Conference back40::soapbox

    Boris Karloff double?

    I won't vote for him because he looks like he wears dentures.
    
   - Ophilia Dougherty

    i'll vote for him cuz he treats women's concerns as a real priority.
    
    jacqueline martin

    The anti-gunners probably won't like his name.  Aside from that,
    is this the guy that wants me to vote for him because he's good
    at thwarting domestic nuclear terrorists?
    
    If so, he should put an LBJ Countdown (tm) in one of his ads and
    launch himself into the sun.  If not, then I humbly apologize. :-)
    
    Chris

He has a very, um, phallic name.

    
    Careful Gerald...
    
    If you start noticing things like that, people will nominate you for
    the Markey Award replacement...
    
    :)
    

    he should change his name to Bugar.

 I won't vote for him because everytime I hear his name I have this urge
 to clear my throat and spit.




 Jim

  ZZZ      he should change his name to Bugar.
    
    Is it phonetically booger?!

    well, he could shorten up on the 'u'.

    Lugar was Nixon's favorite mayor (Indianapolis).

    Buchanan wrote speeches for Nixon.

 Nixon had a dog named Checkers

    nixon was a looker!

 >> Nixon had a dog named Checkers
    
    ...to match his checkered past, no doubt, not to mention the future.
    
    Chris

    Lugar chaired the Senate Ag committee since the '94 elections.  He
    chivied through a reform bill that would have reduced the floor on many
    ag subsidies by 10-15%, enough of a price drop that the market prices
    would have been higher enough to buy an estimated 70-90% of the crops
    that are currently purchased at subsidy price.  That's 70-90% of ag
    subsidies, gone.  But the House republicans couldn't deliver anything
    similar, too many farm state republicans crossed the floor and voted
    with the democrats to keep the status quo.  Whatever happened in
    conference committee?
    
    Lugar is also smart on foreign policy, especially trade policy.  He
    recognizes the complexities and some of the interdependencies of the
    world economy, and that's more than any of the other candidates.  If
    he gets anywhere near the primary in California I'll make sure I'm
    registered Republican so I can vote for him.
    
    DougO

Like Bob Dole,  he supports the establishment of religion in the public
classroom.

Like Bob Dole,  he would make a good President for Foreign Policy.

Unlike Bob Dole,  he doesn't have a chance of getting nominated.  Much less
of being elected.

    RE: .16

    DougO, 

    When's the cutoff to switch parties before the primary?  I think
    the primary is in March this year so the cut off might be sooner than
    you think.

    By the way, isn't it nice to have a choice in the primary for a chnage?

    -- Dave

    I think I 'm in the throes of hyperventilating.  I find myself writing
    the incredible.  I agree with DougO.
    
    I think that Dick Lugar is probably one of the best kept secrets in the
    Republican Party and yet is probably their best candidate.
    
    I really hope that his candidacy gets some momentum as I plan to vote
    for him in the Illinois primary and find myself actually considering
    an active role in a candidate's election bid.
    
    I hope he wins.
    

	saw him giving a speech/Q&A session this weekend on C-SPAN
	or CNN, i don't remember which.  very impressive.  he was the
	most direct and logical of all the candidates i saw.  first
	one i've heard pushing consumption tax.

    Unfortunately he's buried in the back pages. He must not have enough
    money to run in NH, because he's been effing invisible. No ads, no
    appearances, no show. Translates to no votes.

Since I don't have TB, I'm all in favor of a consumption tax.

 I bet Doc Holiday paid a consumption tax

    .21
    
    Lugar's been in NH. I got an invite to one of his appearances
    in Merrimack (I think) a few weeks ago. 
    
    I passed. He has good ideas and should be part of the discussion,
    but he isn't -- and some of that is his own fault. His ad campaign to
    date has been pathetic.
    

    
    
    	He's also anti-gun.
    
    
    

   .21  he wasn't invisible this weekend. ;>  but yeah, it's really a 
	shame.  if i had to vote tomorrow, he'd be the guy.

