Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    Just heard the first commercial for Steve Forbes.  Talking about a flat
    tax rate after the first $36K.  

    I like Dorn so far for the GOP, even though I don't see him getting the
    nomination.
    
    
    I wish ears would stay the heck out of politics.  I'm about ready to
    insert him into one of my conspiracy scenarios.
    
    
    -steve

    
      What exactly is the primary schedule next year, from Iowa to the
     two conventions ?  I've heard it's different from 1992, but haven't
     seen the details.
    
      bb

       Dorn?
       
       He related to ex-rep Drin?

    
    I can hardly wait till slick and pals come to town next summer. Think
    of all the tourist $$$$$$ we will be getting.

    
    Dorn is an ultra-conservative Vietnam veteran who is currently
    a Republican representative from a southern California
    district (San Diego?)... The guy is a firebrand; energetic,
    thought provoking, and articulate. On the other hand, he
    doesn't care for Bill Clinton's military record and has spoken
    so "plainly" on this matter that he's burned a lot of bridges
    on both sides of the aisle.

    -b

       
       Thanks, Mark

    Any relation to Bob Dornan? Nah, different last name. Nevermind.

    
    Just shoot me now and put me out of your misery...
    
    Dornan it is.
    
    -b

    >Just shoot me now and put me out of your misery...
    
     Nah, I'd rather see you suffer. ;-)

    Still waiting to see if the Republicrats can come up with anything
    better than the seven dwarves (no implied offence to those who are
    vertically challenged here) currently running.
    
    Pete Wilson:  Hard on crime and immigrants, except; he won't
    extradite car theives who make it out of state and he lobbied for
    "visiting workers" for migrant farm work.  He also faught against
    penalizing industry for hiring illegals.  Has already broken a promise
    from last years, saying he would finish his term for governor, rather
    than run.
    
    Graham  Talks to the RR.  Has been married twice and first wife is
    still alive.  Also a chicken hawk, talked tough on Nam and never went.
    
    Dole:  All over the map.  Reminds me of Humphrey in '72; a "hackneyed
    old ward heeler who will say anything for a vote" (misquote of Hunter
    thompson from "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"  Also
    divorced and remarried.  divorced wife who nursed him back to health
    after disability.
    
    Dornan:  Potentially has many of the same problems Clinton did with his
    home life, and has been charged with spousal abuse in the past.  
    
    Specter:  also all over the map, but at least more consistant than
    Dole.
    
    Buchanon:  Has no concept of a round earth
    
    Luger:  too liberal for the CC
    
    Powell:  Can't get nominated, if he runs at all.
    

 ZZ     Powell:  Can't get nominated, if he runs at all.
    
    Why's that??

    
    Probably for a similar reason as the reason why Wal-Mart pulled the 
    t-shirts in Florida. 
    

    
    That didn't parse well at all, sorry.  I hope you know what I meant.
    
    

    
       Spiro should run too.
       

RE: 552.12 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

>> Powell:  Can't get nominated, if he runs at all.

> Why's that??

He's not acceptable to the Radical Religious Right.  


Phil

    What Mz.Debra really meant to say was er,
    
    				{scratches head}
    
    

    re: Who do I like?
    
    So far, None of the Above.  The Democrats seriously need a wake-up
    call to run someone (and preferably more than one) against their
    incumbent recumbent.  The Republicans are mainly old Congress hacks
    who are just as Big Government as the Dems, once you scratch the
    veneer off.  I'll still vote Libertarian so far, just out of principle.
    
    As for the primaries, the states are jockeying all over the place
    for calendar position, so that their primaries are "meaningful".
    Why not get all of this hoo-hah over with once and for all, and
    put into place a National Primary Day?  The current system is a
    stale old leftover from the whistle-stop days where a candidate
    had to go from state to state in person to get his message across.
    These days most people get it from teevee, like it or not (not),
    so the practical need for this to be spread out over month after
    endless month no longer exists.
    
    Beyond that, it's ridiculous to see two-thirds or more of the
    prospective candidates get weeded out after the first few primaries
    (which are frequently held in less-than-populous states, and are
    therefore less statistically representative of the nation as a whole),
    because their backers get cold feet.
    
    One need look no further than the current occupant of the White House
    to realize that the system needs a major overhaul.  He never would
    have won a national primary, back when all of the original Dem
    candidates were still in the race.
    
    Get rid of conventions too, and all of the other back-room good
    old boy nonsense.  Bleh.
    
    Chris

    
    Well, whoever it is, I just hope it's not a girl, like (for instance)
    that hysterical Maggie Thatcher.
    

    
    
    kudo's to leech having the guts to volunteer that he likes dornan.  
    
    every four years there's at least one candidate that nobody, not
    even their mother could take seriously.   during the last cycle
    it was tom (have-i-got-a-new-deal-retread-for-you) harken who 
    was going to solve the energy crisis by using efficient light
    bulbs.  in 88 there was pat robertson who could change the
    course of mighty hurricanes with a single prayer.  in 84 there
    was, well, mondale.
    
    dornan wins this year's door prize.
    
    

    Same shyte different wrapper.  
    
    I notice nobody even mentioned Collins.  He doesn't get any press.
    He talks about stuff nobody else will touch with a ten foot poll.
    He don't have a snowballs chance in hell to get nominated.
    
    Vote NOTA.

    
    Collins For President in '96!
    

    
    re: .20
    
    Remember Pete Dupont??
    

    
    
    yes!  sort of a clark kent clone, a tad older and looking like
    he spent a little too much time sucking in that wilmington air.
    
    in '76 there was the critics choice... sargent shriver. 

    Mebbe someone will confuse Ross Perot with one of Frank Purdue's
    chickens and pluck him?
    
    

       re Pete DuPont:  Nackey Loeb's choice, if I recall.
       
       What about that Kim Campbell woman.  Has she found employment?

    
    Kim Campbell...part-time radio talk show host and full-time university
    poli-sci professor.
    

    Poor Kim, it wasn't her fault.

    i voted for buchanan in '92, but i am not sure if i will go with him
    again. other possibles are dole and alexander. 
    
    too early still for me....

    
    Sigh...Dornan is NOT a Vietnam veteran.  I keep seeing this, and I 
    think people get this idea because they see him attacking Bill 
    Clinton's draft dodging, but it's not true.  Dornan was in the 
    Air Force during the Korean War, flying fighter jets around bases
    in the United States.  He didn't get close to the action (unless 
    you're a fan of the Maiewski method of calculating the area of 
    operations, which probably includes everything west of the Mississippi
    (for those who remember George's arguments on the Vietnam War.))
    
    After the war, Dornan decided to become a movie star.  Fans of MST3K
    will recall Bob Dornan's starring role in "The Starfighters," an 
    incredibly dull '50's flick that cast the ex-jet fighter pilot as, er,
    a jet fighter pilot.
    
    Having failed at the movie biz (and in several other ventures,) Dornan
    became a politician, thus lending credence to the old adage:  Those 
    who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.  Those who can't teach, run for
    office.
    
    This concludes my thumbnail sketch of Bob Dornan's background.  There
    will be a short quiz later, so I hope you were paying attention.
    
    ;-)
    
    
    
    Rob
                                                 

    
    
    i somehow thought dornan to be a radio talk-show host.  was this
    a part of his glowing history?
    

    If the RRR doesn't find Gen. Powell acceptable, I am sure that the
    LLL (Looney Liberal Left) also views him as unaccptable...

    
    Maybe Powell will appeal to the `outrayged middle' Newsweek was
    talking about.
    

    saw something saying Perot is back starting an new policy -
    Independence or Reform party (apparently depending where you live). 
    Should once again make things interesting...
    
    A view from the North...

    
    	
    
    	Are they over yet??
    
    

http://computek.net/public/collins/collins.html/campain.html

    
    
    
    		###########################################
    		#                                         #
    		#  ! J O A N   F O R   P R E S I D E N T  #
    		#                                         #
    		###########################################
    
    		  "He may be Canadian, but he's `safe'"
    
    

    
    Read my lips: No nude taxes.
    

    Knead my hips: go rude faxes.

    
    Heed my quips:  yo! two VAXes.
    

    
    John F. Collins for President:  Cruel, and Unusual.
    

1996 Preliminary Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates

Data as of August 16, 1995
Sources: Project Vote Smart, the Federal Election Commission

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 6

   *  Louisiana Republican Caucus

February 12

   *  Iowa Caucus

February 20

   *  New Hampshire Primary

February 24

   *  Delaware Primary

February 27

   *  North Dakota Republican Primary
   *  Arizona Republican Primary
   *  South Dakota Primary

March 2

   *  South Carolina Republican Primary

March 5

   *  Maryland Primary
   *  Vermont Primary
   *  Idaho Democratic Caucus
   *  Georgia Primary
   *  Colorado Primary
   *  American Samoa Democratic Caucus
   *  Rhode Island Primary
   *  Connecticut Primary
   *  Maine Primary
   *  Washington Democratic Caucus

March 7

   *  New York Primary
   *  Missouri Democratic Caucus

March 9

   *  Arizona Democratic Caucus
   *  South Carolina Democratic Primary

March 10

   *  Nevada Democratic Caucus

March 12

   *  Texas Primary
   *  Mississippi Primary
   *  Massachusettes Primary
   *  Tennessee Primary
   *  Louisiana Democratic Primary
   *  Hawaii Democratic Caucus
   *  Florida Primary
   *  Oklahoma Primary
   *  Oregon Primary

March 17

   *  Puerto Rico Republican Primary

March 19

   *  Illinois Primary
   *  Wisconsin Primary
   *  Ohio Primary
   *  Michigan Primary

March 23

   *  Wyoming Democratic Caucus

March 25

   *  Utah Democratic Caucus

March 26

   *  California Primary

March 30

   *  Virgin Islands Democratic Caucus

April 2

   *  Kansas Primary

April 4

   *  Alaska Democratic Caucus

April 7

   *  Puerto Rico Democratic Primary

April 13

   *  Virginia Democratic Caucus

April 23

   *  Pennsylvania Primary

April 26

   *  Alaska Republican Convention

May 2

   *  Nevada Republican Convention

May 4

   *  Wyoming Republican Convention

May 5

   *  Guam Democratic Caucus

May 7

   *  North Carolina Primary
   *  District of Columbia Primary
   *  Indiana Primary

May 14

   *  West Virginia Primary
   *  Nebraska Primary

May 21

   *  Arkansas Primary

May 28

   *  Kentucky Primary
   *  Idaho Republican Primary
   *  Washington Republican Primary

June 4

   *  New Mexico Primary
   *  New Jersey
   *  Montana Primary
   *  Alabama Primary
   *  Missouri Republican Primary

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Have Nude Hampster and Delaware solved their tiff over primaries?
    
    New Hampshire had a law saying their primary would be a week before
    anyone else's, and Delaware had a law saying theirs would be four days
    after new hampshire's.

RE: 552.11 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back"

> Powell:  Can't get nominated, if he runs at all.

Powell will not do well in non-primary states has the CC owns most of the
local branches of the Republican party.  Powell will not do well in the
party hack delegates.

On the other hand,  Powell is leading in the polls in New Hampshire.

And don't kid yourself,  he's running.


Phil

    
    new hampshire has a history of turning presidential politics on
    its head and take the primary very seriously.  i sense this will 
    occur this year as well.
    

>And don't kid yourself,  he's running.

Well, some might say that he is currently justifying a multi-million dollar 
book deal and announcing he won't run would mean the floor dropping out 
from underneath the current sales rate.

So don't kid yourself.

Doug.

    February 20?!  Has it always been this early?  Seems like it creeps
    further back every election.  Pretty soon we'll be pummeled with
    this silliness during the holidays...
    
    Chris

Vote for GENRAL::POWELL.

%MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user POWELL at node LOCK

    	I find it curious that some of the same people who once were 
    	saying that the religious right were not a serious political
    	force are now saying that they hold all the strings of the
    	republican party...

    The RR is only important to these guys during the primaries. Once the
    general election comes the RR will vote for the Republican anyway. The
    only fly in the ointment is if a moderately strong conservative third party 
    appears. 

    This is more of a "general election" thing than a primaries thing,
    but I'll enter it here anyway.
    
    If the November race turns out to be Clinton vs. Dole, then
    Massachusetts residents can apparently feel free to support any
    third-party or minor-party candidates without worrying that we're
    throwing the election to Clinton.
    
    According to the latest poll (pretending that we believe polls
    for a moment), in a Clinton vs. Dole race, Clinton wins Mass.,
    51% to 31%.  However, if it's Clinton vs. Powell, Powell would
    win (I forget the percentages here).
    
    A Dole vote in Massachusetts is a "throwaway" (to use a favorite word
    of the anti-Perot people in 1992), so go ahead and support one of the
    other guys if you're so inclined.
    
    Chris

RE: 552.50 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?"

> I find it curious that some of the same people who once were saying 
> that the religious right were not a serious political force are now 
> saying that they hold all the strings of the republican party...

The radical religious right is now a serious political force.  The first 
and largest advantage the RRR has is that they can and do turn out their 
vote for important but traditionally lightly attended events:  such as the 
caucus meetings that give control over the political parties with a voter 
turnout often well below 1%.  Such as local elections,  where less than 
10% could elect a school board majority:  example Merrimack NH,  where I 
live.  Oh,  and no recall election is possible in Merrimack.  This is a 
change,  as the RRR used to not vote much at all.  It's a short term 
advantage,  as people do learn that they need to go vote after getting a
school board like Merrimack has.

The next advantage the RRR has is the ability to run "stealth" candidates
that are rather less than candid about who they are and what they stand
for.  This advantage is rather temporary,  as people learn the questions to
ask.  People will learn that "back to basics education" means the three R's:  
Radical Religious Right,  not Reading wRiting and aRithmetic.  If someone
can't get elected being honest about what they stand for,  maybe there is 
something wrong about what they stand for.

On the other hand,  the RRR are a minority.  They need the support of the 
non radical but still Religious Right,  the Right,  and quite a bit of the
center to be elected.  The more power they get,  the more they will push 
their agenda.  The more they push their agenda,  the fewer non-RRR will 
support them.


Phil

    
    > I find it curious that some of the same people who once were saying
    > that the religious right were not a serious political force are now
    > saying that they hold all the strings of the republican party...
      
    they are a serious force but they are undermining their credibility
    with some of their tactics.
    

    Oh, they're a serious force all right.  Why they shouldn't be
    is because of the blatant hypocrisy.  All of that conservative
    rhetoric when they're seeking to undermine the strong tradition
    of tolerance that contributed so much to keeping this country
    invigorated over its two-hundred year life, by replacing that
    tolerance with a stifling theocracy of thought control, book
    censorship, lost human rights, and undercover state religion
    makes me sick.  And in a presidential campaign, you really
    don't expect them to get away with it.  But our own tradition
    of tolerance lets them get away with it- waiting only for the
    light of day, exposure to scrutiny, to wither them for their
    effrontery.  But they're shameless bustards.
    
    DougO

    
    GEEEZZZ you guys, take it to the conspiracy topic will you!

    OBTW - If they are the RADICAL Religious Right, shouldn't the fact that
    they are winning elections indicate that maybe they are more main
    stream than you think?  MAYBE YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ARE RADICAL?  Nah,
    couldn't be that.  I forgot the RRR are only winning because the
    voters are too stupid to know better...silly me!

    GAK!

    He says 'radical' as though its a dirty word.
    
    Read more, Dan.  Lots more.
    
    DougO

    
    there's a lot of truth in what you say doug, however i wouldn't
    issue a blanket condemnation of the rank and file who i think
    buy into the moderate face that ralph reed likes to depict.  with
    the right leader, perhaps a certain general, they could redirect
    their energies.
    

    
      Oh, DougO is just frothing because his beloved liberal "experts"
     aren't going to be running things for awhile.  As a conservative
     from before there was a stupid "Great Society" to oppose, I welcome
     fundamentalist Christians to the political right wing !  At last,
     now we can win some elections !  That these people came to the
     same conclusion as me about the welfare state, by an entirely
     different route, is not going to bother me much.  Thank the Lord
     for the votes, I say.  DougO's ilk will try to drive any wedge into
     conservatism they can, now that they're on the run.
    
      bb

       Extremism in the defense of liberty is still no vice, eh?

    
      Oh, Mr. T, if only BG were running next year !!! Alas, how time
     has passed.  And see how right he was ?  What a terrible price we
     all payed for that one stinking LBJ ad with the girl and the mushroom
     cloud !  The bitterness of '64 election night - I still taste it.
    
      bb

    
    
   |  That these people came to the
   |  same conclusion as me about the welfare state, by an entirely
   |  different route, is not going to bother me much.
    
    the rr agenda is much broader than downsizing government and
    dealing with the welfare state.  their tactics can be polarizing
    to main-stream folks.  perhaps phil can tell us about the devaluation
    of property in merrimack because of the intrusion of outside money
    used to politicize the local school system.
     

RE: 552.59 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Frustrated Incorporated"

Regardless of how conservative you are,  I'd suggest you try to keep the
fundamentalists of any type out of power.  


Phil

    "frothing", now there's a word I've heard before.  And "consider the
    source" indeed - it was ol' Braucher himself who said that about me
    when I mentioned that the GOP hadn't managed any ag bill cuts yet.
    When I point out how the beloved GOP isn't actually managing to deliver
    that conservatism he loves Bill says I'm frothing.  C'mon, old son, you
    can manage a less tired insult than that.
    
    And as for beloved liberal experts, I don't really know who you have in
    mind.  Let me compliment you, you're acting just like Chris Eastland -
    who didn't want to beleive it when I praised the Iron Lady who saved
    Great Britain from the unions.  I'm extremely conservative fiscally
    myself- which means merely that I skewer GOP inanity quite as readily
    as Democrat inanity, when it comes to matter of the economy.
    
    And where I will oppose the radical right is where they're inane- on
    social policies, for example, such as outlawing abortion, which you 
    can bet the radicals will fight tooth and nail to retain in the GOP
    platform at the GOP convention.  Pointing out that they're anathema to
    the great tradition of tolerance in American society is not frothing.
    Now comparing them to the radical fundamentalists in Algeria might be a
    bit over the top- but only a bit.
    
    DougO

    >i wouldn't issue a blanket condemnation of the rank and file
    
    let them repudiate the Buchananites, then.  As long as the radical
    right wears his face they deserve near-blanket condemnation.  Even Bill
    the Buckley refused to defend Pat Buchanan against charges of anti-
    Semitism in the not-too-distant past.
    
    DougO

    
    so much for "the great tradition of tolerance".  your rhetoric is
    as inflammatory as theirs.
                           

    > your rhetoric is as inflammatory as theirs.
    
    Let us count the number of churches I have inspired soapboxers to torch
    with my rhetoric, and compare this to the thousands of acts of violence
    committed against abortion clinics and other women's health clinics in
    the past five years, and decide how many of these incidents are
    attributable to far right inflammatory rhetoric - and if you allow that
    even 1, of those thousands of incidents, may have been inspired by the
    nutcase rantings of a type like Paul Hill- who in fact committed one
    himself, so there we are - then you must conclude that alas, my
    rhetoric is not *quite* so inflammatory as is theirs.  Of course, I'm
    only aiming to discredit them, whereas they are seeking to impose a
    moral theocracy upon the rest of us - I'm hardly in their league.
    
    DougO

    	Why do you place yourself so much on the defensive here, Doug?
    	(At least that's how you come across here...)

    
    | Let us count the number of churches I have inspired soapboxers to torch
    | with my rhetoric
    
    if a church's biggest threat is the inspiration of your rhetoric
    than praise god.
    
    | with my rhetoric, and compare this to the thousands of acts of violence
    | committed against abortion clinics and other women's health clinics in
    | the past five years, and decide how many of these incidents are
    | attributable to far right inflammatory rhetoric.
    
    you are virtually no different from the hard-hats of the late
    sixties that would tar the anti-war movement with responsibility
    of extreme acts of violence (manson, patty hurst etc.)  it's utter
    nonsense to assert that the rr rank and file are closet anarchists that
    implicitly condone breaking the law.
     
    

    > it's utter nonsense to assert that the rr rank and file are closet
    > anarchists that implicitly condone breaking the law.
    
    I agree.  Of course, that isn't what I've done.  What I've done is
    compared my rhetoric against that of their leadership.  You invited the
    comparison, didn't you?  Too bad that rhetoric tars their leadership.
    
    Now, as for what accepting such leadership implies about the rank and
    file, I haven't even begun to speculate.  Just put that on the list of
    what they accept, right alongside Buchanan's anti-semitism and the
    hypocrisy of the theocratic state those leaders want to impose.  Then
    decide whether or not the RR is dangerous, and who the real sheep are.
    
    DougO

    <--- Your rhetoric doesn't focus on life-or-death. You are comparing
         apples and oranges.

    >Your rhetoric doesn't focus on life-or-death. 

