendment and some
    state politicians who know what they're doing.
    
    } Then even though it would appear to be a state-mandated ruling,
    } it actually came from the federal level.
    
    Ya, like your state emission testing program.  This is called
    blackmail and people like you or I would go to prison for doing this
    to someone, but if the gov't does it it must be "ok".
    
    MadMike

                                          
    
    
    
    .363 I know this isn't the thrust of your arguement but...
    
    If you find away to keep emissions in your own state I'll agree.
    
    If you do anything that affects another State's resource I believe
    it should be federally regulated.
    
    Crosses the state border it's Federal.

    That's a good point.  Now, the EPA can regulate COMMERCIAL businesses
    whose polution crosses state lines.  It's easier to pick on peons
    than big industry...

    
    
    
    .365 they should. You say they can't or don't?
    
    

    I'll bet you have a blue sticker on the window of your car.
    What commercial industry are you engaging in?  Then again, it's not
    your car so the state can mandate whatever they want to their car...
    
    The federal government is supposed to mediate problems between the
    states.  I never heard if South Carolina had a beef with Georgia
    in that, the federal government had to step in.  I'll bet some of those
    paper plants or textile plants could use a talking to however.  They
    get to buy and sell polution like a commodity while you get to fork
    over $10/year or so to get tested.  I assume you live in the metro
    Atlanta area.  

    >I'll bet you have a blue sticker on the window of your car.
    
    
        Naw, my county doesn't have emissions testing yet.
        Everytime I get behind some blue smoke-screen would-be Batmobile,
        I wish like hell it was here.
       
    You have to wonder how people with breathing problems survive.
    
    But heck, why care about them?
    
    >What commercial industry are you engaging in?  Then again, it's not
    >your car so the state can mandate whatever they want to their
    >car...
   
    I don't own the roads.
    I just borrow the air I pollute.
    
    I would like to adopt the German auto inspection system.
    
    You can't even have a rust spot bigger than a dime on your car or you
    have to get it fixed to pass inspection or so I hear.

    Ya,  well I don't have the sticker either.  And that big smogger
    your worried about is exempt because it's too old.
    
    Move to Germany or New Jersey if you don't like the air here.  :^)
    It's hard as hell legislating morality, or "do the right thing".
    The testing system is a farce.  The solution is not to make it more
    brutal, but to go after the real polluters.  I wouldn't shed a tear
    if a cop gave some smogger you mention a ticket for something... and
    you probably know how I feel about the fuzz and traffic and stuff.
    
    Not to screw up this topic, but... Colin Powell... there...
    
    MadMike

    RE: WILBUR_D

    I'll let others debate etymology with you, but I must point
    out a rather obvious flaw in your argument. You really don't
    believe that the Founding Fathers, writing the Constitution
    of a new nation after defeating the Hanovarian's armies,
    meant "According to the King's Rule", now do you?

    Aside from that, you will also notice, if you're inclined to
    invest the time, that even if "regulate" does mean "control"
    (which I am sure someone else will demonstrate to you it
    was not meant in that way by the FFs), there is no mention
    of WHO will control in the 2nd Amendment.
    
    Once this settles in, venture a little further in the Constitution
    and take a look at the 10th Amendment which prescribes that any
    power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the
    Constitution becomes a "State's Right".

    And Shawn, since you're big on the "different people/different
    meaning" argument, perhaps you will follow through with the
    request I made (regarding you reading the Constitution); again,
    you need to research the use of the phrase "the people" in
    the Constitution. Since you insist that this is a matter
    of interpretation, then perhaps you would be so kind as to
    explain how (and why) the FFs wrote "the people" in the 2nd
    Amendment and intended it to be interpreted differently than
    every other occurrence of the same phrase in the same
    document?

    -b
    

    (This probably should go into something like CARBUFFS, but it was
    brought up here...)
    
    The big blue puffs of smoke is oil burning right?  Would that really
    affect the emissions?  Not much of a chemical guy or a motor guy [I
    just drive 'em, I don't fix 'em]

    Yes.  Fix it or junk it.  

    .370
    
    > The big blue puffs of smoke is oil burning right?  Would that really
    > affect the emissions?
    