>>    	He's also anti-gun.

    what he said about guns this weekend is that he was in favor of the
    ban on assault weapons.  is that what you mean by "anti-gun"?

    
    
    	re: Lady di
    
    	Yup. He's also expressed other anti-gun sentiment (support of the
    brady bill,etc). I don't believe there's a candidate out there that I
    would vote for at this point.
    
    jim

>           <<< Note 637.28 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>
    
>    	Yup. He's also expressed other anti-gun sentiment (support of the
>    brady bill,etc). 

	okay.  he's clearly not against people defending themselves using
	guns, so to say he's "anti-gun" is a bit dramatic.

>    I don't believe there's a candidate out there that I
>    would vote for at this point.

	i meant only if i had to.

    .29
    
    Support for the Brady Bill and for the assault-weapons ban brands Lugar
    as just another feel-good pol.  The BB's proponents even admit that it
    is ineffective.  The assault-weapon ban was predicated on the wildly
    distorted tale of how the preferred cop-killer weapon is the UZI.  In
    actual fact, you can count the number of cops killed by UZIs on the
    thumbs of your hands.

>             <<< Note 637.30 by SMURF::BINDER "Manus Celer Dei" >>>
    
>    Support for the Brady Bill and for the assault-weapons ban brands Lugar
>    as just another feel-good pol.

	maybe to you it does.  i got only a half-hour look at the man, but i 
	think it's possible that he actually believes in what he says.
	

    .31
    
    > it's possible that he actually believes in what he says.
    
    He believes in the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban?  Well, then,
    that doesn't brand him as a feel-good pol.  It brands him as a fool.

    this lugar guy is starting to interest me.

   .32  well, make up your mind.

If he wuz anti-gun, he'd have changed his name.  hth, nnttm, et.al.

    He did. Either Lugar is claiming to support those measures because he
    thinks that's what the electorate wants or needs to hear in which case
    he's just another feel-good politician (on this issue), or he really
    believes they will be effective anti-crime measures, in which case he
    doesn't understand the relationships in question. Since we don't have
    Lugar here to answer for himself, this is as close as it can be called.

   .36  duh - no doots, Sherlock.

    .30
    
    |The BB's proponents even admit that it is ineffective.
    
    They do?  Who, when, and where, may i ask.  

    
    
    They did so before it passed.

    
    	Sarah Brady has admitted that the Brady Bill does little to affect
    crime. She and others have compared it to "getting the camels nose
    under the tent". Banning of private firearms ownership is what HCI,
    NCBH, VPC, etc are all about. They don't want controls, they want
    elimination. 
    
    	re: assault weapons ban
    
    	Senator Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) said in a TV interview, "The
    assault weapon ban will make little measureable difference since AW's
    are used so infrequently in crime" (paraphrased). I caught this on WLVI
    56 in New England, John Keller did the interview.
    
    jim

    |She and others have compared it to "getting the camels nose
    |under the tent".
    
    now this is interesting.  i've heard the "camel's nose" theory
    often from the gun nutter side when explaining why it is 
    absolutely critical not to let any laws pass restricting the
    sales and usage of any firearm.  but never from the brady
    bunch.  until now.

In the words of founding chair of HCI, Nelson T. Shields, III.:

"I'm convinced that we have to have Federal legislation
to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a
time, and the first step is necessarily--given the political
realities--going to be very modest ... Our ultimate
goal--total control of handguns in the United States--is
going to take time ... The first problem is to slow down
the increasing number of handguns being produced and
sold in this country. The second problem is to get
handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the
possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition
totally illegal."

The Brady Bill, while forming the cornerstone of HCI's
legislative wishes, is not the only goal. The membership
drive pamphlet lists the rest of these goals as:

   Banning military-style assault weapons
   Prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and
   sale of Saturday Night Specials
   Establishing registration requirements for the
   private sale of concealable handguns at gun shows
   and by citizens
   Barring multiple sales of handguns
   Requiring stringent safety classes for those who
   buy handguns
   Mandating strict reporting requirements for the
   theft of handguns from gun dealers and gun
   owners
   Establishing control over who can manufacture
   and sell handguns with licensing procedures
   Creating GUN-FREE ZONES around all our
   schools




  "This is the first step" -- U.S. Representative Edward Feighan, referring
to the Brady Bill (which he introduced) at recent House hearings.