    Nor does theirs, does it?  Unless you count 'everlasting life' as
    worthy of discussion in public policy, which I don't.

    Don't complain about apples and oranges when you were the one who
    started this comparison, by claiming my rhetoric was "as inflammatory
    as theirs".  And let me tell you something else- my criticism of their
    hypocrisy is absolutely within the tradition of tolerance- especially
    when that hypocrisy itself defies that tradition.  If you want to
    defend radical rightwingers from my criticism by appealing to my
    tolerance you'll have to show that they share that value, that they
    thus deserve its protection.  You are otherwise just as guilty of
    hypocrisy as they are- attempting to shield them from resolving the
    contradiction between their intolerance and their need for protection
    from intolerance.  What I won't tolerate is that hypocrisy.
    
    DougO

    <---
    
    Actually, I didn't start the comparison.  Had you looked at the header
    of my message, it shows a username of "MOORE", not "PARTS".
    
    Thanks, though, for "telling me something else".  I hadn't recalled you
    telling me anything to begin with.
    
    

    
    re:.62
    
   > |  That these people came to the
   > |  same conclusion as me about the welfare state, by an entirely
   > |  different route, is not going to bother me much.
   >  
   >  the rr agenda is much broader than downsizing government and
   >  dealing with the welfare state.  their tactics can be polarizing
   >  to main-stream folks.  perhaps phil can tell us about the devaluation
   >  of property in merrimack because of the intrusion of outside money
   >  used to politicize the local school system.

    the ll agenda is much broader than increasing government and
    expanding the welfare state.  their tactics can be polarizing
    to main-stream folks.  perhaps someone can tell us about the devaluation
    of property because of the intrusion of outside money used to politicize 
    zoning regulations.

    SSDD  or maybe SSDG

    re:.70
    > right alongside Buchanan's anti-semitism and the hypocrisy of the 
    > theocratic state those leaders want to impose.

    I'm sure DougO will be happy to provide some examples, in context, of
    these assertions.

    
   | the ll agenda is much broader than increasing government and
   | expanding the welfare state.  their tactics can be polarizing
   | to main-stream folks.  perhaps someone can tell us about the
   | devaluation of property because of the intrusion of outside money used to
   | politicize zoning regulations.
    
                                                 
    the mischief making in merrimack, n.h. does have a faint echo of the kinds
    of stuff south boston had to endure twenty years ago.  there are
    differences though.  in south boston intrusion was force by the courts
    whereas the rr is working in the context of the electorate.
    
    that being said, two wrongs don't make right.  
        

    
  |  If you want to defend radical rightwingers from my criticism by 
  |  appealing to my tolerance you'll have to show that they share that 
  |  value, that they thus deserve its protection.
    
    Thx for getting to the heart of the matter.  I would argue that if
    you are dealing with well intentioned citizens who care deeply about
    their country, but who are being misled, tolerance is the first order
    of business if one wants diffuse the danger of an electorate that
    is frustrated and highly polarized.  The attitude of "I'm not going
    to be tolerant if they aren't" won't work and will only serve to feed
    demagogues on both sides who exploit a vicious circle of
    misunderstanding and suspicion for their own political gains.
    
    I should add that tolerance does not mean passive acceptance.
    To my mind it's a willingness to understand, appreciate, and
    most importantly, to acknowledge the legitimacy of their worries 
    and concerns.  My experience with folks is that if you validate
    their motivations you stand a much better chance of being heard
    when it comes time to seeking compromise.    
       
     

    
      Well, DougO, I guess frothing is in the eyes of the beholder.
    
      It is very frustrating to lose.  When a political coalition formed
     an undefeatable majority (40 years !!) against my own position, the
     only political pleasure left to me was frothing.  I even got good
     at it.  I don't know if I'm exactly an aficianado, but I recognize
     the symptoms.
    
      bb

    >-< You are arguing with the apple : the orange replied. >-
    
    oops.  sorry.  need a scorecard to tell some of the players sometimes.
    
    DougO

    
    
    WHose of first??????

    >> right alongside Buchanan's anti-semitism and the hypocrisy of the 
    >> theocratic state those leaders want to impose.
    >
    > I'm sure DougO will be happy to provide some examples, in context, of
    > these assertions.
    
    This the best you can do?  It doesn't matter how much homework I give
    you, how many 'specific examples' of science cuts I detail for you,
    you just never get the message that I know what I'm talking about and
    can back up what I say.  You ever heard of Bill Buckley?  Yalie, right
    winger, writes books about sailing and politics.  Founded the magazine
    that put an intellectual face on conservatism back in the 50's - called
    National Review.  He editted it for decades, and is still on the
    masthead.  During Buchanan's last foray into presidential politics he
    recognized that there were some unsavory aspects of Buchanan's record
    that the right must examine if they were to treat him as a serious
    presidential candidate.  The essay was lengthy and examined nuances in
    Buckley's own excruciating prose (he isn't my favorite writer.)  When
    all was said and done, Buckley said he was unable to defend Buchanan
    against charges of anti-semitism.  If you want examples, in context, of
    Buchanan's anti-semitism, go read the essay (yes, I'm assigning you yet
    more homework, even though I know you're a lost cause.)
    
    DougO

    >|  If you want to defend radical rightwingers from my criticism by 
    >|  appealing to my tolerance you'll have to show that they share that 
    >|  value, that they thus deserve its protection.
    >
    > Thx for getting to the heart of the matter.  I would argue that if
    > you are dealing with well intentioned citizens who care deeply about
    > their country, but who are being misled, tolerance is the first order
    > of business if one wants diffuse the danger of an electorate that
    > is frustrated and highly polarized.  The attitude of "I'm not going
    > to be tolerant if they aren't" won't work and will only serve to feed
    > demagogues on both sides who exploit a vicious circle of
    > misunderstanding and suspicion for their own political gains.
    
    So we get to be tolerant while they call for a cultural war against
    gays and single parents.  Thanks, but no thanks.  I'll have to stick
    with calling out their intolerance as a legitimate issue that
    disqualifies them for higher office.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Cultural war against gays and single parents?  Give me a break, Doug.

    You don't remember Buchanan's call for cultural war?  It was very clear
    at the time who he was talking about.
    
    DougO

    I remember it very well DougO.  It was directed at the leftist element
    of the country that wanted to propogate their humanistic religion in
    the public schools.  It was the element that wanted to propogate the
    Planned Parenthood schtick in the public schools.  It was that element
    that seems to insist that kindergarten children need to hear about
    mommies room mate.  
    
    In this case Dougo, if there is a cultural war then consider me your
    worst enemy.  
    
    Lenin once stated, "Give us your children and by the time they are
    eight you will never get them back."  Lenin also stated, "Liberals are 
    useful idiots."  Very intelligent person that Lenin was.
    
    -Jack

    
    > It doesn't matter ... how many 'specific examples' of science cuts I 
    > detail for you, you just never get the message that I know what I'm 
    > talking about and can back up what I say.

    It is obvious that you THINK you know what you are talking about, all I
    ask you to do is to back up your statements.  I notice that you DID NOT 
    back up this accusation.  You made an accusation, I asked you to back
    it up.  You essentially said "Well somebody else said it."  Not good
    enough.  You made a statement, put up or shut up.  I await your facts.

    OBTW - I am aware of who William F. is.  I have a subscription to NR.

    Regards
                                 

      
      doug, you either ignored or missed this...
    
      |  I should add that tolerance does not mean passive acceptance.
      |  To my mind it's a willingness to understand, appreciate, and
      |  most importantly, to acknowledge the legitimacy of their worries
      |  and concerns.  My experience with folks is that if you validate
      |  their motivations you stand a much better chance of being heard
      |  when it comes time to seeking compromise.
      

    > It is obvious that you THINK you know what you are talking about,
    
    I'll stand on my record in here.  Its clear I know a lot more about the
    topics I choose to discuss than you do.
    
    > all I ask you to do is to back up your statements.  I notice that you
    > DID NOT back up this accusation. 
    
    Nope, I've done the legwork for you too many times, only to have you
    completely drop the issue when your doubts have been revealed as simple
    ignorant naysaying.  Like on the specific science cuts.  You didn't
    have the grace or the guts to admit that real specific cuts had been
    documented.  Its your one trick pony, Dan- insist your opponents
    provide all the proof, do all the work, then you hide from the results.
    Nope- from here on out I'll give you your homework assignments, tell
    you what you'll find, and if you care to dispute it further, you can go
    get Buckley's article and try to show where I've misread it.  Y'see,
    Dan, I'm culturally literate.  I know what I read and I know how to
    make an argument based on widely available facts.  You, on the other
    hand, only know how to ask questions.  It simply isn't a tactic worthy
    of further response from me.
    
    DougO

    > doug, you either ignored or missed this...
    
    Just because I didn't quote it doesn't mean I missed it.  It doesn't
    change the ground rules- you are still pleading for me to be tolerant
    of their intolerance, and that dog don't hunt.
    
    DougO

    DougO is culturally literate...
    
    DougO, then you acknowledge for example that the AFDC is responsible
    for destroying the cultural practices for African Americans?
    
    -Jack

    Jack.  I'm ROTFL.
    
    The use of the phrase 'culturally literate' in public discourse the
    last five years is understood to mean literate in the sense of Prof
    Bloom's book on cultural literacy.
    
    Try again.
    
    You may want to read the book first.
    
    DougO

    Thanks.
    
    ROFTL:   Right on for the left????
    

    
 |   Just because I didn't quote it doesn't mean I missed it.  It doesn't
 |   change the ground rules- you are still pleading for me to be
 |   tolerant of their intolerance, and that dog don't hunt.
    
    no pleading doug, just a request for moderation and common sense.
    
       

    ROTFL - Rolling On The Floor Laughing.
    
    DougO

    Parts, how can one negotiate with radical intolerance?  What is
    'moderate' behavior when they're on record as calling for cultural war?
    Common sense tells me to denounce them in strong terms.
    
    DougO

    
    re:.87

    DougO still refuses to back up his claim.  I must then assume that it
    is unfounded.

    > Dan, I'm culturally literate.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... typical elitist bullpucky.

    > You, on the other hand, only know how to ask questions.

    Of course I ask questions.  When some person makes a statement that
    does not mesh with the things I have seen and heard, I want them to back 
    it up.  You of course refuse to do that, you fall back to the "Someone 
    else said it" defense.  Sorry chum that doesn't wash.  If you can not back 
    it up, admit it.  Of course you wouldn't do that because that would force 
    you to be intellectually honest.  I suggest that if you are going to claim
    someone is anti-Semitic you have the facts to back it up.  But then why
    be intellectually honest, it makes life so much more difficult for a
    liberal.

    Regards

    Go read the essay in NR.  Then we'll talk.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 552.81 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    So we get to be tolerant while they call for a cultural war against ...
    
    	But isn't "tolerance" the battle cry of the left?  Why do you
    	seem to imply it such a bad thing for them?

    semantics, Joe.  We call for tolerance in public policy.  They propose
    cultural war.
    
    DougO

    
      I just love the phrase "cultural war".  I mean, in a cultural
     war, what do the protagonists throw at each other ?
    
      bb

    In Buchanan's case, you can count on laws and regulations a la
    Colorado's Amendment 2, for a start.  
    
    DougO

    Oh...you mean the one everybody seems to agree with but the wording
    wasn't quite right???

    
      Oh come on.  Culture, in Colorado ?  Seems a bit farfetched.
    
      Although I have to admit to a recurring nightmare of being
     buried alive in a pile of statutes.  Wake me up, already.
    
      bb

    
    | Parts, how can one negotiate with radical intolerance?  What is
    | 'moderate' behavior when they're on record as calling for cultural
    | war?  Common sense tells me to denounce them in strong terms.
      
    you can't successfully negotiate with folks while your denouncing 
    them and impugning their motives.  it doesn't work either in politics,
    or in the workplace, or even at home.  now you and i probably
    concur that pat robertson is unctious and the buchanan flirts with 
    fascism (not my words, bill bennett's), but the cc rank and file
    i've talked to are excellent people. they have a deep sense that we 
    are in a state of moral decline and think that a large part of this
    is due to a fundamental disconnect from our judeo-christian origins.
    i agree with them.  where i part company is in their solutions they
    pose and in who they chose as leaders.   
    
    there is, however, lots of common ground here.  everyone from daniel 
    moynihan, to bill bennett acknowedges this.  you should come to new
    hampshire, walk the neighborhood streets during the primary and 
    try your confrontational approach, it wouldn't wear well here or
    (i think) even in the bay area.    
    
    
    
                                     

    	re .98
    
    	Isn't the phrase "cultural war" in itself an exercise
    	in semantics?

    >successfully negotiate with folks
    
    hmm.  We are talking primaries here.  If I vote in the GOP primary
    it'll definately be to repudiate the agenda espoused by those leaders
    of the radical right - as far away from them as possible - like Lugar
    (Spector leaves a bad taste in my mouth.)  Negotiations are for a later
    time - during the runup to the convention - if its still necessary to
    cater to that fringe.  I have no doubt it will be.  But in the
    meanwhile it is only prudent to damage them as much as possible.
    
    >impugning their motives
    
    I only 'impugn the motives' of people who knowingly follow racists or
    'fascists' (Bill Bennett, huh?  he's another one not on my favorites
    list.)  Why is Buchanan still so popular when leading conservatives
    like Buckley and Bennett say these things about him?  I think its
    because his populism is of a very dangerous strain that appeals to the
    worst in the american body politic - anti-foreigner is putting it
    mildly.  This imo racist appeal shows up in his virulent opposition to
    free trade, and his support for such transparently racist initiatives
    as California's Prop 187.  Look at him!  What do these decent people
    you describe see thats worthy of following in him?  Why can't they find
    a leader who doesn't appeal so nakedly to such divisive strains?
    
    DougO

    
    > In Buchanan's case, you can count on laws and regulations a la
    > Colorado's Amendment 2, for a start.  
    
    I see.  Pat Buchanan is on record as being in favor of Colorado's
    Amendment 2 ?
    

    Regardless of his publicly stated support for CO's Amendment 2 or not,
    he espouse the same "values".  Makes him eminently avoidable as a
    political candidate IMO etc.  

    
    .104
    
    	>Isn't the phrase "cultural war" in itself an exercise
    	>in semantics?
    
    Ask Buchanan.  He used it in the speech quoted in 49.285.
    

    Prolly Anti-semantics, if it were our Buchanan.  But Puritannical Pil
    Gramm reckons it's because he tahks funnah.

    
    re:.98
    
    > semantics, Joe.  We call for tolerance in public policy.  They propose
    > cultural war.
    
    No DougO, you are wrong.  Allow me to remind you:
    
>    My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about
> who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand for as
> Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be -- as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America,
> Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And,
> so, we have to come home -- and stand beside him. 
    
    Buchanan is not "proposing" a cultural war, he is merely identifying
    it's exsistance.
    

    
    > This imo racist appeal shows up in his virulent opposition to
    > free trade, 

    Please explain to me how you equate opposition to free trade as being
    racist.

    > and his support for such transparently racist initiatives
    > as California's Prop 187.  

    You are in California, maybe you understand Prop 187 better than I do,
    please explain how it is racist.

    > Why can't they find a leader who doesn't appeal so nakedly to such 
    > divisive strains?

    eeerrr...as opposed to Clinton ?!?  This guy (Clinton) is one of THE
    MOST DIVISIVE leaders (and I use that term VERY loosely) I've ever seen. 
    Nearly every political move he makes is designed to pit one segment of
    our country against another.  Of the two (Buchanan and Clinton) I find
    Clinton far more divisive.

    
    | his imo racist appeal shows up in his virulent opposition to
    | free trade, and his support for such transparently racist
    | initiatives as California's Prop 187.  Look at him!  What do these decent
    | people you describe see thats worthy of following in him?  Why can't they
    | find a leader who doesn't appeal so nakedly to such divisive strains?
    
    i'm the first to admit that they are misguided.  i thought we were
    arguing about how to deal with it.  flaming is fun in the soapbox
    or in crossfire, but doesn't get very far going door-to-door.  
    
    strikes me as if your applying the lowest common denominator to
    a large group of people.   they are not all buchanan supporters
    and there is obviously a fight to direct the cc towards a constructive
    path.  bill bennett is well respected the cc and as i've said he
    has not minced words about the dangers of buchanan's policies.
    
   
     
         

    
    .110

    Buchanan is not "merely identifying it's exsistance" when he says this:
    
    "And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on 
    the other side, and George Bush is on our side.  And, so, we have to come
    home -- and stand beside him." 
    

    So Buchanan is saying: "They have their souls and we have oursouls"?
    

    
    > Buchanan is not "merely identifying it's existence" when he says this:
    > 
    > "And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on 
    > the other side, and George Bush is on our side.  And, so, we have to come
    > home -- and stand beside him." 

    Buchanan is stating which side of the battle he stands on.  Again he
    has identified the war, and stated which side he is on.  He is not
    advocating cultural war, but indicating which side he supports.
    
    Reading comprehension Joan, Reading comprehension.... :-)

    

    
      In US history, nobody has been elected president without first being
    
       vice president
       US senator
       Congressman
       Governor of a state
       Secretary of State
       a commanding general in time of war
    
      and most of them had been several of these.  No preachers, no mere
      commentators, labor leaders, businessmen, professors, etc, without
      first holding high positions in government.  Thus, the candidacies
      of Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, are really
      not viewed as actual attempts to gain the Presidency.  This is now
      a sport in America, and everybody knows it.  Since none of these
      people will be President, it frees them to say things that serious
      candidates cannot.  Jesse infuriated the Democrats by wacko leftist
      unelectable views which appealed to the extremists among Democrats,
      and Buchanan can do the same to Republicans.  Perot can speechify
      his popular tirade that "government should be run like a business"
      only so long as he doesn't actually get the chance to do so.  But
      he knows perfectly well he never will get such a chance, so it
      costs him nothing.
    
       That this is a resurgent theme, the unelectable delivering ideology
      as rhetoric, tweeking the compromises of those actually struggling
      with real duty, is just a sign of our national pessimism.  Sometimes
      florid Pat B. serves the same therapeutic purpose wacko Jesse does.
      He can say what real public servants can only think.
    
       bb

    
    .115

    >He is not advocating cultural war, but indicating which side he supports.
    
    Oh, yeah...he's only doing what *has* to be done, eh?
    
    Gimme a break, Dan.  Maybe you're easily fooled by delicate phrasing,
    but the rest of us aren't.  Interestingly, I notice that you're not
    quite so uncritical of public statements made by...LIBERALS!!
    
    By the way...we know how you feel about the Second, how do you feel 
    about the First?  'Cause Buchanan sho'nuff don't give a damn.
    

    <-- I disagree with your last statement.

    .118,
    
    I'm simply curious to see how Pat reconciles this:

>And we stand
>with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
>control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

    ...with this:

>We stand with President Bush...against Supreme Court justices who think they
>have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution. 

    
    re:.117

    .115

    > >He is not advocating cultural war, but indicating which side he supports.
    > 
    > Oh, yeah...he's only doing what *has* to be done, eh?
    > 
    > Gimme a break, Dan.  Maybe you're easily fooled by delicate phrasing,
    > but the rest of us aren't.  

    Is that, or is that not what he said?  Who's the fool here?

    > Interestingly, I notice that you're not
    > quite so uncritical of public statements made by...LIBERALS!!
    
    some examples please?

    re:.119

>     I'm simply curious to see how Pat reconciles this:
> 
> >And we stand
> >with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
> >control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.
> 
>     ...with this:
> 
> >We stand with President Bush...against Supreme Court justices who think they
> >have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution. 

    Exactly where is Buchanan advocating the rewriting of the constitution?
    Unless I'm mistaken, there are some cities which do not permit pornography 
    from being sold within city limits.  This as far as I know does not
    contradict the constitution.  Where exactly is the problem?

    
    .120

    >Is that, or is that not what he said?  Who's the fool here?

    Did he say "I advocate a cultural war!"  No.  
    
    Does he gleefully jump into the fray?  Undoubtedly.
    
    Squirm all you want, Dan.  Buchanan's rhetoric it as transparent as
    the jellyfish I saw at the New England Aquarium.
    
    >some examples please?

    Yawn.  Some things *never* change.
    
    >Exactly where is Buchanan advocating the rewriting of the constitution?
    
    He's not.  But his is prepared to allow government to decide what YOU
    can read or purchase, Dan.  So what if it's just some dirty mags at
    the corner store? 
    
    Problem is, Dan, that people who can't separate their religion from
    their politics usually have no difficulty justifying this.  And then
    they go for the school library.  And then they go for the *public*
    library.  And then they go for the gay & lesbian bookstores.  And then
    they go for the regular bookstores.  At what point, EXACTLY, are you
    comfortable having ANY level of government decide what you can or can
    not read or see or purchase?
    