    Smoke is particulate matter suspended in the air.  I call that stuff
    pollution.  And "emissions" are what comes out the tailpipe, of which
    that blue smoke is one component.

I believe the blue smoke contains lots of hydrocarbons.  States that have
emissions testing generally check hydrocarbons.

    colorado has a (largely unenforced) standard that says visible smoke
    is enough to fail a vehicle under our clean-air standards.  
    
    I say largely unenforced because I see "smokers" every day, and some
    have recent stickers on their windshields.
    
    meg

    Those probably have waivers.

    Denver has a bad smog problem no? The pollution has nowhere to go.

    No waivers are supposed to be granted for visible tail-pipe emitions. 
    this is an absolute no-no.
    
    meg

    
    	This "visible" thing scares me.  Have you ever seen cars go by
    	on a cold day puffing "visible emissions" out the tailpipe?
    
    	Is that "visible emissions" or "steam"?
    

    	Testing (in Colorado) is performed on a warmed-up vehicle inside
    	a mechanic's garage.  Steam from a cold vehicle on a cold day is
    	not an issue.  (Or should not be an issue.)

    So, is Colin Powell going to vie for head of the EPA or something? 
    Retire to rural Virginny and open up a garage to inspect vehicles and
    minor repair work?  

    What Joe said:
    
    Also there is a big difference between steam from a cold car and blue
    smoke with the "pleasant" wiffs of partially burned oil and gasoline
    belching out the back. 

    A cold car will burn less efficiently.  Many cars have a cold start
    valve which is essentially an extra injector to infuse more fuel into
    the system.  Like a choke on a carbuerated motor.  When the engine is
    warm, there is a leaner fuel/air ratio and more efficient burning. 
    This is why they say to wait at least 20 mins. before having the
    inspection performed.  Steam will not effect the results but excess
    fuel in the exhaust will.  A car with 1 bad cylinder (rings) or 
    needing a minor valve job will still pass as most inspections are at
    idle.  Increasing the RPMs will throw more emissions into the air and
    can fail the car as oil blows by the rings and valve seals.  My car had
    1 bad cyclinder and never failed emissions testing.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    On the New Hampshire ballot (paper vote - Republican) there was a write
    in for Vice-President
    
    I put in Colin Powell's name just for s and g's...
    

    
      Powell family members, including son Michael (whose military
     career was cut short by a severe accidental injury), are saying
     that Colin Powell will absolutely under no circumstances run for
     any office in 1996.  "If he wouldn't run for president, it is
     ridiculous to think he'd run for vice president."
    
      bb

    RE: .383  bb
    
    >  Powell family members, including son Michael (whose military
    > career was cut short by a severe accidental injury), are saying
    > that Colin Powell will absolutely under no circumstances run for
    > any office in 1996.  "If he wouldn't run for president, it is
    > ridiculous to think he'd run for vice president."
    
    This has been so obvious all along, it seems strange that so many
    people have been speculating that he would accept an offer to run
    for VP.

    Similar to the Cuomo bunk that went on in 1988.  The liberal press was
    goo gooing over what common sense would call an unqualified disaster
    in light of a serious candidacy.  Mario Cuomo, an obvious nincompoop,
    was held in high esteem for whatever reason by the press.  
    
    Colin Powell is a man of high integrity and character.  The guy already
    stated he didn't want to run and yet in their mediocre lust for
    sensationalism, the press keeps bringing the guys name up.

    RE: .385  Jack

    > Colin Powell is a man of high integrity and character.  The guy already
    > stated he didn't want to run and yet in their mediocre lust for
    > sensationalism, the press keeps bringing the guys name up.

    The press keeps bringing it up because a lot of voters have been
    wondering about it.

    Even some people in SOAPBOX have been suggesting that Powell would
    be named as Dole's VP.  It's come up a number of times in the various
    political candidate topics.

 Z   The press keeps bringing it up because a lot of voters have been
 Z   wondering about it.
    
    Powell is not a politician and doesn't strike me as the type to play
    games.  He said no....what's to wonder about?  
    