  "We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is
necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest...
So we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again
to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now though,
we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal
- -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take
time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns
being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get
handguns registered.  And the final problem is to make possession of all
handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for military, policemen,
licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun
collectors -- totally illegal." -- Pet Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun
Control, Inc.  (interview appearing in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976)

  "This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack
in the door.  There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens.  The
right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill." -- U.S.
Representative Craig Washington, at the mark-up hearing on the Brady Bill,
April 10, 1991.
  "Handguns should be outlawed.  Our organization will probably take this
stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get
the other legislation passed." -- Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National
Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the
Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969).

  "It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private
individuals. . .the coalition's emphasis is to keep handguns out of private
possession -- where they do the most harm."  Recruiting flyer currently
distributed by The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly called The
National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

  "Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)." -- Pete Shields, Chairman
emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

  "We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong
uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is
crystal clear and perilously present.  Let us take the guns away from the
people.  Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and
those licensed for good and sufficient reasons.  And I would look forward
to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a
sidearm." -- Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner,
and now a member of Handgun Control's National Committee, during testimony
to the National Association of Citizens Crime Commissions.

  "My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not
have guns.  But I feel even stronger about the average person having
them...most homeowners...simply have no need to own guns." -- Joseph
McNamara, HCI spokesman, and former Chief of Police of San Jose,
California.

  "I don't want to go for confiscation, but that is where we are going." --
Daryl Gates, Police Chief of Los Angeles, California.

  "There may be other things that will happen later... It may not be the
end... the bottom line is what we are seeking now is the Brady Bill." --
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, interviewed on CNN Crossfire.

  "The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much
stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns,
except in a few cases." -- U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the
St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

  "It's only the first step, it's not going to be enough...we've got to go
beyond that, and I hope we'll do it this session of Congress." -- U.S.
Representative Edward Feighan during an interview on ABC News Nightline.
                 

  oh goodie - YAGN.

    
    
    Thanks Jim.  Almost lost me lunch.......

    doesn't that belong in the FOOD topic?

    
    	re: Lady Di
    
    	I can't help it. It's just a reaction...:)
    
    	re: Mike
    
    	sorry....;*}
    
    
    jim

    
>    	I can't help it. It's just a reaction...:)

	remind me not to sneak up on you while you're
	armed. ;>

    
    
    	re: .47
    
    	that would be bad...:)
    
    

    
      Lugar is going noplace.  He should withdraw.
    
      bb

    at least a retreat would put him in motion.

    Dick Lugar never had the intention of winning this race in my opinion. 
    Lugar is going for a cabinet position...like Secretary of State.  I
    believe he would be a very good one!
    
    -Jack

    
    lugar had intended to meet with me for lunch.  i canceled.
    

    
    RE: .51
    
    Jack,
    
    Maybe Secretary of the Treasury would be a better fit...this is the man
    who wants to do away with the IRS, and has never changed his position 
    during his campaign regarding this issue.
    
    

    Lugar has broad experience in statemanship abroad.

    <- Jack, are you trying to hawk a lugar?

	so he's not dropping out just yet.  good for him.
	saw him on CNN this morning, after Lamar.  he had so much
	more substance.  sure would love to see him in a series of
	debates (incredibly unlikely as that is).

  problem is, he's boring.  He's kinda the Perry Como of politics.




 Jim

    He's got no chance. For all intents and purposes, he appeared not to
    even run. Substance or not, keeping it inside is unprofitable.

>  problem is, he's boring.  He's kinda the Perry Como of politics.

	yeah, i guess most people would think so.  i don't think
	he's boring in the least.  rather he helps quench the thirst
	for intelligent-sounding discourse sans campaign rhetoric. 