    It's not a matter of rewriting the Constitution, Dan, 'tho certainly Pat
    has had no qualms in accusing the Supreme Court (and, by implication, the
    Democrats) of having done so.  It's a matter of stacking the Supreme
    Court with likeminded individuals who will allow various levels of
    government to trammel on your rights of self-determination.  As you
    well know, it doesn't matter WHAT the Constitution says if the Supreme
    Court is prepared to uphold laws that don't quite mirror the document.
    
    Porno?  Sure, who cares?  But who said this (and I may have the quote
    slightly off, so forgive me): "Oppose new legislation simply on general
    principal."
    

    
      Well, !Joan, the first amendment does not give you any right to
     make, sell, or distribute pornography.
    
      That's not me, that's the SCOTUS.
    
      But as it happens, I agree.  Not for any religious reason, but for
     two very commonsense ones :
    
      (1) "Abridging the Freedom of Speech" does NOT mean the same thing
     as "Abridging Speech".  That's just English.  And anyway, dirty
     pictures aren't speech at all.
      (2) Many of the powers and freedoms in the Constitution conflict,
     and while the First DOES have strong claim to importance, it is
     not absolute - note how judges restrict speech in courtrooms.
     What important policy objective does pornography serve.  The
     Supremes have found none.
    
      Check out the precedents if you think you have a right to porn.
    
      bb

>================================================================================
>Note 552.121                 Presidential primaries                   121 of 122
>TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual"                  42 lines   4-OCT-1995 12:21
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
    
    This is a rewrite of this note. Please explain the difference.
    
    
>    .120
>
>    >Is that, or is that not what he said?  Who's the fool here?
>
>    Did he say "I advocate a cultural war!"  No.  
>    
>    Does he gleefully jump into the fray?  Undoubtedly.
>    
>    Squirm all you want, Dan.  Buchanan's rhetoric it as transparent as
>    the jellyfish I saw at the New England Aquarium.
>    
>    >some examples please?
>
>    Yawn.  Some things *never* change.
>    
>    >Exactly where is Buchanan advocating the rewriting of the constitution?
>    
>    He's not.  But his is prepared to allow government to decide what YOU
>    can read or purchase <GUN>, Dan.  So what if it's just some dirty mags 
>     at <GUN> the corner store? 
>    
>    Problem is, Dan, that people who can't separate their religion from
>    their politics usually have no difficulty justifying this.  And then
>    they go for the <ASSULT WEAPONS> school library.  And then they go for 
    >the <GUN CLIPS> *public*
>    library.  And then they go for the <PISTOLS> gay & lesbian bookstores.  
    >And then
>    they go for the <HUNTING RIFLES> regular bookstores.  At what point, 
    >EXACTLY, are you
>    comfortable having ANY level of government decide what you can or can
>    not <USE TO PROTECT YOURSELF> read or see or purchase?
    
    >    It's not a matter of rewriting the Constitution, Dan, 'tho
    certainly <LIBS> Pat
>    has had no qualms in accusing the Supreme Court (and, by implication, the
>    Democrats) of having done so.  It's a matter of stacking the Supreme
>    Court with likeminded individuals who will allow various levels of
>    government to trammel on your rights <2ND> of self-determination.  As you
>    well know, it doesn't matter WHAT the Constitution says if the Supreme
>    Court is prepared to uphold laws that don't quite mirror the document.
>    
>    Porno?  Sure, who cares?  But who said this (and I may have the quote
>    slightly off, so forgive me): "Oppose new legislation simply on general
>    principal."
>    
    
    
    
    Steve

    
    > Does he gleefully jump into the fray?  Undoubtedly.

    I see.  Identifying a "war" and choosing a side constitutes "gleefully
    jump<ing> into the fray".  And this of course means that you are
    advocating said "cultural war".  Interesting, ludicrous, but
    interesting.

    > Squirm all you want, Dan.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... now THERE'S a P&K if I've ever seen one... :-)
    Unless I'm mistaken YOU are the one squirming...

    > >some examples please?
    > 
    > Yawn.  Some things *never* change.

    I noticed that you provided none.

    > >Exactly where is Buchanan advocating the rewriting of the constitution?
    > 
    > He's not.

    Then it seems that you already knew the answer to your own question, so
    what's the problem?

    > But his is prepared to allow government to decide what YOU
    > can read or purchase, Dan.

    They already do, in case you hadn't noticed.  Try buying an "assault
    rifle".  That was done by your precious liberals.

    > Problem is, Dan, that people who can't separate their religion from
    > their politics usually have no difficulty justifying this.  And then
    
    Problem is, Joan, that people who can't separate their liberalism from
    their politics usually have no difficulty justifying this (gun
    control).

    <The rest of the note sounds suspiciously like me arguing against
    gun-control.>
    With one exception, my right to keep and bear arms HAS ALREADY BEEN
    LIMITED.  Near as I can tell, this can not be said about Buchanan and
    his cohorts.

    > Porno?  Sure, who cares?  But who said this (and I may have the quote
    > slightly off, so forgive me): "Oppose new legislation simply on general
    > principal."

    Exactly how does this have any bearing on what we've been discussing?

           <<< Note 552.121 by TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual" >>>

>    Did he say "I advocate a cultural war!"  No.  
>    
>    Does he gleefully jump into the fray?  Undoubtedly.
    
    
    	Don't we all?  Aren't you jumping into the fray on the other
    	side?

                                                                 
    .122, bb:
    
     >Well, !Joan, the first amendment does not give you any right to
     >make, sell, or distribute pornography.  
     >That's not me, that's the SCOTUS.
    
    Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "the press", doesn't
    it?  Is `44D Cups' press?  Is `Playboy'?  Is `Newsweek'?
    
     >And anyway, dirty pictures aren't speech at all.
    
    And here I was thinking that a picture was worth a thousand words.
    But, by that logic, ANY pictures "aren't speech at all".
    
     >What important policy objective does pornography serve.  The
     >Supremes have found none.
    
    Perhaps not.  BUT...*who* defines what constitutes pornography?
    
     >Check out the precedents if you think you have a right to porn.
    
    U.S. case law will not be a forte of mine.  The point is...how far
    is Buchanan prepared to go to further a religious agenda (since, after
    all, he *does* answer to a higher power than the electorate)? 
    
     

    
    .123:
    
    So what?  Am I arguing against the Second, here?
    
    If you think the argument *shouldn't* apply to guns, then why *should*
    it apply to dirty pictures, and *who* decides which pictures are dirty?
    

           <<< Note 552.126 by TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual" >>>
    
>     >What important policy objective does pornography serve.  The
>     >Supremes have found none.
>    
>    Perhaps not.  BUT...*who* defines what constitutes pornography?
    
    	Why not let local policy set it?  (And that seems to me what
    	Buchannan was promoting too...)  If one town says NO and the
    	next town says YES, then people still have access to it if 
    	that's so important to them.  And if all towns say NO, I think
    	that says something very important.

    
    .124

    >Interesting, ludicrous, but interesting.

    I don't think that critical examination of the motivations of people
    like Buchanan, and the ramifications of their positions, is ludicrous.
    
    YMMV.
    
    >Unless I'm mistaken YOU are the one squirming...

    You must be mistaken, then.
    
    >> Yawn.  Some things *never* change.
    >I noticed that you provided none.

    ...for reasons that have been pointed out to you time and again...
    
    >> But his is prepared to allow government to decide what YOU
    >> can read or purchase, Dan.
    >
    >They already do, in case you hadn't noticed.  Try buying an "assault
    >rifle".  That was done by your precious liberals.

    So, then "it's payback time", is it?  It's okay with you, just 'cuz
    the Dems did XXXXXXXXX?  Or is it just as wrong?  You decide, Dan.
    You have to live with it.
    
    >Problem is, Joan, that people who can't separate their liberalism...

    Do you believe in the separation of church and state?  Do you want to
    see laws based upon Buchanan's particular interpretation of the Bible?
    
    >...my right to keep and bear arms HAS ALREADY BEEN LIMITED.  Near as 
    >I can tell, this can not be said about Buchanan and his cohorts.
    
    Give him half a chance, Dan.  :^)

    >Exactly how does this have any bearing on what we've been discussing?

    Well, I'm just trying to determine how committed you are to a "get
    the gov't off my back" position, because that's not what a Buchanan
    Administration will be about.
     

    
    .128, Joe:
    
    Actually, I'm certain I know where you stand on this, and I wouldn't
    even *bother* trying to sway you.
    
    I believe in, amongst other things, freedom FROM religion.
    
    I don't believe that Buchanan is committed to this.
    

           <<< Note 552.130 by TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual" >>>

>    I believe in, amongst other things, freedom FROM religion.
>    
>    I don't believe that Buchanan is committed to this.
    
    	I do not support "freedom FROM religion" in the form into which
    	it has evolved today.  I suspect that Buchanan would say the
    	same thing.  I also suspect that he would (as I do) agree that
    	religion should not be imposed upon people.
    
	Pornography is not just a religious issue.  It's a social
    	cancer.  You've picked quickstand upon which to build your
    	argument.

    
    .131
    
    	>I do not support "freedom FROM religion" in the form into which
    	>it has evolved today.
    
    You'd have to be a little more specific for me here, Joe.
    
    	>I also suspect that he would (as I do) agree that
    	>religion should not be imposed upon people.
    
    How about religious values?
    
	>Pornography is not just a religious issue.  It's a social
    	>cancer.
    
    Actually, it's a soft target for the RR.  Most people don't care about
    pornography, but they *do* care about people who think they know what's
    best for others (in terms of reading material) and are prepared to
    impose that view upon others.
    

    >Pornography is not just a religious issue.  It's a social
    >cancer.  You've picked quickstand upon which to build your argument.
    
    This should be added to "pot and kettle". Using subjective terms like
    "social cancer" places you on unstable ground as well.

    > I see.  Pat Buchanan is on record as being in favor of Colorado's
    > Amendment 2 ?
    
    That isn't what was claimed.  And besides, you're in default on your
    homework assignment.  Found the Buckley article on Buchanan's
    anti-semitism yet, oh proud NR subscriber?
    
    > Buchanan is not "proposing" a cultural war, he is merely identifying
    > it's exsistance [sic].
    
    (*snicker*) now, pay attention.  This is important.  There is no
    'merely' about Buchanan calling what is going on a 'cultural war'.
    Don't minimize it with an adjective like 'merely'.  What he is doing 
    is a very powerful process called naming.  I do not happen to agree
    with him that there is a cultural war going on in this country.  What
    is going on in this country is what has always gone on- there are lots
    of people with differing views on all aspects of popular culture (like
    the Danbury Baptists, to cite an example from Jefferson's days) who
    argue and politic about their different viewpoints.  This is a normal
    part of the American political process.  It isn't a cultural war any
    more than was the fight for women's suffrage or the temperance
    movement.  What Buchanan wants to do is fire up his partisans, make
    them think that those who have different opinions are really enemies,
    instead of peers in the political process.  Its a psychological tactic-
    and when his targets are so plainly those of color, those of differing
    sexuality, those who aren't white-bread anglo-saxons, its also a very
    ugly and dangerous, not to say demagogic tactic.
    
    If you're really so naive that you think all Buchanan is doing is
    'merely identifying' the 'existence' of cultural war, well, he's got
    you snowed.  'Cause there isn't a war, laddie.  Its just politics.
    
    Now, go do your homework.
    
    DougO

    
    <--- Better said than I ever could.
    

           <<< Note 552.132 by TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual" >>>

>    You'd have to be a little more specific for me here, Joe.
    
    	Specifically, the "freedon from religion" movement has evolved
    	into a drive to remove from society's eyes all that which can
    	be construed as being potentially religious or have values which
    	coincide with religious values.  Nevermind that those values can
    	be equally derrived from non-religious arguments.  If it hints
    	of religion, we must eliminate it.  Your pornography argument
    	perfectly supports what I'm saying.
    
>    	>I also suspect that he would (as I do) agree that
>    	>religion should not be imposed upon people.
>    
>    How about religious values?
    
    	Pernography is a cancer in this society.  Absent any religious
    	arguments it can be shown that pornography has been and is
    	harmful.  Study after study.  Report after report.  But you want
    	to ignore all that and squelch anti-smut initiatives because it
    	is also supported by religious arguments. 
    
>	>Pornography is not just a religious issue.  It's a social
>    	>cancer.
>    
>    Actually, it's a soft target for the RR.  
    
    	And because it's an alleged "soft target" you want to cut off
    	the nose to spite the face and prevent communities from stopping
    	the cancer locally.
    
>    RR.  Most people don't care about
>    pornography, 
    
    	I disagree.  And if you're talking about the imposition of views,
    	why do you oppose self-determination at the local level.  It is
    	you who becomes the imposer by opposing them.

    
    Politics, schmolitics. All this white bread anglo-saxon crap
    that DougO serves up ARE fighting words. Fighting words among
    political _enemies_. There are those of us who very much
    feel that Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer (to name a couple
    of examples) are _enemies_ and are to be dealt with as such.
    
    We're not a bunch of ass-kissing feel goods, and neither is
    Buchanan. His rhetoric may be a little heated for your taste,
    but that's too damn bad. We've had enough of your social
    enemas, and some of us are in a fightin' mood. That's not
    to justify some of the things Buchanan has said, but if
    you want to piss and moan about racists and bigots, let's
    not leave Jesse Jackson out of the stew, eh?
    
    -b

    Spoken like a man immersed in chili!

    
    Deflection shields are going up Capt'n...
    

 Yow!

    >> This imo racist appeal shows up in his virulent opposition to
    >> free trade,
    >
    > Please explain to me how you equate opposition to free trade as
    > being racist.
    
    You again?  Still haven't done your homework, I bet.
    
    You are misreading the above.  Certainly not all opposition to free
    trade is racist- some is merely protectionist, some is a reflection of
    badly informed or incomplete economic models, and there must be a few
    other reasons.  But I didn't say that all such opposition is racist.
    I said quite specificly "shows up in his virulent opposition"; that is
    a reference to Buchanan's specific opposition.  Are you familiar with
    his economic views?  Do you know on what grounds he opposes free trade?
    I interpret what I know of his position as inspired by racism.  It is
    based in what I earlier called his anti-foreigner rhetoric.  He clearly
    has no appreciation for just how the US and its allies were enabled to
    win the cold war- through acting as the engine of growth for the free
    world, and essentially tripling our strength through rebuilding the
    nations shattered in WWII.  He wants us to shut down our trade, keep
    our jobs here (! quel domage !) and basically ignore everything we've
    learned about how isolationism doesn't work and internationalism does.
    He wants us to do that because the foreigners don't deserve our help.
    Or so I interpret his ranting, not that its easy to extract a coherent
    picture.
    
    So hone your reading skills, Danny-boy.  Anti-free-trade isn't racist
    in all cases.  I was only talking about Buchanan.
    
    > You are in California, maybe you understand Prop 187 better than I do,
    > please explain how it is racist.
    
    One trick pony again, make me do all the work, huh?  Go read the Prop
    187 topic.
    
    >> Why can't they find a leader who doesn't appeal so nakedly to such
    >> divisive strains?
    >
    >    eeerrr...as opposed to Clinton ?!?
    
    No.  As opposed to Lugar, or Dole, even (feh), or Forbes (*snicker*).
    But I really can't pick a leader for the radical right.  How should I
    know what appeals to them when all I can tell about them is they're
    following a racist demagogue?
    
    > Of the two (Buchanan and Clinton) I find Clinton far more divisive.
    
    You're not the most perceptive political analyst out there punditing,
    Dan- but take your best shot.  You might want to recall that Clinton
    didn't split the Democrats in '92, whereas Bush came out of the
    Buchanan 'cultural war' GOP convention weaker than he went in.  But
    this is a rathole.  Clinton isn't the proper comparison- I want the
    radical right to pick a responsible leader (Bennett, perhaps, though
    he's about as inspirational as a dishrag) in place of Buchanan; if they
    want their movement to be respectable, something to be proud of.
    
    DougO

    
    .136
    
    	>Specifically, the "freedon from religion" movement has evolved...
    
    If I understand you here, you're complaining about the "Christmas
    carols/Crosses on bell towers" type of issue, and I (to a certain
    extent) agree with you.  But to me, "freedom from religion" means
    gay marriages and the reading/viewing material of my choice and
    and reproductive freedom and so on.
    
    	>Pernography is a cancer in this society...
    
    Here, you prove my point about the "soft target" issue.  Me personally,
    I could care less about pornography.  Buy I worry when someone else
    decides what I get to read or view, and I don't trust those people to
    stop at pornography.  I fully expect them to start going after other
    publications, in the libraries and bookstores, that don't suit their
    agenda (just as the `politically correct' crowd is constantly being
    accused of doing).
    
     	>But you want to ignore all that and squelch anti-smut initiatives 
    	>because it is also supported by religious arguments.
    
    No. But I *would* want to squelch it because I don't trust Buchanan. 
    
    	>...and prevent communities from stopping the cancer locally.
    
    Today, `44D Cups' is cancer.  Tomorrow, `Playboy'.  Next week, what
    then?
    
    	>I disagree.  And if you're talking about the imposition of views,
    	>why do you oppose self-determination at the local level.
    
    Self-determination happens when you choose (or choose not) to buy or
    borrow the publication in question.  Anything more is imposition.
    

    >> Look at him!  What do these decent people you describe see thats 
    >> worthy of following in him?
    >
    > i'm the first to admit that they are misguided.  i thought we were
    > arguing about how to deal with it.
    
    You tell me not to impugn their motives, I tell you why I have to
    (because of the leader they're still following.)
    
    > strikes me as if your applying the lowest common denominator to
    > a large group of people.   they are not all buchanan supporters
    > and there is obviously a fight to direct the cc towards a constructive
    > path.  bill bennett is well respected the cc and as i've said he
    > has not minced words about the dangers of buchanan's policies.
 
    You keep mentioning him.  I've never been fond of him since his days as
    numero uno drug warrior for Reagan- a more hypocritical and unworkable
    policy hasn't swallowed so much money for so little gain and caused so
    much real harm in my lifetime- and it took shape under Bennett.  So I
    can't say I've paid his positions in the current movement a whole lot
    of attention.  His book did real well but I couldn't bring myself to
    read it.  But if he can derail Buchanan's wagon and bring the radical
    right to make a constructive contribution to the GOP and the current
    political debate then I'll begrudgingly give him another look.
    
    DougO

    > Politics, schmolitics. All this white bread anglo-saxon crap that
    > DougO serves up ARE fighting words. Fighting words among political
    > _enemies_.
    
    Has Buchanan any *other* constituency?  I oppose what he stands for.
    I'll call it as I see it.
    
    > There are those of us who very much feel that Bill Clinton and Chuck
    > Schumer (to name a couple of examples) are _enemies_ and are to be
    > dealt with as such.
    
    Not that I know who Schumer is - should I?
    
    And I don't challenge that you feel that way about Clinton.  I
    personally don't find him all that bad - his worst sin in my mind is
    his ineffectiveness.  I certainly won't vote for him this time around
    if there's another halfway reasonable choice.  This, of course, is why
    I'm paying so much attention to the GOP primaries.  If Buchanan holds
    the platform or candidates hostage again you'll force me right back to
    Clinton- so police Buchanan while you have the chance.
    
    > His rhetoric may be a little heated for your taste, but that's too 
    > damn bad.[...] That's not to justify some of the things Buchanan 
    > has said
    
    Which is it?  Is he merely unpalatable, a bit 'too heated', or is he a
    thundering embarassment to the radical right and completely unacceptable?  
    It is quite clear from where I sit.
    
    > if you want to piss and moan about racists and bigots, let's not 
    > leave Jesse Jackson out of the stew, eh?
    
    Fine by me.  Fortunately, he ain't running, so he isn't the potential
    embarassment to the Democrats as Buchanan is to the GOP.
    
    DougO

    re: .142
    
    So you believe in the "slippery slope" theory?  (boy could I draw this
    string off topic about now  8^) ) 
    
    
    -steve

    
    Touch�, Steve.  But, to answer:
    
    Yes, where a clear historical precedence exists.  And I don't mean in
    Nazi Germany or China, I mean 20th Century U.S.A.
    
    Book burnings and bannings and anti-drug prohibitions and anti-sodomy
    laws are all recent examples, some still in effect.  Do you think that
    Buchanan will move away from these things or embrace them?  When he
    says he favours the control of pornography, do you question his
    definition of the word?  Does `Playboy' fit?  Does `Last Tango In
    Paris' fit?  Does `The Joy Of Gay Sex' fit?  How about the latest
    `Victoria's Secret' catalogue?
    
    I wonder.  Do you?
    

    >Bennett....His book did real well but I couldn't bring myself to read it. 
    
    You didn't miss anything. Bennett's "Book of Virtues" IMO is a full
    blown example of non-virtue. This book is full of non sequiturs which
    try to show things like honesty and production as evil. Remember, this
    is the totalitarian theocrat who advocates executions of those who
    violate drug laws. Laws that were created to support political policy 
    agendas and have done nothing to curb the rise of drug use. 