    Tell you what....I'll buy every regular...EVERY regular soapboxer here
    a two liter bottle of your choice of soda if Powell runs with Bob Dole.
    I know LJ, I already owe you one and haven't forgotten! :-)
    
    

    Hey, I've said all along that Powell would NOT run as VP with Dole
    or anyone else.

    He could have had the nomination for President if he'd wanted it.
    Why run as second banana to some guy like Dole (who can't hold a
    candle to Powell when it comes to charisma.)

    I'm just saying that the press isn't making it up when they report
    speculation about Dole choosing Powell for VP.  Even people *here*
    have been suggesting that this might happen.

    Oh that wasn't directed at you...it was directed at the lambs of the
    country who crave to be lead to the slaughter.

    One can be sure that if Gen. Powell did run for President, the news
    media would turn on him like a pack of hounds, and would fall over
    each other trying to dredge up any dirt they could find, or invent,
    on him. No, the good general made a wise decision to retire with his
    reputation intact, and not fall into the pit of ordure that politics
    has become. 

    When Powell was *considering* running for President, other Republicans
    were already starting to gather their forces against him (and he knew
    it.)   Many of his stances are regarded as being pretty liberal.

    The press would have reported it, but they wouldn't have been the ones
    to dredge up stuff about him.

    I think someone ought to convince Powell to run, if only to cause
    Buchanan to "leave the republican party." Would you? Please?

    Poor Pat - I don't think he expected a 'Go ahead and leave the
    Republican party' response to his threat to leave if Powell were
    chosen as Dole's VP candidate.

    for what its worth...my sources in Washington say that Powell
    will accept the job of VP to enable him to run as the encumbant
    in 4 more years.  Its a 'done deal'.

    Then again, they also say that by the end of the summer, Clinton
    will be so wounded by Whitewater that he will step down and let
    Gore run against Dole.

    The Powell family has made one or two forthright statements recently 
    to insist that he does not intend to run in 1996.

    They must be getting annoyed at the people who *insist right back* that 
    he will run with Dole as a VP candidate.

    the American public can't stand rejection.

    
    Agreed, Di.

    It would be like Prince Charles refusing the thrown and having people
    insist that he wants to be next in line after Wills, that's all.  :)

    
    
    re: .395
    
    >The Powell family
    
    Just what does that mean???
    
    His Mom? Dad? Wife??
    
    I know he stated way back, but.... I would think the man... HIMSELF..
    should be able to speak up and quell things once and for all..
    

    I would refuse the thrown as well. I might get hit.

    
    Actually, Andy, one of the statements about Powell's decision not
    to run in 1996 was given by his son (who is indeed a member of the
    Powell family.)

Di (not _our_ Di) was thrown at poor Charlie.  Hit him right on the ear.
He had no choice but to marry her despite his love for Camilla.

    He's as blind as he is stupid.

    
    re: .400
    
    Well..... I was just wondering is all
    
    
    Hmmmmm... if I ever quit Digital, I wonder if my uncle will come in and
    tell the boss "[I] quit!!!!!!" and tell him a thing or three!!
    

    If Colin Powell kept making public statements to the press himself
    about his possible entry into the election, it would make some folks
    wonder if he was already in campaign mode (even though he kept saying
    he was not going to run.)

    He's made a few statements on his own that he does not intend to run.
    It's probably smart to let family members make any additional statements
    that are needed at this point.

    
    
    Being as how he wants to stay out of the lime-light and all...
    

>    He's as blind as he is stupid.

	wachoo mean?  

I think the blind and stupid remark was referring to Prince Charles, not
Colin Powell.

>I think the blind and stupid remark was referring to Prince Charles, not
>Colin Powell.

	yes, i thought it was, but i still want to know what he meant.

    
    Perhaps that an older, less attractive woman is not someone one wants, 
    no matter how much character she might have.
    

    
    
    Di...
    
    From the photos I've seen.. she's at least a 1-bagger...
    

	maybe she's more interesting and he's not all
	hung up on looks.

    less attractive. Hmm. That's very kind.

	well, he's not exactly robert redford himself.  WTFC?

    No kidding.
    
    

    speaking of Robert Redford - he is still looking fine, IMO.  I would
    guess that ole Bob has had the face done since his last movie - I saw
    "Up Close & Personal" last week and he looks a lot better than he did
    in previous movies

  the man is a fine specimen.