    He's the only one of the lot to whom I'd actually consider giving a
    vote if it came down to him and Slick.

   .60  moi aussi, mon ami.

    Well, I'd vote for Dole or Alexander over his Slickness. Even if they
    weren't any more capable than Bill, it would be a republican and we
    could actually see results from a republican congress. Or not, in which
    case they could be replaced. A split government waddles sideways. Not
    the most efficient means of locomotion, unless you aren't really
    interested in making any progress. A united government makes headway.
    And the voters then simply decide whether the direction is appropriate
    or not. The voters didn't put a republican congress in place because
    the democratically controlled government was doing a great job. /hth

Di, I didn't know you were from downunder.

    .62
    
    I thought about Alexander and decided that he's too much the subtle
    liar.  For example, his neat ads about how he balanced the Tennessee
    budget omit to tell how he did it - by four tax hikes.  And, as I said
    elsewhere, Alexander used negative campaigning until he found that it
    was hurting him, then he played Janus and became the "upright" guy.
    
    I lived in Indiana while Lugar was mayor of Indianapolis, which was one
    of the pioneers of a combined city/county government (called Unigov in
    Naptown).  He was capable and less dishonest than any other politician
    I've ever watched closely.  His record in the Senate is distinguished,
    albeit not so flamboyant as those of the high-profile guys.  My big
    problem with him is his gun-control stance; but otherwise he makes the
    most sense of all the Repubs.

Lugar also has more foreign policy savvy than any of the above, most
definitely including the incumbent.

    >I thought about Alexander and decided that he's too much the subtle
    >liar.  For example, his neat ads about how he balanced the Tennessee
    >budget omit to tell how he did it - by four tax hikes.  
    
     Yet when it was over, his state had the 5th least tax burden of any
    state. So even though I loathe taxes, this is not a negative to me.
    
     Even if he were to be so bad to be a republican equivalent of Bill
    Clinton, it would still be a (minor) improvement because at least then
    he wouldn't practice the politics of obstruction and the republican
    agenda would have a chance to be implemented and demonstrate itself to
    be worthy of continuation or in need of change.

    .66
    
    He wouldn't practice the politics of obstruction?  You mean the way the
    Republicans did all the while they were in the Congressional minority? 
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

    Tell me how NAFTA passed, Dick. By republicans practising the politics
    of obstruction?

    .68
    
    Tell me how Billary's health care didn't have a snowball's chance in
    hell of even making it to the negotiating table.  By Repubs'
    willingness to discuss the issues and compromise?

    >Tell me how Billary's health care didn't have a snowball's chance in
    >hell of even making it to the negotiating table.  
    
     Well, for one thing, it was unpopular with the majority party, that
    was its first big problem. Secondly, it had no popular support among
    "we the people." The resistance the republicans brought to bear was
    unnecessary and, frankly, irrelevant.

    Resistance is resistance.  They could just as well have said, well, it
    has some good points, let's see if we can work out the problems.  Not
    on your life.

    
    
    >Tell me how Billary's health care didn't have a snowball's chance in
    >hell of even making it to the negotiating table.
    
    What health care? Sure, trial balloons were floated to gauge
    public reaction but I do not recall seeing the results of
    Hillarys Health Care Task Force. In fact, if I remember right,
    isn't there a law suit that was filed to "release" the records
    of her meetings?
    
    							Hank

    .72
    
    A document comprising more tha 1500 pages was released, in which were
    described specifics of how health care would be implemented.  That
    isn't a plan?

    
    Sure is.
    I missed it.
    Tis why I asked.

    Yeah, sure, Dick. Blame the republicans for not bringing about the
    president's agenda when faced with the failure of his own MAJORITY
    party to do the same. Anything to play the blame game, eh, Dick?
    