           <<< Note 552.142 by TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual" >>>

>    extent) agree with you.  But to me, "freedom from religion" means
>    gay marriages and the reading/viewing material of my choice and
>    and reproductive freedom and so on.
    
    	I've already argued for local determination.  But looking at
    	gay marriages, for example, the latest rallying point for gays
    	is that if Hawaii accepts it, then all 49 other states are, by
    	law, obliged to honor those marriages they disallow locally.
    	I say, let Hawaii have its law, but don't impose that view 
    	on all 49 others. 
    
    	And for "reading material" if community-A disallows its sale,
    	and community-B allows it, then how are you denied access to
    	the material?  And I ask again, if all communities choose to 
    	ban such material, what does that tell us?  If one wants to
    	buck the trend, let it be its own island of "enlightenment".
    
>    Here, you prove my point about the "soft target" issue.  Me personally,
>    I could care less about pornography.  Buy I worry when someone else
>    decides what I get to read or view, and I don't trust those people to
>    stop at pornography.  
    
    	First of all, let's clear up something.  In a previous reply you
    	suggested that nobody cares about pornography.  If thet were true,
    	there would be no initiatives to stifle its sale in local
    	neighborhoods.  Here you accurately say that YOU don't care.  I
    	can accept that.
    
    	The next thing that needs clarifications is that none of these
    	initiatives target what you can read or view.  They only target
    	what is sold locally.  You as an adult with access to cars and
    	other transportation can still pop over to the next town and
    	get your literature.  Local sales bans are intended to affect
    	what is available to our kids locally, and to control what 
    	character and appearance of the local town will be displayed.
    
    	As for "those people" telling us what we can read and view (though
    	correctly it is a matter of controlling what will be sold) you need
    	to understand that "those people" are us who vote the issue in or
    	out.  You are "those people".  I am "those people".  "Those
    	people" should have every right to determine their fate and how
    	they present themselves!
    
>    I fully expect them to start going after other
>    publications, in the libraries and bookstores, that don't suit their
>    agenda 
    
    	And if "those people" want to present themselves as irrational
    	loonies, that's their prerogative.
    
    	The next town will probably not be so extreme.
    
>     	>But you want to ignore all that and squelch anti-smut initiatives 
>    	>because it is also supported by religious arguments.
>    
>    No. But I *would* want to squelch it because I don't trust Buchanan. 
    
    	So you confirm my nose-to-spite-your-face concern.  If Clinton
    	wanted to enact a tax cut, I wouldn't oppose it just because
    	he supports it!
    
>    Today, `44D Cups' is cancer.  Tomorrow, `Playboy'.  Next week, what
>    then?
    
    	Perhaps next week nothing.  Why does it have to continue?
    
>    	>I disagree.  And if you're talking about the imposition of views,
>    	>why do you oppose self-determination at the local level.
>    
>    Self-determination happens when you choose (or choose not) to buy or
>    borrow the publication in question.  Anything more is imposition.
    
    	On the other side of the fence, imposition is an adult bookstore
    	trying to set up shop next door to a daycare facility.  It is
    	a strip bar trying to open up next to a church.  It is the local
    	convenience store displaying its porno magazines next to the
    	potato chips where kids can't avoid but to see them.  It's the
    	peep show arcade with its flashing marquee touting suggestive
    	flick titles and movie posters in the windows tainting the 
    	character and appearance of Main Street.
    
    	A town ought to have some say in these things.
    
    	What next?  Who knows...  Don't you vote?

    
    
    | You keep mentioning him.  I've never been fond of him since his days as
    | numero uno drug warrior for Reagan- a more hypocritical and
    | unworkable policy hasn't swallowed so much money for so little gain and caused
    | so much real harm in my lifetime- and it took shape under Bennett.  So
    | I can't say I've paid his positions in the current movement a whole
    | lot of attention.  His book did real well but I couldn't bring myself
    | to read it.  But if he can derail Buchanan's wagon and bring the
    | radical right to make a constructive contribution to the GOP and the
    | current political debate then I'll begrudgingly give him another look.
      
    my initial reaction here was to flame you, until i remembered that
    my original feelings towards bennett were similar.  i original took him to
    be something of a beltway GOP hack. this was fashioned by evening news
    sound bytes and five-minute talking head snippets on sunday morning.
    
    what changed my mind was c-span which allowed me to hear him 
    discuss his positions at length.  i think he is the leading social 
    conservative in the country and a person of tremendous honesty and 
    intellect.  his book is a long overdue anthology of writings from plato 
    and greek legends, to shakespeare, to writings by lincoln, frederick 
    douglas, and martin luther king.  (since then i've become a c-span
    junkie and have become rather skeptical of what i see on the networks.)
                                      
      

    
    .148
    
    	>And for "reading material" if community-A disallows its sale,
    	>and community-B allows it, then how are you denied access to
    	>the material?
    
    Well, in a sense, that becomes an issue where those who can afford to
    will be able to, and those who can't, won't.  Take, for example,
    censorship at the `library' level.  Certain people in any community
    will have few resources for purchasing items that they can borrow at
    the local public library.
    
        >And I ask again, if all communities choose to 
    	>ban such material, what does that tell us? 
    
    It will tell us what we've known for a long time: that people love to
    play fast and loose with the rights and privileges of others.
    
    	>First of all, let's clear up something.  In a previous reply you
    	>suggested that nobody cares about pornography.  If thet were true,
    	>there would be no initiatives to stifle its sale...
    
    Well, what I meant was...nobody cares about *protecting* it.
    
        >You as an adult with access to cars and other transportation can 
    	>still pop over to the next town and get your literature.
    
    And if you live in Chicago or L.A. or Dallas?  Will the selection that
    might normally be available in a big city be available in a smaller
    city?
      
    	>"Those people" should have every right to determine their fate and 
    	>how they present themselves!
    
    What's wrong with "voting with your wallet"?
    
    	>So you confirm my nose-to-spite-your-face concern.  If Clinton
    	>wanted to enact a tax cut, I wouldn't oppose it just because
    	>he supports it!
    
    But...you'd want to know what the "tax cut" entailed, wouldn't you?
    See my note to Steve Leech (.145?).  Do `Last Tango In Paris' or
    the `Victoria's Secret' catalogue count as pornography?
    
    	>Perhaps next week nothing.  Why does it have to continue?
    
    Where does it start?  Where will it end?  Has Pat said?
    
    	>On the other side of the fence, imposition is an adult bookstore
    	>trying to set up shop next door to a daycare facility...
  
    So protect the kids, through zoning bylaws.  Kids can see and get ahold 
    of alcohol, too.  That doesn't mean adults should be prohibited from
    purchasing it.
      
    	>A town ought to have some say in these things.
    
    Some?  Or all?
    
    	>What next?  Who knows...  Don't you vote?
    
    You bet your butt I do, but against Buchanan (alas) I cannot.  :^)
    

           <<< Note 552.150 by TROOA::COLLINS "Cruel, and Unusual" >>>

>    Well, what I meant was...nobody cares about *protecting* it.
    
    	Your arguments here speak otherwise.
    
>    What's wrong with "voting with your wallet"?
    
	You totally missed the last part of .148.
    
>    Do `Last Tango In Paris' or
>    the `Victoria's Secret' catalogue count as pornography?
    
    	Hardly.  You are stretching your argument into the absurd, IMO.
    
>    So protect the kids, through zoning bylaws.  
    
    	The only zoning bylaws that would prevent lids from seeing 
    	Hustler in the convenience store would be a restriction on
    	what they can sell there.  (Or a restriction from allowing
    	them to patronize the store.)  Do you suggest, then, that
    	pornography only be allowed in certain stores?  And if so,
    	should those stores be herded into special smut zones?  How
    	is that different from local communities saying, "Not here.
    	Over there if they'll allow it, but not here."?
    
    	And in the end, all Pat Buchanan is calling for (and he's not
    	the only one) is the ability of a community to say precisely
    	that.

    
    .151
    
    	>Your arguments here speak otherwise.
    
    Yeah, well...who cares what *I* think?   :^)
    
	>You totally missed the last part of .148.
    
    No I didn't.  Measures can be taken to keep the stuff out of the hands
    of kids without denying the adults, as with alcohol.  And as for "the
    appearance of Main Street", well..."the people" (the adults, that is)
    can vote with their wallet.  If the theatre stays financially viable,
    what does that tell you?
    
    	>Hardly.  You are stretching your argument into the absurd, IMO.
    
    Not at all.  The `Victoria's Secret' catalogue is sexier than any
    `Playboy' I've ever seen, and is also devoid of "the articles".
    `Last Tango In Paris', what little I saw of it, contained a scene
    in which the woman is asked by Brando to place her fingers in...ummm...
    a place they don't normally go.  I understand there was another scene
    involving butter and anal sex.
    
    	>The only zoning bylaws that would prevent lids from seeing 
    	>Hustler in the convenience store would be a restriction on
    	>what they can sell there.
    
    Nonsense.  Here in Ontario nudie mags must be behind an opaque barrier
    at least 5 feet from the ground, and you must be 18 to purchase them.
    Seems to work out alright.  Kids can't buy it, don't normally see it,
    and the stores can still sell it to adults.  Zoning bylaws can keep the
    stuff away from churches and day care centres, just as they do here.
    
    	>And in the end, all Pat Buchanan is calling for...
    
    Well, this isn't the *only* issue I disagree with Buchanan on.
    And, in any case, I *don't* know that this is "all Pat is calling for".
    There's a lot I don't know about him.  But what I *have* heard I don't 
    like.

    >Not that I know who Schumer is - should I?
    
     King of smarm democrat from NY, arch-rival of the 2nd amendment and
    all around lying sack of excrement. Makes Buchanan's rhetoric seem
    thoughtful, well considered and objective with his fomenting emotional
    histrionics. He's got the smarmy, lying face that just begs for a fist,
    and I'm not a violent guy. More crap come out of his mouth in a second
    than a pod of whales excretes in a lifetime.

    
    Don't hold back, Doctah.  Tell us how you *really* feel.
    

    Can't. Conference policy. I'm supposed to be a "good example." :-)

    
    re:.129

    > I don't think that critical examination of the motivations of people
    > like Buchanan, and the ramifications of their positions, is ludicrous.

    If that is your definition of a "critical examination", I think I've
    identified the problem.

    > You must be mistaken, then.

    Gee, I thought you admitted you were wrong, how silly of me.

    > >> Yawn.  Some things *never* change.
    > >I noticed that you provided none.
    > ...for reasons that have been pointed out to you time and again...

    That you have none obviously.

    > So, then "it's payback time", is it?

    No, just pointing out where you are wrong.

    > >Problem is, Joan, that people who can't separate their liberalism...
    > Do you believe in the separation of church and state?  

    Irrelevant to the discussion.  I am pointing out misstatements, nothing
    more, nothing less.

    > Do you want to see laws based upon Buchanan's particular interpretation 
    > of the Bible?

    Not particularly.

    >>...my right to keep and bear arms HAS ALREADY BEEN LIMITED.  Near as 
    >>I can tell, this can not be said about Buchanan and his cohorts.
    > Give him half a chance, Dan.  :^)

    So your view is that all politicians want to restrict freedom?

    >>Exactly how does this have any bearing on what we've been discussing?
    > Well, I'm just trying to determine how committed you are to a "get
    > the gov't off my back" position, because that's not what a Buchanan
    > Administration will be about.

    You, of course, will provide examples of why you feel this way.

    re:.130

    > I believe in, amongst other things, freedom FROM religion.

    Gee we have a right to freedom from religion!  Where in the
    constitution is that exactly?

    re:.134

    > > I see.  Pat Buchanan is on record as being in favor of Colorado's
    > > Amendment 2 ?
    > That isn't what was claimed.

    Then what exactly are you claiming?

    > Found the Buckley article on Buchanan's anti-Semitism yet

    Sorry, I don't have issues going back that far, I'll have to rely on
    you to defend your statement.

    > It isn't a cultural war any
    > more than was the fight for women's suffrage or the temperance
    > movement.  

    hhhhmmmmm seems to me that "cultural war" would also fit for those.

    > What Buchanan wants to do is fire up his partisans, make
    > them think that those who have different opinions are really enemies,
    > instead of peers in the political process.  

    I see, unlike Bill Clinton and company.... Yeah right!

    > Its a psychological tactic- 
    > and when his targets are so plainly those of color...

    You are, of course, going to back up those assertions... I wait in
    eager anticipation.

    > If you're really so naive that you think all Buchanan is doing is
    > 'merely identifying' the 'existence' of cultural war, well, he's got
    > you snowed.  'Cause there isn't a war, laddie.  Its just politics.

    These statements are inconsistent.  First you claim that I'm naive
    because I down play the "cultural war" statement, then you say it's
    just politics.  Make up your mind will you!

    re:.135

    > <--- Better said than I ever could.

    That is self-evident, but I wasn't going to slam you like that.

    re:.141

    > >> This imo racist appeal shows up in his virulent opposition to
    > >> free trade,
    > > Please explain to me how you equate opposition to free trade as
    > > being racist.
    > You again?

    Of course, as long as you keep making unsubstantiated claims, I'll
    pursue it.  Get used to it.
    
    > You are misreading the above.

    Mea Culpa, I figured that you would not be stupid enough to say
    something like that.  That's why I wanted an explanation...

    > Are you familiar with his economic views?  Do you know on what grounds 
    > he opposes free trade?

    I thought so, but I did not read into it what you did, so please show
    me where you saw this.  I have heard him interviewed, and read some of
    his articles.  I haven't seen what you claim is there.

    > I interpret what I know of his position as inspired by racism.  

    Why?

    > It is based in what I earlier called his anti-foreigner rhetoric.  

    anti-foreigner rhetoric is not by definition racism.

    > Or so I interpret his ranting, not that its easy to extract a coherent
    > picture.

    obviously, because I got a much different picture of it.  FWIW I'm in
    favor of free trade wherever possible.

    > Anti-free-trade isn't racist in all cases.  I was only talking about 
    > Buchanan.

    You seem to have a thing about Buchanan, I want to know why.

    > >> Why can't they find a leader who doesn't appeal so nakedly to such
    > >> divisive strains?
    > >    eeerrr...as opposed to Clinton ?!?
    > No.  As opposed to Lugar, ....

    Did you really miss my point?  I was attempting to show that Clinton is
    much more divisive politically than any of the (major) options on the
    right.
    
    > How should I
    > know what appeals to them when all I can tell about them is they're
    > following a racist demagogue?

    Which you haven't proven yet.... :-)

    > > Of the two (Buchanan and Clinton) I find Clinton far more divisive.
    > You're not the most perceptive political analyst out there punditing,
    > Dan- but take your best shot.

    Nor are you my friend, but then it has never stopped you before...

    > ...if they
    > want their movement to be respectable, something to be proud of.

    Respectable to who?  You?  Judging from some of the things you seem to
    be in favor of, that is not possible.  The fact is if the Repubs. pick
    someone too far right, Billy will get back in.  If not, then he's (the
    GOP candidate) supported by the bulk of the people in the US.  They're 
    called elections, but I'm sure you knew that.

    re:.144

    > And I don't challenge that you feel that way about Clinton.  I
    > personally don't find him all that bad - his worst sin in my mind is
    > his ineffectiveness.

    Gee, and I thought that was his only saving grace.... :-)

    
    .157

    >No, just pointing out where you are wrong.

    It's good that we have you here to keep us honest, Dan.

    >>Do you believe in the separation of church and state?  
    >
    >Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Not by a LONG shot, Dan.

    >> Do you want to see laws based upon Buchanan's particular interpretation 
    >> of the Bible?
    >
    >Not particularly.

    Well, what I've seen of Buchanan so far suggests that his religious
    views will dictate his policies.  I'd consider that before supporting
    him.

    >So your view is that all politicians want to restrict freedom?

    Some do.  Buchanan will, I think.  Maybe in different ways than Clinton.

    >You, of course, will provide examples of why you feel this way.

    No, I won't, Dan.  Brutalize me with facts, if you got 'em.

    >Gee we have a right to freedom from religion!  Where in the
    >constitution is that exactly?

    I'm certain I have no idea what you mean by this.  I said that I 
    "believe in" freedom from religion.  Do you?  If so, why?  If not, 
    why not?

    >> <--- Better said than I ever could.
    >
    >That is self-evident, but I wasn't going to slam you like that.

    But then, after all, you thought you would anyway, huh?
    

    forget your calls for 'backing up' my statements for you, Dan- 'cause
    when I do, as I've done three or four times in the past month, you
    never have the guts to admit your ignorant bluffs have been called.
    If you won't take my word for what Bill the Buckley said, and you won't
    go look it up for yourself, I simply don't care- you haven't earned
    enough respect from me in your discussion tactics to make me want to
    convince you.  Buckley said he couldn't defend Buchanan against charges
    of anti-semitism.  Its a matter of public record.  Take it or leave it.
    
    DougO

    >Buckley said he couldn't defend Buchanan against charges
    >of anti-semitism.  Its a matter of public record.  
    
     I remember that.

    
     >I remember that.
    
    Can you back that up?  Do you have any examples?
    

    For my first witness, I call Chris Eastland...

>>    For my first witness, I call Chris Eastland...

   8^(  come back easty - all is forgiven.

    
    re:.158
    > >No, just pointing out where you are wrong.
    > It's good that we have you here to keep us honest, Dan.

    I know, isn't it though.

    > >>Do you believe in the separation of church and state?  
    > >Irrelevant to the discussion.
    > Not by a LONG shot, Dan.

    How so?

    > >You, of course, will provide examples of why you feel this way.
    > No, I won't, Dan.

    Why does this not surprise me?

    > >Gee we have a right to freedom from religion!  Where in the
    > >constitution is that exactly?
    > 
    > I'm certain I have no idea what you mean by this.  I said that I 
    > "believe in" freedom from religion.  Do you?  If so, why?  If not, 
    > why not?

    I have no idea, I can't even figure out what you mean by that.

    > >> <--- Better said than I ever could.
    > >That is self-evident, but I wasn't going to slam you like that.
    > But then, after all, you thought you would anyway, huh?

    You lead with your chin on that one bucko.

    re:.159

    > forget your calls for 'backing up' my statements for you....

    again, why does this not surprise me.  'fess up, you ain't gots no
    proof.

    > If you won't take my word for what Bill the Buckley said, and you won't
    > go look it up for yourself

    Oh, I read what Buckley said, I just disagreed with his assessment.  I
    was asking you to back up your statement, which you have yet to do. 

    > you haven't earned
    > enough respect from me in your discussion tactics to make me want to
    > convince you.  

    Oh, I'm sorry!  I didn't realize that I was taking to one of "those who
    count".  Get a grip.  You have yet to provide ANY proof of your
    assertion, put up or shut up.

    > Buckley said he couldn't defend Buchanan against charges
    > of anti-Semitism.  Its a matter of public record.  Take it or leave it.

    True, but last I knew, YOU were not William F. Buckley.

    Dan:
    
    Too funny!!!  Great note!

    
    .164
    
    See how he dances
    See how he moves from side to side
    See how he prances
    The way his hooves just seem to glide...
    

    > Oh, I read what Buckley said, I just disagreed with his
    > assessment.  I was asking you to back up your statement, 
    > which you have yet to do. 
    
    Yeah, *sure* you read Buckley's essay, and you merely 
    "disagreed with his assessment."  Yeah, I believe you.  Uh-huh.
    
    Buckley's essay cites numerous statement Buchanan made and 
    places those statements into context.  Exhaustively.  I gave
    Buckley's article as a citation for my contention that Buchanan
    is anti-semitic.  If you aren't convinced by Buckley's essay,
    then you won't be convinced by anything I say.  So buzz off.
    If you read it and still doubt, you're even less someone I want
    to talk to.
    
    DougO

    C'mon Doug. I mean, WF Buckley's reasonably bright and all, but Dan's
    superior powers of assessment came into play and well, it's not like
    Buckley can hold a candle to Dan Killoran in the logic department. If
    Buchanan makes a Farrakhan-like comment about "jews" and Buckley
    characterises it as anti-semitic, who are we to argue with Dan Killoran
    when he says it isn't?

    
    I used to be...like...lost, man.  I used to think I...like...KNEW some
    things and stuff, man.  But, man, I didn't know NUTHIN'!
    
    Then one day, man, I got turned on to the writings of The Dan, mannn.
    He's like...WOW, man.  I mean, he's like THE DAN, y'know?
    
    He taught me that...like...it was OKAY to like NOT know, man.  Not
    knowin' nuthin is like OKAY, man, as long as you...like...DISTRACT
    attention away from the not knowin' by like pretending that everyone
    ELSE don't know nuthin', man.  "Keep 'em on the run", he'd say, mannn.
    
    Like, WOW!
    

       re .169:
       
       Sorry, too much content in that.
       
       Try again, but keep in mind that it's not a simple matter to
       emulate an extraordinary standard.