    Prince Charles was limited to marrying a young woman with no sexual
    history at all, so he went along with it.

    Princess Di was a very nice young woman and she loved him.  I guess
    she didn't realize he was being forced into being with someone like
    her.   It wasn't 'public' until he came forward to say that he never
    loved her.  (How nice for the kids, eh?)

    This whole thing has messed up Princess Di in the process, IMO.
    She didn't have less character than Camilla - just a lot less
    experience in these matters. 

    Prince Charles was a dope (in my opinion) for marrying someone he
    didn't love in the first place.  If he felt he had no choice but
    to produce heirs to the throne with an inexperienced young woman,
    then he should have learned to make the best of it.

    He gets paid millions to be in this position.  If he doesn't like
    it, he can leave.

    >the man is a fine specimen.
    
    His plastic surgeon thinks so too...

    really, he bares a striking resemblance to mr. ed.

>    really, he bares a striking resemblance to mr. ed.

	robert redford?

    redford would never have a face lift.  he's much too classy.

    
    
    > robert redford?
    
    Paul Newman??
    
    
    
    
    Who are those guys????????

    no, charles is the giddyup.

    
    re: .422
    
    > redford would never have a face lift.  he's much too classy.
    
    Then he musta bought stock in "Oil of Olay"....
    

    I understand the House of Commons is beginning debate this week to
    abolish the monarchy.  I think that would be wonderful.
    
    It's all a big sham anyway!

    Does anyone know how much tourism money the monarchy generates?  And
    what about all the money raised for charity?  Even if Diana has nothing
    else going for her, she is a very good ambassador.

    |Then he musta bought stock in "Oil of Olay"....
    
    actually, his makeup person _did_ moisturize his skin
    for his new movie.  and used all sorts of stuff on his
    face to smooth him out a bit.  and the right lighting
    always helps.  this is all true, i read it in people
    magazine.

    Robert Redford probably spends too much time outdoors.  He is 
    a bit weather-beaten.
    
    Paul Newman looks incredible for his age, on the other hand
    (and he's older than Redford.)

>    Does anyone know how much tourism money the monarchy generates?  And
>    what about all the money raised for charity?  Even if Diana has nothing
>    else going for her, she is a very good ambassador.

Haven't been following this discussion, and I'm not a `Royal Watcher', so I'm 
probably fairly clueless, but it's suggested that the Royals make the country 
considerably more money than they consume (Fergie excepted), although these 
figures are difficult to validate, for all the obvious reasons.

Personally, I dislike Princess Di, she seems to have too much of a background 
agenda to pursue, and her ambassadorial (is that a real word?) duties seem to 
be primarily designed to bolster her character.

Chris.

    paul and bob...two of my all-time faves.  

    Paul and Bob were great together in 'Butch Cassidy' and 'The Sting'.
    (I loved watching their interactions in both these movies.)

    they both seem so unaffected.  and they never got
    caught up in the hollywood scene.

    Princess Di would have been fine if her husband had decided to make
    the best of the life he chose (even if his parents pushed him into
    marriage a bit too hard.)   She was only 19 years old when she found
    herself in the Royal Dysfunctional Family.

    Charles and Diana could have been great friends and co-parents, if
    nothing else.  They could have each continued to have private space
    and found a way to raise their kids in relative peace at home.

    I think Charles was suddenly annoyed with his lot in life and took
    it out on Diana (by playing weird head games when she showed the
    slightest lack of self-confidence.)  She fought back in the only
    way she could - she let people outside the family KNOW that she was
    having serious problems because of all this (which made things worse.)

    I primarily blame Charles for the mess which resulted, though.  He was
    in his 30s when they married.  He could have kept their family life
    reasonably sane, I think.  He decided he shouldn't have to do that,
    which makes him irresponsible, as far as I'm concerned.

Di is at least as bad as Charlie.  They're both heavily involved in popularity 
games.  I have little (or rather no) respect for either of them.

Chris.

    RE: .433
    
    > they both seem so unaffected.  and they never got
    > caught up in the hollywood scene.
    