     Funny how you don't fault the president for having his wife impose a
    system without making even the slightest effort to bring republicans on
    board. THAT'S ok, right? It's ok to systematically exclude the
    opposition minority party from negotiations on a piece of legislation
    that will bring 1/7th of the economy under government control- and then
    blame those very same excluded parties when the gambit fails. Looks to
    me like you judge behavior by who does it rather than what is done. If
    Bush had done that, you'd have howled in protest. But because a
    democrat does it, it is magically justifiable.
    
     The republicans opposed the gays in the military issue. TFB. It was
    enormously foolhardy of Clinton to make it is #1 priority. Even the
    military balked. After that, the republicans handed the president the
    sole meaningful contribution of this entire administration. You want to
    turn a blind eye to that so you can bash the republicans without regard
    to the facts. The failure of HillaryCare is not the fault of the
    republicans, no matter how many times you jam your fingers in your
    ears, close your eyes and yell "it is too!" at the top of your lungs.
    The failure of HillaryCare resulted from a poor strategy, poor
    execution and the distrust on the part of the american people that the
    smoky room closed door sessions were going to be in their collective 
    best interest. 
    
     The saving grace for this administration is the short memory of the
    american populace coupled with a weak GOP field. 

    .75
    
    Can you say COMPROMISE, Mark?  As in "Here's OUR plan, now let's you
    and us get together and COMPROMISE on it so we can all buy it"?  I
    thought not.  Anything to discredit the Dims.

Compromise? I don't ever remember the president wanting to compromise
on anything! (Much like the repubs). Sure, he talks of getting
all warm and cozy in the whitehouse so they can talk, but his actions
demonstrate he has/had no intention of compromise.

The only time the president reaches out to the repubs is when his numbers
are down, and then, it's only for political posturing.

If you can't see the difference between the words he speaks and
the actions he takes, that would explain your last few replies.

Doug.

    .77
    
    I didn't say I like slick.  I said the Repubs were just as guilty of
    practicing obstructionism as the dims.  It's in the nature of
    politicians.

    >Can you say COMPROMISE, Mark?  
    
     So how do you describe the republican deliverance of the single
    greatest accomplishment of the Clinton administration, Dick?
    Obstruction? Seems to me that you ignore evidence that is contrary to
    your preconceptions.
    
     Let's talk about compromise. and the effort to impose HillaryCare.
    What evidence do you have that the administration SOUGHT compromise in
    the first place? Was it the way that they systematically excluded
    republican legislators from the process? Was it the way they came up
    with the plan behind closed doors (in violation of federal law)? Hmmm?
    Or are you going to blame the minority party for not coming in on
    bended knee and asking how they could contribute? This is not rocket
    science, Dick, nor is this such ancient history that it's anybody's
    guess what really happened. The newspaper articles have barely
    yellowed. The facts are at your disposal. Whether you choose to avail
    yourself of them or not is your choice, but don't expect me to let you
    continue to spew unsubstantiated allegation after unsubstantiated
    allegation without taking you to task.
    
     The republicans, lest you think me to be as partisan as yourself,
    indeed did oppose certain initiatives. I'm not blind to the things they
    did do, but don't expect me to quietly listen to you blame the party
    for things they didn't do. Try being objective; try forgetting about
    who did what and focus on what was done. You deliver no criticism
    whatsoever to the Clinton administration for its own failures,
    preferring instead to finger point and accuse the minority party.
    That flies in the face of the facts. The fact is that the president
    couldn't mobilize his own party even on things the minority party
    supported. I'm surprised you haven't found a way to blame the failure
    of the democrats to support NAFTA on the republicans- you've blamed
    them for everything else.

    >I said the Repubs were just as guilty of practicing obstructionism as 
    >the dims.  
    
     You didn't acknowledge the dims as practicing obstructionism; you just
    accused the republicans of doing so.

    Mr. Blinder:
    
    Hillary didn't invite the "evyl republicans" to the strategy sessions
    on HealthCAre Reform, the time for biPartisan compromise.  She locked
    out the republicans, and then like you, blame the "minority" party for
    not passing it when they couldn't even get THEIR party to support their
    plan In such numbers to make the opposition factIon unimportant and
    inconsequential.

  .81  i think that's what the doctah just said.