    
    <<<zzzzzzzzzzz>>>
    

    
                        
    much of buchanan's rhetoric is more pre-cold war democratic
    then it is republican.  i believe that buchanan is a precursor
    to a third party movement that will probably marginalize 
    the democratic party.
     

    > i believe that buchanan is a precursor to a third party movement that
    > will probably marginalize the democratic party.
    
    I find it far more likely that Powell will find a comfortable home 
    in the center that draws in the majority of the GOP, and that the
    Buchananites will be the marginalized. 
    
    DougO

    .173,
    
    You, of course, will provide examples of why you feel this way.
    
    
                               oooooooo
                         oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
                      oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
                   oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o   
                o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o      
               o$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$o   
              o$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$o  
             $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$$
           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$        
          "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"   
          $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
         "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" 
         "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$"
          $$$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   o$$$
          "$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     $$$"
            $$$$    "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"      o$$$
            "$$$o     """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"         $$$
              $$$o          """$$$$$$$$$"""           o$$$
               $$$$o                                o$$$"
                "$$$$o                            o$$$$
                  "$$$$$oo                     o$$$$""
                     ""$$$$$oo            oo$$$$$""
                        ""$$$$$$ooooooooo$$$$$$""
                              oo$$$$$$$$$oo
                                  """""
    

    
    |  I find it far more likely that Powell will find a comfortable home
    |  in the center that draws in the majority of the GOP, and that the
    |  Buchananites will be the marginalized.
    
    in 96 for sure.  however i'm projecting out to the next four to 
    eight years.  buchanan's populist constituentcy is fundamentally unworkable
    in the republican party.   
    
    eventually it will seek some other party, probably leaving buchanan
    behind.  i would not be surprised if it found its way back into a
    redefined democratic party.
    

In USA Today, an article on the front page on Powells general agreement with
what the Repubs are doing, commenting on the energy in which that party is
expelling in trying to address the countrys REAL problems, and that he only
disagrees with them, by degree only, on a select few issues.

He is trying to demonstrate his support of the repubs.

He ain't runnin folks ...

Doug. 

	I direct quote from the Presidents of the United States:






                              She's Lump
                              She's Lump
                              She's in my head!
                              She's Lump
                              She's Lump
                              She's Lump
                              She might be dead!

    
    	I heard that this morning ... not bad, really.
    

    Is it Lump or Love?

    
    	"Lump".
    
    	I only know because the DJ said it after the song was over.
    

	Yes, it is Lump. And if you listen to the words, you will see that it
is Lump..... and like Shawn said... VERY good song!


Glen

    Please. A VERY good song? I suppose given this scale "My Sharona" is the
    pop equivalent of Beethoven's ninth.

    
    Doo do dah dah dum DAH dum DAH dum DAH, doo do dah dah dum DAH...
    
    -b

	No, Mark. One is a classic, one is trash. But Lump is in it's own
catagory. It's a song with a deep meaning! If you listen to the words, it seems
like it is about a guy finally getting over his ex-girlfriend. Listen to the
whole song. Different? Yup. But veddy veddy good. Alternative music at it's
best. 


Glen

    Slipshod Noting -- poor behavior indeed for a Gay Ambassador. 
    
    SHAME!!!!
    

    
    	Woah, "My Sharona" IS NOT trash.
    

	Dr. Dan.......




                I AIN'T NO STINKIN AMBASSADOOR OF ANYTHING!!!

    'Tis true.  OK, I'll lay off twitting the fundies with that 'un.
    

    >Alternative music at it's best.
    
     Such as it is.

    You are right Shawn, Your Sharona is not trash.  Everyone, quit
    talking about Shawn's Sharona being trashy.  Shawn's Sharona comes from
    a fine upstanding family in Uxtonbridgevilleborough.  Now, the song by
    The Knack of the same name rots.

    
    Get The Knack, Bri.
    

 Everytime I hear "My Sharona" I think of Phoenix, AZ.  That song was the
 big thing when I first moved there in, um, er..1979?




 Jim

    
    presidential primaries folks

    
    	Don't change the subject.
    

    
    Did someone appoint splattis as the new sheepshagger?

<---won't you become lonely without chasing sheep?

    
    re:.167
    
    > Yeah, *sure* you read Buckley's essay, and you merely 
    > "disagreed with his assessment."  Yeah, I believe you.  Uh-huh.
    
    DILLIGAF ?  Your inability to accept reality does not surprise me in
    the slightest.
    
    > Buckley's essay cites numerous statement Buchanan made and 
    > places those statements into context.  Exhaustively.  
    
    True, I however disagree with his conclusions.  I don't blindly follow
    someone.  You should try this.
    
    > If you aren't convinced by Buckley's essay,
    > then you won't be convinced by anything I say.  
    
    VERY likely given your past performances.
    
    > So buzz off.
    
    Stop saying things that lack basis in face, and you won't hear from 
    me again.
    
    > If you read it and still doubt, you're even less someone I want
    > to talk to.
    
    Why?  Because I am able to think for myself?  You should try it, it
    will do you good.
    
    re:.168
    > C'mon Doug. I mean, WF Buckley's reasonably bright and all, but Dan's
    > superior powers of assessment came into play and well, it's not like
    > Buckley can hold a candle to Dan Killoran in the logic department. 
    
    You mean to say that you agree with EVERYTHING the Buckley writes Mark?
    I'd be surprised by that.
    
    > If Buchanan makes a Farrakhan-like comment about "jews" and Buckley
    > characterises it as anti-semitic, who are we to argue with Dan Killoran
    > when he says it isn't?
    
    Please, please, please site some examples.  I'm heard the press
    claiming this for years, and have not been able to find any that would
    be "Farrakhan-like".  I mean I'd love to find Buchanan saying
    "bloodsucking leaches" or some such, about jews.  I have yet to see
    any.
    

    >You mean to say that you agree with EVERYTHING the Buckley writes Mark?
    >I'd be surprised by that.
    
     Of course not, but that's not the issue. The issue is that WF Buckley
    has made a case for Pat Buchanan holding anti-semitic views based on
    things that Buchanan has said. It's a very strong case. You claim you
    simply "disagree with his conclusions." I don't think you've even tried
    to locate the article. I don't think you have even the slightest clue
    about what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong by citing
    (correct spelling, BTW) Buckley's arguments and stating why his
    conclusion is faulty given the facts. I bet you can't do this. Yet, if
    you did indeed do the research, it should be trivially easy to do so.
    (expected response: "I've got work to do" "I don't owe you anything"
    etc- anything but directly meeting the challenge.)
    
    

    
    <the sound of breath unwisely held>
    

 Presidential snarfs

    
    re:.198
    
    > I don't think you've even tried to locate the article. 
    
    You have a right to your incorrect opinion, but there is no way I can
    disprove it.  As I recall the article was written a while ago 
    (18+ monthes, if he wrote another article since then I've missed it).  
    I do not keep NR back that far, (if you do, I'll be impressed)  I have,
    at most, the 3-4 most recent copies.
    
    > You can prove me wrong by citing (correct spelling, BTW) Buckley's 
    > arguments and stating why his conclusion is faulty given the facts. 
    
    I would love to, but see above...
    
    > I bet you can't do this. 
    
    could you?  You keep all your mags that far back?
    
    > Yet, if you did indeed do the research, it should be trivially easy 
    > to do so.
    
    Please enlighten me as to how hot shot.  I'm not about to go to the
    library to disprove a bone-headed statement someone else made.  They
    made the statement and refused to back it up.  The burden of proof is
    their's.
    
    > (expected response: "I've got work to do" "I don't owe you anything"
    > etc- anything but directly meeting the challenge.)
    
    Grow up will you.
    

    
    .201
    
    elephant spoor
    

       
       
       
               /����\
              /      \
             /        \
            /          \���YOU TELL 'EM, DAN!!  GOOD ONE!!!!
           /
       <--/

    
    Mark sez:
    
    >I don't think you've even tried to locate the article. 
    
    Dan sez:
    
    >You have a right to your incorrect opinion...
                              ^^^^^^^^^
    Then Dan sez:
    
    >As I recall the article was written a while ago 
    >(18+ monthes, if he wrote another article since then I've missed it).  
    >I do not keep NR back that far, (if you do, I'll be impressed)  I have,
    >at most, the 3-4 most recent copies.
    
    ...and also:
    
    >I'm not about to go to the
    >library to disprove a bone-headed statement someone else made.
    
    ...meaning that he did NOT, in fact, try to locate the article, 
    rendering The Doctah's opinion CORRECT.
    
    Dan, you are a lying, braying ass.
    

    .201
    
     Can I tell the future or what?
    
     The Doctah, master prognosticator

    
    <----  and fine wine coniusser (sp) as well.

>>    <----  and fine wine coniusser (sp) as well.

	ngah. ;>  connoisseur.

    
    re:.204
    
    There you go talking without any knowledge again Joan.
    I didn't mention that I went to my dad's house and went through his as
    well.  He keeps about 6 months worth of NR's.  Didn't find it in
    those either.  Nice try though.
    
    Hugs...
    

    
    > Can I tell the future or what?
    
    Not so's you could tell, but keep trying someday you may be right. 
    Probably not, but who knows, stranger things have happened.
    

    
    .208
    
    So you looked through 6 months' worth of Nat'l Reviews to find an 
    18-month-old article?
    
    Sorry, Dan, but it "ain't got that swing".
    

    
    Sh-bop sh-bop sh-bop sh-bop sh-bop sh-bop sh-bop sh-bop.
    
    

    
    Scoodely-boo, scoodely-boo, scoodely-boodely-boodely-boo...
    

    
    	B-a-bay, b-e-bee,
    	b-i-bickey-bi b-o-bo
    	bickey bi-bo b-u-boo
    	bickey bi-bo-boo.
    

    > So you looked through 6 months' worth of Nat'l Reviews to find an
    > 18-month-old article?
    
    careful- don't accept anything he says at face value.  I very
    explicitly said that the WFB essay was in NR around the 'last time'
    Buchanan was active in presidential primaries- that is, Fall of '91,
    Spring of '92, thereabouts.  So why Dan thinks he'll find it within the
    last six months worth of issues or even the last 18 months is merely
    another example of his inability to follow the broadest clues.  
    
    So you disagree with the assessment of an essay you haven't read in
    four years, if ever, huh, Dan?  Like I'm bowled over, man.
    
    DougO

    Speaking of Presidential Primaries, has anyone taken a surfboard over
    to http://www.fosters.com/ ?
    
    Whadja think?
    

    >So you disagree with the assessment of an essay you haven't read in
    >four years, if ever, huh, Dan?  Like I'm bowled over, man.
    
     Yeah, what a truly shocking development.

    
    Grow up children, and get a life would you?
    

    
    In a pool of virtual blood lie three more victims of the razor-sharp
    wit known as Dan The Knife.
    

    
    Dan, why can't you admit you are wrong. Instead, you resort to the old
    kid's game of, "I know you are, what am I" routine. Take your whupping
    like a man, not a mouse.

		Diaper Dan thought Soapbox was great,
		'Til he started to participate;
		Cause when he opened his yap
		All that came out was crap,
		And he got handed his head on a plate.

    
    BRAVO!!  BRAVO!!!
    
    Author, Author!!!
    

       shaddup, shaddup

    
    Grow up, grow up!!
    

    
    gem man, that was beautiful, {sniff, sniff} just beautiful.

    
    re.219
    
    Because Mark, the fact remains that DougO was not able to back up his
    claim.  As simple as that.  The rest of this stuff has been a bunch of
    children making noise, and that's about it....
    
    OBTW -
    
    donny....
    
    
    
================================================================================
Note 43.179                           Wine                            179 of 190
CALLME::MR_TOPAZ                                     19 lines  12-SEP-1995 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    
             Please do feel free to stuff your gratuitous, erroneous 
             comments deeply into one of your hard-to-reach orifices.
    
    
    
    Regards little man...

<---- GOOD ONE DAN!  ANOTHER GREAT COMEBACK!! 

    
    PUH-LEEEZE DON'T HURT US AGAIN, DAN!!!!!
    

    
    Thought you'd like it donny....
    

    
    Gee, this stuff is so thrilling.....

    Yet it isn't banal and doesn't waste disk space, network bandwidth or
    cpu cycles.

Thursday, November 2, 1995 7 Page A3
)1995 San Francisco Chronicle
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    SACRAMENTO -- Perot's New Party, Natural Law Group Qualify for Ballot

    Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

    Sacramento

    It's official: Ross Perot's new Reform Party registered more than
    enough California voters to appear on the state's March 1996
    presidential primary ballot, the secretary of state said yesterday.

    Perot's backers submitted nearly 108,000 voter registration cards
    --almost 19,000 more than needed to qualify, Secretary of State Bill
    Jones reported.

    Jones also said the Natural Law Party, whose platform champions
    preventive health care, renewable energy and the benefits of
    meditation, turned in more than enough registration cards to earn a
    place on the ballot.

    ``It's my hope that the addition of these two new political parties in
    our state will offer an alternative voice to those Californians who
    have not been involved in the process previously,'' Jones said in a
    statement.

    Each party needed 89,007 registrations to appear on California's March
    26 primary ballot.

    The Reform and Natural Law parties join the Democratic, Republican,
    American Independent, Peace and Freedom, Green and Libertarian parties
    on the ballot.

    Perot's United We Stand America organization, created after his 1992
    presidential bid, signed up the voters during the three weeks ending
    October 24 -- an impressive feat.

    Perot spent an estimated $700,000 on the effort, including more than
    $360,000 on newspaper advertising.

    Jones said the registration figures released yesterday were not final
    but that there was no doubt the two parties would qualify.

    
    ross never ceases to amuse.  last weekend he asserted that
    a poll was taken after 92, and had everybody voted their
    conscience, he would have won.  ross's organization will be
    the likely home for buchanan after the primaries.
    
    

    
      Not a primary, but Fla held its straw poll Sat, and Dole got a
     33% plurality, followed closely be Gramm and Alexander, then
     way back Buchanan at 9%, Keyes 8%, the rest nowhere.
    
      Word is Gingrich will formally state he is not running when the
     Congress gets back after biting the bird.
    
      I bet it's Dole.
    
      bb

    I'll never understand this reasoning.  Bob Dole is in my view more
    compassionate to the Clintonians than any of them in regards to his
    track record on spending.  Why him?!

    Because he's better than Gramm, and nobody else could win.

Don't kid yourself; Dole won't win either.

Having said that, is this where all the republicans who support
various and sundry gop candidates will have a change of heart,
and support Dole even though he's a can't-win guy?

I can't wait.
\john

    I wonder if Colin Powell will serve if enough people write him in?
    

    I am not a Bob Dole supporter, but if the choice is Clinton or Dole
    there will not be any conservatives casting a Clinton vote.
    
                                   Steve J.

re: .238 (Steve)

Thanks for making my point for me, Steve.

Even people who don't like Dole will vote for him.  What a way to
run a country.  Yech.  Why not push the GOP leadership, instead?

\john

    
    
    John,
    
    
    If you don't like any of the candidates, will you vote for none or the
    one who is the best out of the lot?
    
    
    Mike

    If it is Clinton vs Dole, I vote for Browne.

But, see, that's what will get us Clinton again, Tom.

    Correct.  Not voting is in essence a vote for the greater of two evils.
    
    Problem is John, we have people out there voting who couldn't name the
    three branches of the Federal Government.  I have seen interviews of
    students in the greater Boston area, on some of the most prestigious
    campuses in the commonwealth and I can't believe the utter stupidity 
    being spewed from their mouths.  Totally incoherent reasoning on their
    part.  
    
    It is this ignorance that poses the greatest danger to  our country,
    not the candidates.  We are propogating a generation of mental midgets.
    
    -Jack

  .243  oy.  so many wisecracks, so little time. ;>

re: .242, .243 (Mike, Jack)

You guys tried the lesser of two evils in '92, and look what it got us!!

Take out all the people who couldn't vote for either one, and there
aren't enough people left to elect a STANDING PRESIDENT?  The problem
is you keep backing LOSERS.

Free hint #1:  You don't have to vote for A or B just because that's all
               "they" printed on your ballot.  I'm surprised at you.

Free hint #2:  You have to follow through on this ultimatum to the party
               leadership:  "I WILL NOT support a has-been, flip-flopping,
               compromising candidate, even if that's all you offer.  When
               you only get 20% of the vote it's because devout conservatives
               like ourselves WILL NOT COMPROMISE our values and be forced
               to pick from the lesser of two evils."  Get your friends to
               do it, too.  Too bad you didn't do that in '92; you might
               have gotten a reasonable response from the leadership.  But
               you didn't.  They see you're a stooge, willing to vote for
               anybody they hand you.  "Here's BOB DOLE!"  Well big whoop.
               It's YOUR FAULT.  Take responsibility for the poor choices
               you're backing.  If they want to ever have another republican
               president they'll be forced to position somebody REASONABLE.

That's all the free hints for today.  Tomorrow they're gonna cost ya.


\john

    ^But, see, that's what will get us Clinton again, Tom.
                                                         
    
    If the Republicans hand us Dole, they deserve Clinton. IMO the country
    will still be in a downward spiral with either of these two clowns and I
    won't compromise my integrity by voting for either of them.

>    If the Republicans hand us Dole, they deserve Clinton.

Yar - well,just keep in mind that it ain't only the Republicans that will
"get" Clinton, if 20% of the people that should have voted for the Republican
nominee vote for some unelectable 3rd party candiate for the sake of their
"integrity". The whole country "gets" the Arkansas Airhole for another four
years.

I "exercised my integrity" in '92 by voting for Rawss, and I saw the result
(in the White House). Never again, my friend. Not and have Clinton sitting
there thanking me for my "indirect support".

re: .245, \john

>You guys tried the lesser of two evils in '92, and look what it got us!!

I think that's what I said to Tom, didn't I? I voted for Perot. with the result
being that Slick got the Oval Office. That was a mistake. One I won't make
again.

>Free hint #1:  You don't have to vote for A or B just because that's all
>               "they" printed on your ballot.  I'm surprised at you.

And, as I've mentioned before, when and if an ELECTABLE alternative candidate
is in the running, I will reconsider. As of now, there is not, nor will there
be by next November, an ELECTABLE alternative candidate, unless some major
well known political figure decides to change stripe and run outside of his
party. In lieu of that, those who vote for the UNelectable alternative
candidates will be able to stand in line for the thanks of the ex-gov of
Arkansas.

>Free hint #2:  You have to follow through on this ultimatum to the party

I already mentioned, in 49.1332, if I'm not mistaken, that I agree with
this in principle. However, the reality of the matter is that insufficient
people will realize it in time to make a difference. I don't "do" politics
for a living and haven't the time or energy to convince my friends and
neighbors of the sensibility of the matter. Now, others who have these same
constraints on their time prefer a tack of "I won't vote for anyone I
can't support", and the result is we get Slick again. I'd rather do what I 
can to ensure we get the lesser of two evils (the Republican, whomever he may
be as long as it ain't Robertson or Buchanan), even if only for the 
satisfaction of showing Slick how irrelevent and unwanted he really is.

You have to look at the reality of the matter. No off-track 3rd party candidate
has a ghost of a chance of gaining the support of sufficient voters to actually
be elected. The idea of a Libertarian Pres and a Libertarian Congress is a
good one. I'd love to see it happen. But it's not going to in my life time,
and I'll be damned if I'll put up with Democrats running things as a default
because I tried to make the fantasy real.

re: .249 (Jack DB)

re: .245, \john

>>You guys tried the lesser of two evils in '92, and look what it got us!!
>I think that's what I said to Tom, didn't I? I voted for Perot. with the result
>being that Slick got the Oval Office. That was a mistake. One I won't make
>again.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Jack, but I don't think you learned
the right lesson.  Hopefully the republican loss in '96 will show you
it's not about voting against democrats, its about having a REAL CHOICE.
I'm not trying to be clever; DOLE vs CLINTON just plain ol' is NOT
a real choice.  Backing Perot AGAIN, or another candidate AGAIN, will
sooner or later (sooner if they're told what's happening!) force the
GOP to supply somebody WORTHY OF BEING OUR PRESIDENT.  Not just somebody
that's better than Clinton, but someone who will EARN our votes.  Won't
the be refreshing?  I can't wait.

>>Free hint #1:  You don't have to vote for A or B just because that's all
>>               "they" printed on your ballot.  I'm surprised at you.
>And, as I've mentioned before, when and if an ELECTABLE alternative candidate
>is in the running, I will reconsider. 
Electable means "Clinton and Dole."  Nice job.  Since Dole won't to it,
you've just given us Clinton again.  See why I don't think you learned
the right lesson?


>>Free hint #2:  You have to follow through on this ultimatum to the party
>I already mentioned, in 49.1332, if I'm not mistaken, that I agree with
>this in principle. 
If people stick with this principle, the republicans will become the
libertarians they should be, and it'll be soon.