    Agreed.
    
    Joanne Woodward seems really nice, too (Paul's wife.)
    
    I loved her story about the kid who saw Paul Newman's picture on
    a jar of salad dressing at a supermarket and said, "I didn't know
    that Paul Newman was missing."  :)

re: Chris

Well, Lager Lout, let's face it - Diana is the closest the Royal family has 
come to having a looker in their midst in several centuries.

re: House of Commons voting to abolish royalty

About as much chance as the CC has of putting Pat Buchanan in the White House.
It's all mental masturbation.

    
    lady di is a neurotic wench.
    
    joanne woodward is one of our best (albeit unrecognized) actresses. 
    

| <<< Note 544.438 by BROKE::PARTS >>>


| lady di is a neurotic wench.

   The REAL lady di, or the one who is divorcing that guy over in England?

    
    whoops.  the one over the pond ...
    
    

	Phew..... are you lucky you said that!

    
    This affair blew up while I was at home.  My local MP Ron, made some
    statements about Charles stepping down and that it was time to consider
    a Republic.  He's a shadow cabinet labour MP, so while the political
    viewpoint is not new in Wales, the fact that he's high up in th
    opposition gave the remarks some publicity.
    
    Her Majesty's Loyal Govt went ballistic.   The press jumped on the
    bandwagon.   At the time I left, the debate was more about whether he
    had the right to make such a remark rather than about setting up a
    Republic.  Although some of us hope for the latter.
    
    This is a lot less to do with getting rid of the Royals than it is
    about getting an opportunity to overhaul the constitution, as far as
    the pro-republic lobby is concerned.
    
    Colin
    

    Yes, I can see how Colin Powell would be caught up in this.  Quite
    obvious actually, and facinating to boot.

4's snarf.  

    Shaddap, or I'll put it in the Taiwan note.

    Oh, please do.  Yes, Robert Redford and Paul Newman dna the Royals are
    all quite relevant to Taiwan as well.  I am sure they are all aware
    that it is an island somewhere on the other side of the world.  Of this
    I am positive. 

It all fits together.  Colin Powell will ditch his wife for the celebrity
formerly known as Princess Di.  This will make him unbeatable in the polls --
the blue-haired ladies will finally come around to voting for him.  Robert
Redford will be his running mate.  He has lots of experience in politics
(The Candidate), can deal well with the press (All the President's Men),
and can be sneaky (The Sting).  After he's in office, Powell will create
a new Department of Salad Dressing, with Paul Newman as Secretary.

    Eesh.  I bet you iron your socks.

..and speaking of Robert Redford and Paul Newman..the Sting was on TBS last
 night.  I never tire of this movie.




 Jim

    Maybe Colin Powell will hire Di as an illegal alien nanny, thereby
    destroying his chances for 1600 PA Ave...
    
    Let's see... The UK abolishes the monarchy, becomes the 51st state, 
    gets a *real* taste of taxation without representation from Slick
    Willie, holds a tea party in the Thames, hosts a revolution and then
    becomes a republic. The Spirit of 1996...
    
    Meanwhile Wo Phat takes over Taiwan and Jimmy Buffet buys Cuba...

    
    I predict Colin Powell will run as Dole's VP.
    
    Caveat emptor: I think I've been wrong on every political prediction 
    I've ever made.

John, I'm confident you'll be wrong in this one as well.

    I predict that Steve Forbes will win a beauty contest.

Only if his sole opponent is Prince Charlie's honey Camilla.

    {rim job}

    >   <<< Note 544.455 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Alrighty, bye bye then." >>>
    >
    > {rim job}
    
    Eh??
    
    Perhaps you meant "{rim shot}"?  I believe that a "rim job" is, er,
    something different.  Unless, of course, that was your intended
    meaning, which is entirely possible given the royal context.
    
    Chris

    Well, yesterday I did a {rim shot} but it got twisted around so, I gave
    in.

    is that painful?

    
    Glen'll be glad to hear that 8^o.
    

    <  bwahahahahah

	I like it when a great looking guy gives in. :-)

    Then we really don't need to worry about Our Shawn.  

    
    	Nope, I'll never give in.
    

    {rim shot}