    
      Unfortunately, various Republicans and Democrats DID offer to
     compromise, including Bob Dole and Dick Gephart, but the White
     House flat refused.  I think it was a mistake to try to compromise
     with this dreadful plan, myself.  Better that it was defeated
     outright.  There were things in this that made my hair stand on
     end.  Remember, 20 separate sets of criminal penalties for various
     patient and doctor activities.  In a Health Care bill !!  Who ever
     heard of such a thing.  Good thing this insane plan is dead forever.
    
      bb

re 601.558 -

> Can't you all come up with a decent moderate by the convention?

Glad to see a few folks in here still remember Lugar.  I'm not sure
he'll be able to be anything more than a gadfly at this point- if
he manages to start commanding any audience maybe his ideas will get
a hearing, and a brokered convention couldn't do any worse than the
current frontrunners.  Dick, what is his position on gun control?

DougO

    > -< Remember Dole : "Let's make a deal." ? >-
    
    Actually, I remember Dole, "Health care crisis?  What health care
    crisis?"  He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting 
    it was even an issue.  Then, he claimed to want a deal.  Clinton should
    have offered one, then Dole would have been in a tight spot.  Risk
    letting Clinton actually deliver on any of his major promises?  Risk
    breeching GOP solidarity (pull the Clinton presidency down at any
    cost) no, he couldn't have risked that.
    
    Spilt milk.  A pox on both their houses.  And the lords of chaos
    delivered to me a Pat Buchanan in return!
    
    I'm thinking of moving to Tibet.
    
    DougO

    > I'm thinking of moving to Tibet.
    
    A vote for Llama!

    
      When you arrive in Xizang Province (what China calls Tibet), go to
     Gangdise Shan and see the sacred 6714m mountain, Kailas.  Throngs
     of old men and women, Buddhist and Hindu alike, attain "great merit"
     by making the sacred circuit, or Parikarma, around Kailas.  The
     actual trail, which starts and finishes in Tarchen, goes over one
     high pass and covers a distance of about 40km.  Pilgrims normally
     accomplish the trek in 3 days.  The most fanatical among them carry
     out the circuit by prostrating themselves, stretching out their
     arms and making a mark, then rise, walk to the mark, and prostrate
     themselves again.  Those who make the Parikarma this way take about
     three weeks.
    
      Go in the warm season, June through September.  Expect to find many
     gompas (moasteries) along the way, where you can purchase food and
     crude lodging, but take a tent, just in case.
    
      hth, bb
    

    So I've reconsidered.  A nice tropical island would be more convenient,
    and even though I'd still get the news of the upcoming debacle at least
    I'd have the opportunity to ignore it.
    
    Jamaica calls to me.
    
    DougO

    Yah mon.

    Jah mon.

>    Jah mon.

oh dear, shades of Dread Zeppelin?

Chris.

(Why am I posting to a US politics note?  I'm not even that interested in UK 
politics...)

    I know why!!

>    I know why!!

yes, but that depends on what the question is.

Chris.

    Dick,
    
    Luger supports ALL current gun laws.  Quote from GOP Presidential
    Candidate Debate, Columbia, S.C. on 1/6/96 indicates he doesn't have a
    clue..."I supported the assault weapons ban, because I believe there is
    no right to spray lead in a cafeteria or playground."
    
    Bob

	You're telling me, Bob! To spray lead, one would have to have a pretty
hot gun! And everyone knows that a gun law won't stop hot guns!

    re: .95
    
    Ban Oven Mitts!
    
    Bob

    stick a fork in him, too...

    stick a fork in them all but Dole...
    
    btw, I was disappointed that Keyes didn't show better last nite, even
    in MD.

    
      Officially withdrew yesterday, supports Dole.
    
      bb

    With a name like that, he should be president of the NRA.

    !Ha !ha !ha !ha !ha.

    And here I thought you would be happy that I didn't snarf.
    
    8^)

    
    Lugar says he is related, distantly, to the Luger family, what makes
    ze pistolas.