\john

It's a nice fantasy, John. It was a good fantasy in 92, but it's still
a fantasy, though. THAT'S the lesson I learned - Don't bet on a fantasy.

Between now and the '96 elections is insufficient time to make the fantasy
happen. I know that you are realistic enough to agree with this. It's also
insufficient time to convince the RNC as to what they should be doing.

I WILL NOT personally contribute to the fantasy again and see that idiot
remain in the white house for another four years. Priorities in all things.
And my highest priority is doing whatever I can to see that Slick vacates the
premises, at any cost, before the end of January 1997. If that doesn't happen,
then I'm abandoning MY integrity.

re: \John  and Tom

Do you really, truly, honestly believe that it's worth the probable risk of 
another four years of Clinton to stand behind a 3rd party candidate rather 
than support Dole if he's what the RNC deals us?

I'm genuinely curious as to your responses.

I'll be perfectly honest insofar as I'd rather see Graham or Luger or others 
coming out of next years National Convention victorious, and I will be willing 
to do what I can within the GOP to make that happen (provided it isn't Buchanan
or Robertson), but if what we get is Dole, I really can't see risking Clinton 
as an alternative.

I mean, teaching the National Committee a lesson is all well and good, assuming
that they're even capable of learning. But is it really worth another four
years of that idiot Clinton?

    .249
    
    Jack,
    
    How did Lincoln get elected ?
    
    --- Barry
    

Your point being?

    
    Point being...
    
    You voted for Perot and got Clinton elected.
    
    Split Republican party.
    
    

    
    
    RE: .246  Andrew, who you callin a sheep, you idjit.  
    
    
    RE: .245  John, since you don't know how I voted in the last few
    elections, you are making many assumtions.  Hint for you: I have voted
    libertarian in more than one instance.

    
    
    
    And having slick in the WH may have been a blessing in disguise.  It
    has outed the democratic party and what they stand for.
    
    
    

    >And having slick in the WH may have been a blessing in disguise.  It
    >has outed the democratic party and what they stand for.
    
     And what is that? (I suppose I should qualify that by giving the date,
    as what Clinton stands for seems to be freshness dated.)

re: .255, Barry

I admit to not being up on my history, but wasn't Lincoln's situation
different? Weren't there actually two Republican candidates?

    
    
    RE: .258 your typical, run of the mill tax and spend party.  It was
    less than two months after he was elected that he decided that he "had 
    to" raise taxes (if my memory serves me correctly on the timeframe). 
    
    
    Mike   

re: .251 (Jack)

>It's a nice fantasy, John. It was a good fantasy in 92, but it's still
>a fantasy, though. THAT'S the lesson I learned - Don't bet on a fantasy.

Darn-it-all, Jack, it's no fantasy!  You WILL GIVE US CLINTON in '96.
What you're not understanding is that there are now LOTS of people that
flatly refuse to take part in this "Great Choice - Dole/Clinton" sham,
and without them the lameoid republican offerings will just flounder.

You expecting to fix the electoral problems with one vote for Perot
is like the liberals saying, "the republicans haven't been able to
fix the problem in 2 years, they've had their chance!"  Just dumb!  It's
taken years and years of party manipulation, ballot restriction
legislation, and media molding to get the shee, er, people to believe
"Republican or Democrat; it's the only way" and it'll take  a few
election cycles to move us back.

\john

re: .252 (Jack)

>Do you really, truly, honestly believe that it's worth the probable risk of 
>another four years of Clinton to stand behind a 3rd party candidate rather 
>than support Dole if he's what the RNC deals us?

As I said in -.1, there are so few people that will play this game any
longer, that Dole and the GOP have ALREADY LOST.  A vote for Dole is a
vote for Clinton, with the devestating consequence of letting the RNC
know that you will support whatever clown they send.

And right now, I think the republican congress is keeping clinton in
check (they're riding "shotgun" in Kevin's car off the grand canyon).

I'd rather spend the next four years getting some reasonable GOP choices
lined up then have the RNC try to use Newt in '00.  

And to be honest, I HATE Clinton.  Voting for Dole won't make it any better.

>I'll be perfectly honest insofar as I'd rather see Graham or Luger or others 
>coming out of next years National Convention victorious, and I will be willing 
>to do what I can within the GOP to make that happen (provided it isn't Buchanan
>or Robertson), but if what we get is Dole, I really can't see risking Clinton 
>as an alternative.

See?  You missed the great lesson here.  Tell the RNC, "see all this
support for Graham and Lugar?  when Dole DOESN'T get these votes it's
because he's not WORTH them."  Otherwise they're simply throwing you a
bone to secure your vote for next time, which is all they really wanted
in the first place.

\john

>Darn-it-all, Jack, it's no fantasy!  You WILL GIVE US CLINTON in '96.

So we're in agreement that the existance of a third party candidate next year
will return Clinton to the White house for another four years. Now, whether
it's those who attempt to thwart that by voting for the repub, or those who
think they can pull it off by voting for the third party candidate, who
get to be "guilty" of keeping Clinton in Washington, is a matter of opinion.

>What you're not understanding is that there are now LOTS of people that
>flatly refuse to take part in this "Great Choice - Dole/Clinton" sham,
>and without them the lameoid republican offerings will just flounder.

Convince me that "LOTS of people" = "sufficient people to defeat Clinton".
That's all I ask. I made the mistake of not convincing myself that the numbers
were there in '92 when I voted with my "integrity". I WILL NOT do it again.

re: .256 (Mike)

>    RE: .245  John, since you don't know how I voted in the last few
>    elections, you are making many assumtions.  Hint for you: I have voted
>    libertarian in more than one instance.

Sorry; the "you" was, of course, meant for those that DID vote that way.

I'm left to wonder if your dislike for Clinton has clouded your judgement,
since you seem pretty determined to support the GOP's main man this time.

If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize.  Sadly, I don't think
I have.

\john

>As I said in -.1, there are so few people that will play this game any

I don't share this belief, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

> See?  You missed the great lesson here.  Tell the RNC, "see all this
> support for Graham and Lugar?  when Dole DOESN'T get these votes it's
> because he's not WORTH them."

Is this happening? Are there press releases indicating that the RNC is being
inundated with mail of this sort? Are there polls indicating that the flow
of public opinion is in this direction?

Or is this just part of the fantasy?

And, before you ask, John, Yes, I have written to the RNC. On Multiple
occasions, frequently. Just like I frequently write to my congresscritters.
Almost to the point that many folks in DC must see my letterhead and say,
"Here's another live one from that crackpot in Mont Vernon".

Black hole city.

re: .263 (Jack)

>>Darn-it-all, Jack, it's no fantasy!  You WILL GIVE US CLINTON in '96.

>So we're in agreement that the existance of a third party candidate next year
>will return Clinton to the White house for another four years. Now, whether
>it's those who attempt to thwart that by voting for the repub, or those who
>think they can pull it off by voting for the third party candidate, who
>get to be "guilty" of keeping Clinton in Washington, is a matter of opinion.

No, we're in agreement that the GOP running Dole will return Clinton to
the White House for another four years.  I know many (10+) people that
will write in Graham, and Lugar, and even Robertson; no third-party
candidate need play a role.  

>>What you're not understanding is that there are now LOTS of people that
>>flatly refuse to take part in this "Great Choice - Dole/Clinton" sham,
>>and without them the lameoid republican offerings will just flounder.

>Convince me that "LOTS of people" = "sufficient people to defeat Clinton".
>That's all I ask. I made the mistake of not convincing myself that the numbers
>were there in '92 when I voted with my "integrity". I WILL NOT do it again.

Are we going in circles here?  If the GOP would put up a good, reasonable
candidate the people would vote him/her in.  That's what we're here about!

Well, I clearly can't convince you ahead of time, so we'll just have to
wait for the elections, where I can prove it to you that it was the case.
By then it'll be too late for '00, though.  <sigh>

\john

>				I know many (10+) people that
>will write in Graham, and Lugar, and even Robertson; no third-party
>candidate need play a role.  

I fail to see the goodness in ten+ votes being scattered all over the floor
rather than being cast for Dole in a concerted effort to remove Clinton.

>Are we going in circles here?  If the GOP would put up a good, reasonable
>candidate the people would vote him/her in.  That's what we're here about!

And that's what I said in 49.1332. But it's a big IF. And IF the pleas
to the GOP fall on deaf ears and they continue to play the same stupid
game, isn't it better to be prepared to bite the bullet and defeat
Clinton with Dole, than to whine about integrity and spread millions
of perfectly good republican votes on the floor for a bunch of wetdream
losers?

re: . 265 (Jack)

>> See?  You missed the great lesson here.  Tell the RNC, "see all this
>> support for Graham and Lugar?  when Dole DOESN'T get these votes it's
>> because he's not WORTH them."

>Is this happening? Are there press releases indicating that the RNC is being
>inundated with mail of this sort? Are there polls indicating that the flow
>of public opinion is in this direction?

Don't live by the polls, Jack!  Do what you know is right!  You don't
have to wait around to see if your neighbor is doing the right thing
before you start!  Who knows?  Maybe when you start, your friends will
see what's up, and pretty soon, the press releases will start.
 
>Or is this just part of the fantasy?

The fantasy is that we should take what the party hands us because
"he's better than the other guy."  That's not how we should choose a
leader!   That's not how I want my vote wasted!  It is the way it's
happening today, so I guess it's fair to say we're living in a fantasy
world; one where the parties convince us we're being well-led and
given good choices.

\joyhn

re: .268 (jack)

>I fail to see the goodness in ten+ votes being scattered all over the floor
>rather than being cast for Dole in a concerted effort to remove Clinton.
Because they don't WANT Dole.  He's not presidental material.  Period.

>And that's what I said in 49.1332. But it's a big IF. And IF the pleas
>to the GOP fall on deaf ears and they continue to play the same stupid
I can't believe you'd continue to vote for a party that pays you no
attention, but expects your vote to bail them out of the horrible
situation they put us in.

I'm happy and warmed to know that you write to the RNC.  If you don't
back that up with your vote, they have absolutly NO incentive to even
listen.  This is terribly obvious to me; I don't know why so many can't
see it.  I know Clinton is bad.  I know we don't want him.  I also know
there are OTHERS we don't want.

As with most strings, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  IMHO a
vote for Dole will give Clinton another 4 years AND tell the RNC to
continue shoveling crap, so long as it looks just barely better than
clinton.  Doing it my way will give Clinton 4 years, but kick the RNC
in the butt.  NEITHER WAY will give dole the whitehouse, so let's
go from there.
john

    
    
    
    
    RE: .264  John, perhaps you can show me where I have supported the
    GOP's main man at this point and time?
    
    
    Mike

    The assumption among all the anti-Clinton folk in this note seems to be
    that Bush would have won in '92 had it not been for Perot.  Are you
    100% sure this is so?  I thought I saw an article recently that claimed
    that Perot took more votes from Clinton than from the Republican
    nominee.  
    
    -Stephen

    
    
    John,
    
    
    I am supporting Phil Gramm at this time.  I like what he has to say
    on some very pertinent issues, I don't remember writing anything about
    Dole.  While I don't dislike the man and think he has gotten a bad rap
    by the dims with the "Mean and hateful" thing, he is flip flopping on
    things which shows me that he will not do what's needed for the country
    (IMO).  
    
    Mike

>I can't believe you'd continue to vote for a party that pays you no
>attention, but expects your vote to bail them out of the horrible
>situation they put us in.

Well, they ain't all bad. I don't have a lot of complaints with the current
congress, at least regarding some of what they've accomplished. That's
more than the Democrats have ever done for me.

>I know Clinton is bad.  I know we don't want him.  I also know
>there are OTHERS we don't want.

Well, while I don't necessarily favor Dole as an ideal choice, I DO find
him more palateable than Clinton, under any circumstances. Buchanan and 
Robertson - NO!


>Doing it my way will give Clinton 4 years, but kick the RNC in the butt.

Well, where do I get to worry about MY integrity if I don't do everything
I can to defeat Clinton, which is the much more immediate need, in my
opinion? "Making a statement" to the GOP won't cut it, in any event.

We can both hope that either the RNC comes up with some strong alternate
pretty quickly (fat chance) or the voters come to their senses at the primaries
within the next few months and make it clear that Dole ISN'T the right man
to walk out of the convention next summer (a slightly better chance, but one
I wouldn't bet my life on, since we agree that the voters are all over the map.)

re: .271 (Mike)

>    RE: .264  John, perhaps you can show me where I have supported the
>    GOP's main man at this point and time?

No, I can't.  That's why I said I hope I misunderstood you.  If you ask
where I get my impressions, here:

.240 (GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER)
>    If you don't like any of the candidates, will you vote for none or the
>    one who is the best out of the lot?

In the context of this discussion, you appear prepared to vote for Dole
as being "the best out of the lot" of Dole/Clinton.

\john

    
    
    That may happen, John, but it will depend upon who the idependents
    and libertarians on the ballot are.
    
    
    Mike

    Actually, I'm supporting Gramm also.  So far I fail to see why Gramm is
    getting negative publicity of any kind.
    
    -Jack

	Cuz he is much more angry than Dole ever could be. And he has a habit
of showing it more. 

Gramm isn't getting the RNC "nod".  Dole has "paid the dues" and is
being rewarded.  It's simple.  I know I don't believe it's simply a 
matter of "voter's choice"; I sure hope you don't.

I would be delighted with Gramm as a candidate.  I personally wouldn't
support him, but feel it'd be a great leap for the republicans, and think
many more "neither clinton nor dole" folks would be willing to make
the Gramm vote.

Shall we pick this up again when Dole wins, so we won't be tempted to
stray from the point?

\john

    Nod, schmod. Dole still has to win the primaries, or has that fact
    escaped you? You figger that the RNC takes all the votes from the
    primaries and redistributes them to the duly annointed candidate?

    
    
    Angry, Glen?  This ain't FRIDAY.  Why is it when someone doesn't agree
    with a dim, they are either "angry" or "Mean spirited"?
    
    

	Mike, while I agree that the terms get thrown around alot, in this case
I wasn't. He almost always seems angry to me. 



Glen

    Why is it that Gramm reminds me of Elmer Fudd?
    

	Does that make Clinton the wabbit?

I think our disagreement, John, hasn't so much to do with the acceptability
or lack thereof of Dole, but with the priorities we've chosen. If I'm not
mistaken, your highest priority for '96 is to send a message to the GOP
regardless of the fact that Clinton will wind up spending another four years
as our guest in the B&B at 1600 Pa. Ave. Mine, is to get the sorry SOB back
to Little Rock as quickly as possible, regardless of what we end up with
in his place, provided it isn't either Buchanon or Robertson.

Do I have it about right? If so, then you need only convince me that your 
goal is more important than mine, but you'll have a lot of convincing to
do if your major gripe is the possibility of Newt at the millenium. Actually,
what have you against Newt? The only reason I'd like not to see him in the
Whitehouse is because it would be a tragic waste of his talent and power in
his current capacity.

    \John:
    
    Since we both agree that Dole isn't the best candidate by any means, I
    am left with the uncomfortable choice of backing a liar or backing
    Dole.  Now I could vote for Andre Marrou as he runs every time...but of
    course the logic here is that this will in fact be a vote for Clinton.
    It is a dilema I'm not sure how to resolve.  I vote safe or I vote
    conviction...what do you do?!  Voting in the psychotic obviously wasn't
    the best move.
    
    Glen, I don't see what you see regarding Gramm's anger.  And
    incidently, even if he is angry, so what?  
    
    -Jack

re: .280 (Mark)

>    Nod, schmod. Dole still has to win the primaries, or has that fact
>    escaped you? You figger that the RNC takes all the votes from the
>    primaries and redistributes them to the duly annointed candidate?

Oh please.  He WAS given the nod, and he WILL win the primaries.  To what
will you attribute his winning?  Do you really think there's any republican
that doesn't deep down know Dole's the one in '96?  He's been SET UP.
Given the ops, the right media coverage (not necessarily friendly, but
certainly adequate), the right handling.

I know I'm fighting a tough battle; we'll keep hearing how the libertarians
and the perotistas are to blame for the republican losses to the likes
of billy, how we'd be saved if we'd just vote republican.

Ever wonder why it sounds so much like a used-car saleman's pitch?

\john

    don't forget,
    
    Gramm is a turn-coat democrat and a chicken hawk.  He pulled a Clinton,
    while waving the flag.
    
    meg

re: .285 (JackD)

>I think our disagreement, John, hasn't so much to do with the acceptability
>or lack thereof of Dole, but with the priorities we've chosen. If I'm not
>mistaken, your highest priority for '96 is to send a message to the GOP

I'm a complicated man, Jack.  ;-)  I want the GOP, and republican voters,
to understand WHY they keep losing.  Why they won't get my vote with much
of the current crop.  To fix it themselves.  To make themselves to
palatable we'd be stupid to vote for anybody else.

My top priority is getting a libertarian in office.  I have two ways of
contributing to this goal - my vote and money go to the libertarians,
and my voice goes to steering the gop towards libertarian values.  I
WOULD vote republican, for the right man.

You may think Dole is a "step in the right direction"; I find him one of
the unacceptable current crop.  ALONG with Clinton.  You seem to have
given up on somebody good and are willing to take somebody less bad.
And that, my friend, is where we are today.  From Reagan, to Bush, to
Clinton, always the "lesser of two evils" for some folks.

    Reagan was a turn coat democrat also!

re: .286 (JackM)
    
>    Since we both agree that Dole isn't the best candidate by any means, I
>    am left with the uncomfortable choice of backing a liar or backing
>    Dole.

Fine.  Back Dole.  Just realize how unacceptable he is to some people,
and don't blame THEM because Dole's so bad that he can't get enought
support to win.

I told you how to get over this.  Vote Gramm anyway.  Send a letter to
the RNC telling them what you WILL do.  They'll get the vote totals in
'96, and see all these Gramm write-ins.  Thousands.  "Gee, why didn't
they vote for Dole like we wanted?"  They'll get the hint.

Enough.  You don't seem willing to understand there's more than the
two little choices on the ballot, or that "yer for us or agin' us"
isn't a reasonable political policy.

\john

>Oh please.  He WAS given the nod, and he WILL win the primaries.  To what
>will you attribute his winning?  
    
     He will have gotten more people to vote for him in the primaries than
    any other candidate.
    
>Do you really think there's any republican
>that doesn't deep down know Dole's the one in '96?  He's been SET UP.
    
     While I agree that he will probably win, by no means is it a lock as
    you are implying. Gramm still has a shot at him, and there may yet be a
    stealth candidate who makes a move once the primaries get under way.
    
>I know I'm fighting a tough battle; we'll keep hearing how the libertarians
>and the perotistas are to blame for the republican losses to the likes
>of billy, how we'd be saved if we'd just vote republican.
    
     Hey- vote your conscience. But don't expect me to agree that returning
    Billy to the whitehouse is a good idea, even for small values of good.
    I think that having Dole in the whitehouse is far preferable to having
    Clinton. So Dole may not be a political superstar, so what? At least
    he'll be able to work with congress. At least he won't oppose simply to
    oppose, or to give the impression that he's got an agenda of his own
    like the current occupant is so fond of doing. I think with Dole in the
    whitehouse we have a far better chance of improving the budget
    situation- you want another 5 budgets worth of pissing contests between
    the legislative and executive branches?
    
     In a perfect world, I would be king. It's not going to happen, so I
    have to deal with imperfection. You don't see me having a tantrum
    because I don't get to have things the way I want them; life is filled
    with choosing better things since perfection is not attainable. Dole is
    better for the country than Clinton, in my estimation. Dole is better
    for me personally. So while Dole may not be my dream candidate (I've
    yet to find a dream candidate for this job in the last 30+ years), he's
    better than the alternative.
    
     You're looking for a superstar, a true leader to emerge. Guess what,
    true leadership turns people off. You have to make tough choices, and
    that pisses off special interest groups. The media aids and abets this
    process by playing to people's fears. Thus we are left with milquetoast
    candidates, candidates that offend the fewest special interest groups.

    
    
    Reagan was a democrat at one time as well.  So was I for that matter.
    
    
    Mike

    \John:
    
    The problem with the libertarian party is that for whatever reason they
    fail to infiltrate more on the local level.  Andre Marrou fails to win
    because libertarians aren't in town selectmans offices, Mayor's
    offices, etc.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    RE: <.289 I'm a complicated man, Jack.>
    
    
    
    I know this game, my kids play it all the time, it's backwards day. 
    You have to walk backwards and everything you say means the opposite.
    ;')
    
    
    
    Mike

	Mike a dem???? NO WAY! I can't picture it!

    \John:
    
    Understand I have NO intention of voting for Dole in the primary.  I'm
    voting for Gramm.  If Dole wins however, should I vote for Marrou
    anyway?

>    Gramm is a turn-coat democrat and a chicken hawk.

I didn't know he was a pederast.

    chicken hawk == someone who vehemently supports a war while doing
    everything possible to avoid service.  Generally accompanied by
    statements, like "well I would only have gotten a desk job," and some
    such.  
    
    meg

	Presidential snarf!

    Meg:
    
    No doubt he was a chicken hawk, just as Quayle was a chicken hawk. 
    However, these chicken hawks didn't protest the war on communist
    ground.  This is what I find treasonous.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Please read your history
    
    Or are you saying great Britain is communist?
    
    Clinton did go to the USSR just as many people did, but did not lead or
    participate in demonstrations there.

    Well, I heard differently.

re: .294 (JackM)

>    The problem with the libertarian party is that for whatever reason they
>    fail to infiltrate more on the local level.  Andre Marrou fails to win
>    because libertarians aren't in town selectmans offices, Mayor's
>    offices, etc.

I know all about the Libertarian party's problems.  Another reason they
fail is poor candidates.  Andre Marrou was NOT a good choice.  SEE
ANY PARALLEL???

That's exactly why I'm persuing this on two fronts.

And Jack?  Stick to "explaining" stuff you really know about, eh?
\john

 ZZ   And Jack?  Stick to "explaining" stuff you really know about, eh?
    
    Why did I deserve that one???

re: JackM

Uh, Jack?  Marrou isn't involved.  That was '92.  This is '96.

We have several candidates running that I can get behind.  We also
have a candidate named Irwin Schiff running.  If he has the party's
nomination, I'll be voting write-in, AND I'll tell the party why, and
hope to force them to run more reasonable candidates.

See?  I even practice what I preach.

\john

    ^Do you really, truly, honestly believe that it's worth the probable
    ^risk of another four years of Clinton to stand behind a 3rd party candidate
    ^rather than support Dole if he's what the RNC deals us?
    
    IMO the status quo will remain the same with a Dole in the Whitehouse.
    Clinton or Dole, no differance. The entire political system needs to
    change. Statesmen and other's who want nothing more than for society to
    thrive, and are willing to work for it, is the key. Politicians like
    Dole, Clinton and others, who care only about re-election and
    not society, will only perpetuate the problems and society will
    continue to suffer.

re: .305 (JackM)

>    Why did I deserve that one???

Because I believe your notions to be simplistic and inadequate.

Why don't the Libertarians have the local offices?

\john

    I don't know!  I believe the grass roots of a political party begin
    locally and the libertarian party has failed to do this for whatever
    reason.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    You really should stick with what you know, instead of listening with
    half an ear to innuendo from whatever columnists.
    
    

   ZZ     You really should stick with what you know, instead of listening with
   ZZ     half an ear to innuendo from whatever columnists.
    
    Sorry but last time I checked, CSPAN and McNeil/Lehrer seemed to be
    credible sources.
    
    -Jack

    dont know about cspan, but do know mcnielo lehrer.  I know where you
    didn't hear this one.  Other than discussion of the whispering campaign
    trying to connect Clintons anti-war activities in England with his trip
    to the ussr.

    
    LORD HAAG DOESN'T LIE!!!
    
                            
    
    
    Note 18.3                  Bill Clinton/Hillary Rodham                
    3 of 1837
    HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet."                   6 lines 
    17-NOV-1994 20:45
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        he used political contacts to get out of the draft and save his
        miserable hide. he also went to russia to protest while americans
        were
        dying on combat. i can forgive him for getting out of draft. but
        protesting on foreign soil i cannot. and worse yet, he LIED about all
        of it, tried to cover it all up, during the presidential campaign.
        TOTALLY unforgiveable.
    

    
    Corroberated by a liberal lawyer!
    
    
    
    
    Note 18.22                 Bill Clinton/Hillary Rodham               
    22 of 1837
    HELIX::MAIEWSKI                                      12 lines 
    18-NOV-1994 10:36
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lottery was a fair system used to select people for service. If he drew
    300+ then he did not dodge the draft, he simply was not selected. At
    the time
    it was well known that the Guard was a way to avoid Vietnam, also quite
    legal. 
    The principle difference between Clinton and Quayle is that Quayle doesn't 
    seem to practice what he preaches. 
    
    The fact that someone protested in Russia should make no difference since
    neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever been an enemy of the United
    States. Just try to fine an instance where the Congress of the United
    States declared war on either of the above. 
    
      George
    

    jack,
    
    Gene may not lie, but he can be mistaken, as easily as anyone else.  
    
    Clinton demonstrated in England, not in the USSR.
    
    meg

    
      gee, I recall he also went to the USSR - i'll need to look this
     up, but i think he did.  not that that would have had much effect.
    
      this may be less a difference than you might think - he was openly
     opposing the war at the time he went to russia, yet he knew no Russian
    
      so any protest talk woulda been aimed at the US, not the USSR
    
      bb

    
    Clinton went to school in England, at Oxford, on a Rhodes
    Scholarship. Except, he was never enrolled in a degree program
    at Oxford; without an Oxford degree he is not a "Rhodes Scholar".
    Clinton has never pointed this out, as far I know. It would
    seem to me ke MUST know it, but has never attempted to
    prevent the press from worshiping him as a "Rhodes Scholar".
    There are clearly a number of conclusions one can draw from
    this, some of them not flattering.
    
    If Clinton can, er, mislead about Oxford, what's to say he's
    not being misleading about Russia? I read a book which
    claims to document his protests in Russia. The author is
    definitely anti-Clinton, and I have my doubts about some of
    the things he wrote. But I have equally large doubts about
    Clinton.
    
    -b

    Brian:
    
    It's just like Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese tank.  It's not
    a message directed at North Vietnam but it's pissing on the United
    States.
    
    Meg, assuming you are correct, I don't find his bringing our dirty
    laundry over to England a whole lot more credulous.
    
    -Jack

    
    i was a democrat for 20 years until i couldn't take it anymore.
    i was an independent until may 18th of this year, that's when
    the house layed out the blueprint for a bb.
    
    btw, other former dems include bill bennett and jeanne kirkpatrick.
    

    Last time there was a Democratic incumbent, perceived to be vulnerable,
    there was a Democratic challenge (Kennedy.)  Will that happen this
    time?  Is Jackson, or some other figure on the left of the Democratic
    party, expected to mount a serious challenge in the primaries?
    
    -Stephen

    Sam Nunn is the only one who is worthy.

    Dates and times?
    
    My information from the beginning of this is that Clinton demonstrated
    in England.  He did travel to the USSR, as did many students in Europe. 
    Certainly had I had the opportunity to visit Europe the USSR would have
    been on my itinerary, my mom was a student of Russian history, and I
    would love to tour the museums and look at the architecture first hand.
    
    My cousin was in Europe during that time and also travelled to Moskow,
    I gather it was a choice location to see what was going on there first
    hand.
    
    She is a registered and faithful republican.  

   > Dole.  Now I could vote for Andre Marrou as he runs every time...but
   > of course the logic here is that this will in fact be a vote for Clinton.
    
    Actually the front running Libertarian Candidate is Harry Browne, a
    well known economist and definitely a much stronger candidate than
    Andre Marrou could ever be.  
    
    Harry Browne will be in at least three nationally televised
    Presidential debates.
    
    --Geoff

    Harry Browne's new book "Why Government Doesn't Work" is supposed to be
    out soon.
    
    Anyone heard anything?
    

    
>    Anyone heard anything?
 

   I heard a phone ring a minute or 2 ago, as well as some folks laughing
 in another part of the office..




 JIm   

If you would like to order Harry Browne's new book, call toll-free
1-800-326-0996 or (415) 541-9780, fax (415) 541-0597 or write to:
Laissez Faire Books, Dept. L50, 938 Howard St., #202, San Francisco,
CA, 94103.  To order via E-MAIL: Simply write to Sarah Rossell, in our 
customer service dept., at [email protected] or Compuserve: 74741,2631, or 
just reply to me at [email protected].  For your security, you might want to 
first call and leave us your credit card information, or use PGP.

* Every order comes with a surprise free bonus
* We ship most orders within 24 hours
* 30-day money back guarantee

You can pay for your order with a Visa, MasterCard, or Discover, or with 
a check or money order.  Include $3.25 for shipping.  California  
residents must include sales tax.

 solicitation?

A libertarian manifesto for millions

WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK
by Harry Browne
(reviewed by Jim Powell)

Harry Browne, a polished speaker and writer seeking the presidency as a
Libertarian, has produced a compelling case for liberty which ought to take
its place alongside the great political manifestos.  Quite possibly, it
could do for libertarians what Barry Goldwater's hugely popular *Conscience
of a Conservative* did for the modern conservative movement more than three
decades ago.

Browne's reasoned, heartfelt prose should connect with
millions--entrepreneurs, waitresses, farmers, bankers, laborers and
intellectuals alike.  "Government schools don't have the money and time to
teach your children how to read well," he says, "yet they always find the
resources to teach their favorite social theories, no matter how distressing
they are to parents."

"The government can't deliver the mail on time, but wants to take your life
in its hands by controlling your health care."

"The courts that once defended your privacy and liberties now ratify any
intrusion that can be shown to be in the government's interest."

Browne presents well thought out libertarian reforms on the federal level.
Highlights:

*  Sell 90% of federal government assets, including dams, pipelines,
vehicles, oil rights, mineral rights, water rights, business enterprises,
buildings (feds own 441,000) and land (more than 649 million acres).  Browne
estimates government assets could be worth $12 trillion.

*  Use a substantial chunk of proceeds to buy needy people an annuity, so
that the Social Security scam can be shut down.

*  Use most of the balance of proceeds to wipe out the federal debt.

*  Cut the federal budget at least in half.

*  Adopt a 10% flat income tax or a 5% national sales tax, and abolish other
federal taxes.  

*  Pardon everyone convicted solely of federal tax evasion charges and order
immediate release of those in prison.

*  Pardon everyone convicted solely of federal gun control charges.

*  End federal affirmative action--quotas, set-asides, preferential
treatments and other discriminatory practices.

*  Phase out federal welfare programs.

*  End drug prohibition.
	
*  Repeal federal laws against victimless crimes.

*  End all federal asset forfeiture cases and restore confiscated property
to rightful owners.

*  Remove U.S. military forces from foreign soil and from United Nations
operations.

*  End federal regulation of individuals and businesses.  

*  The President should veto any Congressional bill he doesn't have time to
read.

*  Veto any Congressional bill for which there isn't Constitutional authority.

Browne's book is especially valuable because it provides persuasive answers
to objections people raise about libertarian policies.  For example, after
proposing that the federal government get out of education, Browne asks,
"Would all parents make the best choices for their children?  Of course not.
We don't live in a perfect world.  But we should live in a free country--one
in which each of us is free to make his own choices, good or bad.  And those
parents who are capable of making good choices shouldn't have their children
held hostage in government schools because other parents are less competent."

Irresponsible to propose repealing victimless crime laws?  Browne: "The
court system is clogged--leaving it receptive to the plea bargains of
violent criminals.  And the prisons are overflowing with non-violent
offenders, which opens the door to the early release of violent criminals.
Every marijuana smoker or pimp in prison uses a cell that could have been
occupied by a mugger, rapist or child molester."

Trash federal regulations?  "We mourn for the victims in a plane crash or a
natural disaster.  But the FDA kills many times more innocent people each
year than a dozen such tragedies...the EPA forces carmakers to obey
unrealistic fuel-economy standards that lead to smaller, more dangerous
cars. And almost all regulations stifle economic growth--which is the single
most important factor contributing to longer lives."

Browne's book does a fine job communicating key ideas of liberty in terms
large numbers of people can respond to.


Contents:

PROLOGUE
1  The Breakdown of Government  1

PART ONE: WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK
2  What is Government?    9
3  Oops! Why Government Programs Always Go Astray 13
4  Why Government Grows & Grows & Grows  17
5  If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)  20
6  How Did We Get in This Mess?  28
7  Government Doesn't Work  33
8  Once the Land of the Free  36
9  How Freedom Was Lost  39
10  How Much Freedom is Left?  48
11  Your Innocence Is No Protection  54
12  On the Road to a Better World  64

PART TWO: SOLVING TODAY'S SOCIAL & POLITICAL PROBLEMS
13  Fixing America's Problems  71
14  Why Freedom Brings Prosperity  76
15  How Your Life is Regulated  81
16  Health Care--The Problem  93
17  Health Care--The Solution  101
18  Improving Education  112
19  Welfare  118
20  Fighting Crime or Playing Games?  127
21  A Weak National Defense  138
22  An Effective National Defense  146
23  How to Fix Social Security Once and for All  159
24  A Freedom Budget  170
25  Do We Really Want Government to Protect Family Values?  187
26  Niether of the Tow Old Parties Will Save Us  193
27  What the President Can Do  203

EPILOGUE
28  A Message of Hope  217

APPENDICES
A  Acknowledgements  224
B  Notes & Background Information 225
C  Further Exploration  236
D  The Author  243

    RE: .327

    I know how much shipping & handling is, but you gave no indication of
    how much the book itself is.

    -- Dave

PO6411 (hardcover) 234p.			$19.95
                       LAISSEZ FAIRE PRICE ONLY $15.95
    

Laissez faire?  Izzat a dog show for collies?

> * Every order comes with a surprise free bonus

Scary, this.

Prolly a Harry Browne For President bumper sticker.

    .306
    
    Harney,
    
    Are you a convention delegate at the Lib NatCon in Washington next year
    ???
    
    Just curious,
    
    Barry

    <--- For that matter, is ANYONE here (that's a registered Libertarian)
         a NatCon delegate in '96 ?
    
    --- Barry

    
    .259
    
    Jack,
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure every loudmouth here will if I'm
    wrong), but I recall that the Republicans were the newcomer party.
    
    The Democratic party at that point spilt in two over the issue of
    slavery. As I recall, they split so much as to have fielded 2
    candidates for president, whilst a third-party also ran.
    
    Lincoln won out of the pack of 4.
    
    Barry

    Barry,

    You're right about the Demo's splitting.  Letting the Republican
    Lincoln win.  The 3rd party was the Whig party which had been one of
    the two dominant parties before the GOP.

    -- Dave

I thought the Demos split into the (current) Democratic and Republican parties.
They were even called the Democrat-Republicans once.

>    Correct me if I'm wrong 

I wouldn't know - that's why I sais I wasn't up on my history.

>    The Democratic party at that point spilt in two over the issue of
>    slavery. As I recall, they split so much as to have fielded 2
>    candidates for president

OK - two democrats, then. I don't care if two were purple. The point I thought
I was trying to make was that when a party truly splits and offers multiple
choices, it's different than a "separate" alternative candidate, as you can't
place the blame for the divisiveness on the party.

    Jack DB,
    
    Actually the "correct me if I'm wrong" statement was aimed at dem der
    I-will-stemp-you-to-death-with-facts noters, not youse.
    
    Let me consult my magic truthful book of history: 
    
    "Like other presidential candidates of his period, Lincoln felt it
     undignified to campaign actively...the Democratic party broke into
     two factions...Senator Douglas , the nation's leading Democrat, had
     angered the pro-slavery wing of his party. Northern Democrats
     nominated him for President. The Southern faction of the Democratic
     party chose V.P. John C. Breckenridge. A fourth party, calling itself
     the Constitutional Union party, nominated former Sen. John Bell of
     Tennessee.
    
     Lincoln won easily, receiving 180 electoral votes, vs. 72 for
     Breckenridge, 39 for Bell, and 12 for Douglas.  More Americans
     voted against Lincoln than for him. Popular vote for Lincoln was
     1,865,593, vs. 2,823,975 for his opponents.  All electoral votes,
     as well as nearly all popular votes, were from Northern states."
    
    Source: World Book Encyclopedia, 1968
    
    Lincoln won by less popular percentage than Clinton, and by virtue of a 
    party split and a "third-party" candidate.
    
    The same thing happened last time around...but for different reasons.

RE: 552.292 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "smooth, fast, bright and playful" 

> don't expect me to agree that returning Billy to the whitehouse is a 
> good idea, even for small values of good.

So if Pat Buchanan,  who has declared war on you and me and most of the 
rest of America,  becomes the Republican candidate,  you would vote _for_ 
such evil,  rather than the near zero,  Mr Clinton?  Don't you think the 
world is a little more complex than "Anyone But Clinton"?

I'll agree that Dole is preferable in most respects to Mr Clinton,  but I
am close to concluding that he could easily lose,  and not due to any third
party.

From the conservative Progress and Freedom Foundation,  "Republicans could
easily lose both the White House and the House.  Right now,  Clinton has
the high moral ground."
         -----

And do you have a clue as to just how important that is?

Phil

>So if Pat Buchanan,  who has declared war on you and me and most of the 
>rest of America,  becomes the Republican candidate,  you would vote _for_ 
>such evil,  rather than the near zero,  Mr Clinton?  
    
     Useless speculation. Buchanan isn't going to win a thing.
    
    

    
    regarding the high moral ground...
    
    depends on what you think that ground is.  clinton claims
    it is a four or five dollar difference in medicare premiums
    eight years from now.  republicans should claim it should
    be sacrifice NOW for the sake of our children.  
    
    

RE: 552.344 by BROKE::PARTS

> clinton claims it is a four or five dollar difference in medicare premiums
> eight years from now.  republicans should claim it should be sacrifice 
> NOW for the sake of our children.

Now?  Half of the Republican spending cuts are for years 6 and 7 of the 7 
year plan to balance the budget.  48%,  to be more precise.


Phil

    
    
    
          ANNUAL SPENDING		ANNUAL REVENUE  
    	     INCREASE			   INCREASE
    
          Admin Congr Diff		Admin Congr Diff
    1996   61    72    11                 57    54    3
    1997   76    39    37                 59    28   31
    1998   58    31    27                 75    74    1
    1999   64    43    21                 78    71    7
    2000   70    61     9                 89    80    9
    2001   56    37    19                 91    91    0
    2002   63    56     7                 95   105    10
    
    
    These figures are in billions of dollars.

        Overheard a snippet on the radio about candidates registering in
        NH; one name was Carmen Chimiento - couldn't be, could it?
        

One can only hope not, &y.

    You figger there's more than one? look on the bright side, he's
    apparently got at least $1K to piss away.

| <<< Note 552.349 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "smooth, fast, bright and playful" >>>

| You figger there's more than one? look on the bright side, he's
| apparently got at least $1K to piss away.

	He drank $1k of booze away?

    re: Note 552.347 by SPEZKO::FRASER
    
    } Overheard a snippet on the radio about candidates registering in
    } NH; one name was Carmen Chimiento - couldn't be, could it?
    
    It is.

    who s/he?
    
    $clueless
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA22963 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:02:43 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA16327
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for [email protected]); Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:58:23 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Thu, 21 Dec 95 10:48:57 PST
X-UIDL: 819586477.004
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 10:34:08 PST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected]
Subject: campaign schedule update
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected] (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


Upcoming radio appearances:
                                       
   Thursday-Friday, December 21-22, 1995 - national
      Roger Fredinburg: Radio's Regular Guy Show
      Time: 22nd midnight-2:00am Eastern,
            21st-22nd 11:00pm-1:00am Central,
            21st 10:00pm-midnight Mountain,
            21st 9:00-11:00pm Pacific
      Stations: syndicated in 130 markets (see list below)
      Call-in: 800-449-TALK
          
   Monday-Tuesday, December 25-26, 1995 - national
      Art Bell "Coast to Coast" <<---- REPLAY OF NOV. 30 SHOW
      Time: 26th 2:00-7:00am Eastern,
            26th 1:00-6:00am Central,
            26th midnight-5:00am Mountain,
            25th-26th 11:00pm-4:00am Pacific
      Stations: list available at http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html
          
   Friday, December 29, 1995 - San Diego, CA and national
      The Peter Weissbach Show on KOGO 600AM
      (Also syndicated in 30 markets)
      Time: 6:00-6:30 PM Eastern
      Call-in: 619-565-6006 / Fax-in questions: 619-738-5507
      (Harry was on this show on November 10th. His producer said
      that Harry is back by popular demand!)
          
   Friday, December 29, 1995 - Boston, MA
      The David Brudnoy Show on WBZ 1030AM
      Time: 9:00-10:00 pm Eastern
      Call-in: 617-254-1030
          
Station list for Roger Fredinburg show, 21-22 December:

 AK:
  Anchorage KENI 550
  Fairbanks KFAR 660
  Kodiak KVOK 560
  Kodiak KJJZ 101.5

 AL:
  Montgomery WACV 1170
  Foley WHEP 1310

 AR:
  Little Rock KSYG 103.7
  Pine Bluff KOTN 1490
  Fort Smith KWHN 1320

 AZ:
  Phoenix KXAM 1310
  Prescott KNOT 1450
  Safford KATO 1230

 CA:
  San Diego KOGO 600
  Santa Barbara KQSB 990
  Bakersfield KNZR 1560
  Santa Maria KSMA 1240
  Pasa Robles KPRL 1230
  Mercer KYOS 1480
  Chico KPAY 1060

 CT:
  New Haven WAVZ 1300

 DE:
  Rehoboth WGMD 92.7

 FL:
  St. Augustine WFOY 1240
  Sebring WWTK 730
  Sarasota WKXY 930
  Tampa/St. Peter WBDN 760
  Ft. Myers WINK 1240
  Leesburg WQBQ 1410

 GA:
  Dalton WDAL 1430
  Columbus WDAK 540

 ID:
  Payette KIOV 1450
  St. Maries KOFE 1240
  Ottowa WCMY 1430
  Peru WAIV 102.3
  Springfield WMAY 970
  Quincy WTAD 930
  Herrin WJPF 1340

 KS:
  Liberal KSCB 1270

 KY:
  Lexington WXLG 1300
  Ownesboro WOMT  1490
  Central City WMTA 1380
  Madisonville WTTL 1310

 LA:
  New Orleans WODT 1280
  Baton Rouge WJBO 1150

 MA:
  Attleboro WARA 1320

 ME:
  Presque Isle WEGP 600

 MI:
  St. Marie WKNW 1400
  Flint WFNT 1470
  Traverse City WTCM 580
  Cadillac WKJF 1370
  Muskegon WKBZ 850

 MN:
  Duluth WEBC 560
  Brainerd WWI 1270
  St. Cloud KNSI 1450

 MO:
  St. Louis KSD 550
  Washington KLPW 1220
  Festus KJCF 1400
  Jefferson City KWOS 1240
  Cp Girardeau KZIM 960
  Joplin WMBH 1450

 MT:
  Missoula KGVO 1290
  Bozeman KMMS 1450

 NC:
  Equay-Varina WCRY 990
  Southern Pines WEEB 990
  Chapel Hill WCHL 1380
  Jacksonville WLAS 910
  Greensboro WKEW 1400
  Wilmington WMFD 630
  Albermarle WSPC 1010

 NE:
  Fremont KHUB 1340

 NH:
  Manchester WGIR 610

 NM:
  Roswell KBIM 910

 NY:
  Utica WIBX 610
  Amsterdam WCSS 1490
  Jamestown WJTN 1240
  Hudson WHUC 1230
  Glen Falls WWSC 1450

 OH:
  Mansfield WMAN 1400
  Springfield WBLY 1600
  Youngstown WKBN 570
  Canton WCER 900

 OK:
  McAlester KTMC 1400
  Bartlesville KWON 1400

 OR:
  Portland KEX 1190
  Baker City KBKR 1490
  La Grande KLBM 1450
  Roseburg KTBR 950
  Tillamook KMBD 1590
  Coos Bay KHSN 1230
  Medford KOPE 103.5

 PA:
  Allentown WAEB 790
  Erie WFLP 1330
  Phillipsburg WPHB 1260
  Pittston WARD 1550

 SC:
  Spartanburg WORD 910
  Greenville WFBC 1330
  Charleston WTMA 1250
  Greenwood WLMA 1350
  Anderson WAIM 1230
  Charleston WTMZ 1250

 TN:
  Jackson WTJS 1390
  Nashville WGNS 1450
  Memphis WMC 790

 TX:
  Dallas/Ft.Worth KGBS 1190
  Austin KFON 1490
  Huntsville KYLR 1400
  Lubbock KKAM 1400
  El Paso KTSM 1380

 UT:
  Blanding KUTA 790

 VA:
  Bristol WXBQ 980
  Front Royal WFTR 1450

 VT:
  Burlington WVMT 620

 WA:
  Yakima KUTI 980
  Ellensburg KXLE 1240
  Vancouver KVAN 1550

 WI:
  Madison WTDY 1480
  Kenosha WLIP 1050
  Fon Du Lac KFIZ 1450
  West Bend WBKV 1470
  Stevens Point WSPO 1010
  Lacrosse WIZM 1410

 WV:
  Charleston WQBE 950

 WY:
  Cheyenne KRAE 1480

 Virgin Islands:
  WSTA 1340

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA03522; Thu, 21 Dec 95 18:12:00 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com; (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA03720; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 18:01:14 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA08875 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 17:59:55 -0500
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 18:00:54 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <[email protected]>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b3 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: cuptay::keller
% Subject: [Fwd: campaign schedule update]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

from rec.humor.funny:

The other night my I was called by a polling organization.

Pollster: "Would you vote for Bill Clinton or Bob Dole?"

Me: "No."

Pollster: "But if you had to choose between Clinton and Dole
who would you vote for?"

Me: "If I had to chose between Clinton and Dole I would go to
jail rather than vote."

Pollster: "I'll put you down as undecided."

    
    Tom Davis For President:
    
    "Peanuts, Popcorn, Caramel, And A Surprise, Too!"
    
    ;^)
    

          <<< Note 552.355 by TROOA::COLLINS "Falling with style." >>>

    
>    Tom Davis For President:
    
>    "Peanuts, Popcorn, Caramel, And A Surprise, Too!"

You mean Jack Martin, don't you, Joan? :')    

    Would that wind up being Cracker Jack Martin for Prez?

    
    .357
    
    We don't have to put up with those vile racist epithets, y'know!
    

>    We don't have to put up with those vile racist epithets, y'know!

    Touch�.

    -- Dave

    
    In Glenn's absence:
    
    
    

			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	               {               }
	               {   o       o   }
	               {               }
	               {       o       }
	               {               }
	               {   o       o   }
	               {               }
		        vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

    
    .359
    
    FRANCOPHILE!!!
    

    RE: .361

    Are you implying that you're a Francophobe?!?  Is that safe in Canada?

    -- Dave

    
    Our overlords see to it that we are safe at all times.
    

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Vote for me, and there will be a teat for 
                    ~~    ~~ everyone!   

    

    
    
    Yes, but, the milk will come from every middle-class cow around you!!!!
    

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Nonsense.  I am a "milk the rich cow" 
                    ~~    ~~ candidate.  

    

    
		 *	  \__/
                  \       (00)
                   \-------\/ 
                    |     || \ 
                    ||W---||  Zounds! 
                    ~~    ~~   
                  
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA01536 for <[email protected]>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 00:39:19 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA07638
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for [email protected]); Fri, 26 Jan 1996 21:29:40 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 26 Jan 96 21:16:20 PST
X-UIDL: 822749139.000
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 21:09:06 PST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected]
Subject: Release: State of the Union
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected] (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


News from the Harry Browne for President Campaign

Released: January 24, 1996

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS:
"BIGGER & BIGGER GOVERNMENT AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE"

"President Clinton said, 'The era of big government is over,' and then
spent an hour proposing bigger and bigger government as far as the eye
can see." So said Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne,
referring to the President's State of the Union address.

"As though that weren't bad enough," Browne continued, "Robert Dole
also spoke out against big government and then defended the Republican
budget that makes the federal government $45 billion bigger in 1996,
and bigger still in every year through 2002."

Harry Browne is a Libertarian candidate for President. In his book Why
Government Doesn't Work, he proposes to cut the federal government in
half, repeal the income tax, and balance the budget -- all in his first
year in office.

"Neither Bill Clinton nor Robert Dole has noticed that government
doesn't work. It doesn't deliver the mail on time, it can't keep the
cities safe, it doesn't educate our children properly. And yet they
both think they can solve problems in health care, crime control,
education, immigration, campaign financing, and every other social area
by piling more government on top of the government programs that have
failed so miserably," Browne added.

"Today federal, state, and local governments combined take 47% of the
national income in taxes. The American people are being smothered by a
tax rate many times the one that triggered the American Revolution. But
the Republican and Democratic politicians pat us on the head and
promise to reduce the load by an imperceptible fraction of 1%."

Browne proposes to reduce the federal government to just the functions
specified in the Constitution -- national defense and little else. He
wants to use the savings to repeal the income tax immediately.

In response to political pundits saying the American people want
smaller government but they won't give up their own subsidies, Browne
makes this offer: "If you'll give up your favorite federal program,
you'll never again have to pay income tax.

"You can't have your own favorite federal program without paying for a
similar subsidy for everyone else. So the cost of your program is the
enormous tax load you are paying today. The only way to reduce your
taxes significantly is by ending all subsidies at one time and using
the savings to repeal the income tax immediately. If you'll give up
your favorite federal program, you can escape the income tax forever. I
have campaigned in 33 states, and I have yet to find someone who would
rather keep his favorite program and continue paying income tax."

Browne is running for the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination.
He is expected to win the nomination at the party's convention on July
4th weekend. The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political
party. Its Presidential candidate will be on the ballot in all 50
states this year, as was the case in 1992.

Harry Browne has already qualified for matching federal campaign funds,
but has refused to take them. "I don't believe in welfare for
politicians, anymore than I believe in welfare for corporations or
individuals," he said.

                              [End]
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA23292; Sat, 27 Jan 96 08:39:11 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA22431; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:32:53 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA11367 for <[email protected]>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:31:36 -0500
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:32:51 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <[email protected]>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: cuptay::keller
% Subject: [Fwd: Release: State of the Union]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA02547 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:08:16 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA00246
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for [email protected]); Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:03:06 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 26 Jan 96 12:49:24 PST
X-UIDL: 822695113.000
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 12:40:57 PST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected]
Subject: Release: no to matching funds
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected] (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


*********************************************************

ONLINE NEWS FROM THE HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240  *  Fairfax, Virginia 22033

*********************************************************

NOTE:  The following release was posted to Business Wire's 
       national circuit Tuesday evening, January 16, 1996.


LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HARRY BROWNE
'JUST SAYS NO' TO FEDERAL CAMPAIGN MATCHING FUNDS

COSTA MESA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 16, 1996--Libertarian 
presidential candidate Harry Browne has qualified for federal 
matching funds...but refuses to take them.

"Campaign matching funds are the political equivalent of welfare,"
Browne said in a statement issued Tuesday.  "Republican presidential 
candidates denounce welfare and subsidies, but every Republican who 
qualified for matching funds has his hand out for political welfare 
and campaign subsidies."

"I 'just say no' to this tax-funded subsidy," said Browne.

The Harry Browne for President campaign has raised over $575,000 to
date from more than 4,400 individual donors -- drawing from all 50 
states.

Qualifying for matching funds takes more than just fund-raising, 
according to Browne's national campaign director Sharon Ayres.  The 
Federal Election Commission requires a candidate to raise $5,000 per 
state in at least 20 states.  And that $5,000 must be comprised of 
donations of $250 or less.

"Republicans Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and Robert Dornan have
failed to qualify for matching funds," she noted, "Forbes because he 
spent too much of his own money, Keyes and Dornan because they've raised 
too little."

"We have formally requested a Federal Election Commission (FEC) 
advisory opinion verifying that Harry is eligible to apply for and 
receive matching funds even though he won't take them," she said.

Why is Harry Browne asking the FEC to verify that he's qualified
for matching funds -- when he's refusing to take them?

According to Ayres, it's because "many private and public 
organizations use matching funds qualification as a criterion for 
being included in debates or put on presidential primary ballots.  
For example, last week Delaware changed its law to automatically list
on its February primary ballot every candidate qualified for matching
funds."

"Even more important," she continued, "is the fact that the 
Commission on Presidential Debates has specified that qualifying for 
matching funds will be a criterion for deciding which candidates to 
include in the October presidential debates."

Harry Browne is a best-selling author whose latest book, WHY 
GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK (St. Martin's Press) is in bookstores 
nationwide.  It is now in its 3rd printing.

Harry Browne is the only Presidential candidate calling for "Huge 
Tax Cuts Now!  Huge Spending Cuts Now!  A Balanced Budget Now!"

WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK details Browne's plan to:
    -- Immediately end the income tax and shut down the IRS.
             (What will he "replace" the tax with?  Nothing.)
    -- Immediately slash the federal budget by 50%, with further
             reductions the following years.
    -- Immediately balance the budget.

The book shows how and why to shrink the federal government down to
only those functions spelled out in the Constitution -- which would 
get it completely out of welfare, education, housing, crime control, 
and regulation.  He also proposes privatizing Social Security -- 
selling off federal assets to buy private retirement annuities for 
seniors dependent on Social Security.

The Libertarian Party -- America's third largest political party --
has run presidential candidates in every election since its founding 
in 1971.  In 1992, its presidential candidate was on the ballot in 
all 50 states, and it will repeat that feat in 1996 "despite onerous 
barriers erected by state governments," according to Ayres.  The 
Libertarian Party has already qualified in 28 states on the way to 
50-state ballot status.

                             --30--
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA23294; Sat, 27 Jan 96 08:39:12 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA27521; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:30:13 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA11302 for <[email protected]>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:28:55 -0500
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:30:11 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <[email protected]>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: cuptay::keller
% Subject: [Fwd: Release: no to matching funds]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Well I guess I did my bad deed for the day.  I'm sitting here late, at
work, at ZKO.  My phone rings.  It was a political pollster!  Must be
fishing for the latest from New Hampshirites.  I was going to just say
'hey you fool, this is a business number and I'm not voting since I
just work here, I live in the PRM' but I decided to just go along and
see what these type of polls are like.

  I answered the questions, starting with 'Are you willing to answer a
few questions for a political poll?' (yes) 'What is your party affiliation?'
(independent) 'Are you likely to vote in the Republican primary (yes [when
*is* the primary in MA?  Regardless, the choice in the Democrat primary is
likely to be rather boring (Slick or Slick) I'll take the Republican
ballot])  'If the election were held today, who would you vote for?' 'Are
you firm with this choice or are you likely to change?' Then questions
on term limits and what I knew of them and whether someone in Washington
for 36 years is likely to be out of touch (Has Dole been in there that
long?)  I suspect from the last few questions it was actually a poll
from an anti-Dole candidate, although the caller identified herself as
with some generic survey company.

But they never asked me if I was a New Hampshire resident or eligible to
vote in NH so I guess it counted....

    
      News reporter predicts Dole will win both N&S Dakota primaries
     today.  Arizona is very close, Dole V. Pat.
    
      bb

          <<< Note 552.371 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

    
>Arizona is very close, Dole V. Pat.

	The Dole campaign doesn't seem to think so. They have all but
	conceded Arizona.

Jim

    
      It wouldn't surprise me.  Very conservative state.  Oh, by the
     way.  People have been calling PB a right wing xenophobe for
     talking about a wall between the US and Mexico.  Well, the truth
     is, in California, there already is one, and the Clinton
     administration is reinforcing it with concrete all along the base
     because Mexicans have been digging and crawling under it.  There
     are estimated to be nearly 3 million illegals in Kaliph alone,
     although difficult to prove.  But there are 1 million who have no
     known source of income and collect welfare, according to Wilson's
     administration.  They tried to cut them off, but the federal court
     said they can't.  They asked Washington to deport them, but Clinton
     said no to that.  Yet Clinton himself is trying to stem the tide.
     Contrary to what has been said in here, polls show deportation is
     popular in Arizona.  PB is only saying out loud in a belligerent
     way what everybody knows.
    
      bb

    Does anyone have the information handy about the number of delegates
    in the Dakotas and Arizona (and which states give ALL their delegates
    to the winner?)

    arizona, i believe, has 39.  winner takes all.

    
      Arizona has 39.  Dunno Dakota.  Dunno which are winner-take-all.
    
      bb

>		They tried to cut them off, but the federal court
>     said they can't.  They asked Washington to deport them, but Clinton
>     said no to that.

Absolutely disgusting.

    Both Dakota's have proportional delgates, that is, the number of
    delegates assigned to each candidate will be the nearest they can get
    to the percentages voted.
    
    AZ is a winner-take-all.  From the sounds of it, PB will most likely
    add 39 candidates to his trophy wall tonight.

    Wow, Steve Forbes is the projected winner in Arizona.
    
    (A lot more of the vote hasn't come in yet, but CNN is projecting
    Forbes now.)
    
    Buchanan will be second, Dole third, if so.

    
    
    	Actually, Forbes took AZ's 39 delegates to put him in the front
    running with 60. Dole is 2nd with a total of 35 and PB is third. Lamar
    wasn't mentioned...:)
    
    
    jim

    
      The Dakotas apportioned 18 delegates each.  You needed 15-20% to
     get any.  South Carolina this weekend, 13 more states, including
     the PRM on Tuesday.
    
      bb

    The one thing that was nice about watching Buchanan campaigning in
    Arizona is that it was a dry hate.

    RE: .380  Jim
    
    > Actually, Forbes took AZ's 39 delegates to put him in the front
    > running with 60. Dole is 2nd with a total of 35 and PB is third. Lamar
    > wasn't mentioned...:)
    
    Actually, PB is in second place with 39 delegates now (you were right
    that Dole has 35.)  
    
    Lamar Alexander has 10 or 11 delegates.

    
    	Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification!
    
    
    jim

    I've noticed from PB's speeches he is an avid fan of General Patton and 
    Custer.

    Oh, Yeah,
    
    He has promised to rename the Battle of the Little Bighorn National
    Monument back to the Custer nat's monument.  Given the number of NA
    registered voters in the Dakota's I am not surprised he didn't win
    there.
    
    meg

    
      MA,VT,CT,ME,RI,CO,GA,MD - all GOP primaries today.
    
      bb

    wouldn't it be something if paddy takes georgia?
    

    Be more entertaining to see what happens if he doesn't  given his
    statements from NPR this morning.  PB needs Georgia to stay in the top
    tier of dwarves.
    
    meg

    |dwarves
    
    please, little people.

    
      NY primary today.  Snowy, so light turnout.  The Empire State
     is NOT winner-take-all.  93 delegates, apportioned by Congressional
     district.  Dole will win, but Forbes may do OK.  Pat is going to
     get creamed.  He called Al D'Amato names, and Guiliani as well.
     
      bb

    According to the paper yesterday Colorado had a heart-pounding 29%
    turnout in the polls.
    
    Sheesh. people die every day for the right to vote, and this country
    can't get 3 people in 10 vote for a PRESIDENTIAL election.
    
    

It's a primary, not a presidential election.

    > It's a primary, not a presidential election.
    
    sorry; forgot the trailer word "primary"
    
    {head hung in shame}

    Probably a demonstration of how Coloradoans feel about the candidates
    on the primary ballot this year.  Whe n you don't have even someone who
    is the lesser of evils, why bother?
    
    meg

    
    the lesser of two evils was as true for the vote in new hampshire.
    it had 76% voter participation.
    
    

    The Colorado beetle is the lesser of two weevils?

yes

NY presidential primary snarf!

    
      Super Tuesday today, 7 primaries including Tx&Fl.  Dole favored.
    
      bb

	Saw a thing on the primaries on Murphy Brown last night. Their bus
broke down, and they decided to do a remote from the little restaurant they
were at. Guess the candiates caught wind of it, and they sent their reps to it.
In one scene they had all three reps going on and on to someone about how bad 
the other candiates are. Corky asked the guy who he was going to vote for, and
he said...Clinton! (the guy was a repub)  Murphy asked this waitress what she
thought about welfare, and the woman gave her answer. Murphy asked her how come
she changed it from earlier? The woman responded with, "Well, after talking
with the Buchanan people, they told me how wrong I was to think that...."

	I have to admit, it was one of the funnier Murphy Browns. Because they
had the Dole people yelling racist, white supremist, etc. They had Alexander's
people in red flannel, and they had Buchanan's people saying at least their
candiate won't die in office. But they were all saying these things at the same
time. So it was one big pit of confusion, which is what I think they have done
with the election.


Glen

    
      Dole sweep.
    
      bb

    
    
    Very interesting way the Boston Globe exhibited the results this
    morning in their front page chart...
    
     In almost every case, Buchanan finished 2nd, but was shown at the
    bottom of the pack behind Dole and Forbes...
    
     I wonder why this is?
    

You must get a different edition than I do.  They're in numerical order in
mine (I get the last edition because I live in Boston).

    
    >You must get a different edition than I do.  
    
    Probably... seeing as how I live in Cow Hampster, and God-forbid we
    should get the latest of anything!!
    
     Upper left-hand corner of the paper states:
    
      Volume 249 * Number 73
    
    
     I'm looking at it right now, and it still has Buchanan at the bottom.
    

How many stars under the price?

Mine has one star, so it's two editions later (they knock off a star for
each new edition).  You get the early edition because it takes time to
truck the paper to the sticks.

    
    Well then... someone musta caught the (to me) obvious slant of whomever
    laid out the chart/graph, so's as not to have them (the sheep) think
    there's some sort of bias or anything...
    
    Or maybe whoever did it just wanted to piss off the Cow Hampsterites
    what voted for PB???
    

    It's interesting that your papers take off stars and our papers add
    them - 4 stars is usually the final edition.

I was questioning the star thing, too. I remember when I was a kid, standing
at the bus stop in downtown Syracuse in the late afternoon, listening to the 
guys hawking papers, yelling "BUY A PAPER - FOUR STAR FINAL!"

I once called up the Globe to ask about this.  In the old days, when they
printed with metal plates, they'd chisel off a star for the next edition
(assuming that there were no changes to the front page, of course).  They've
kept the tradition of removing stars from later editions.