Conference back40::soapbox

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 14.6937                       News Briefs                      6937 of 6938
GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"                  5 lines  20-MAR-1996 09:00
                              -< he's baaaack... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
      News reports this AM say that Rawss Perot WILL run for President
     as the candidate of the Reform Party.
    
      bb

    WTFC?

    
      Poor Dole.  He's only got $1.5 mil left, and the billionaires
     are playing tag team on him !
    
      He may never lay a glove on Slick Willie.  Nobody in US history
     has ever been elected TWICE by plurality-less-than-majority.
     Clinton could make the record books.
    
      bb

Mebbe somebody will put Rawss out of his misery before he can do any more harm.

a good gust of wind with those ears ought to do it

>      News reports this AM say that Rawss Perot WILL run for President
>     as the candidate of the Reform Party.

Ross as the Flying Nun?

>                                -< Go Ross Go! >-

And just where the hell do you expect him to go, besides to Slick's 2nd
inaugural?

    Is this the infamous Doug Campbell from the MDP of years past?  If so,
    great to hear from you again.  If not then to heck with you.
    
    Doug, your going to vote for little Ceaser huh...to make a statement
    huh...what possible good would that do?  Secondly, did you vote for
    Buchanan in the primary?  Do you agree with Buchanan's economic views?
    If not, then don't vote for Perot because they are likeminded in such
    matters.
    
    -Jack

Caesar.

    Seize her!

    Once again, we have three non-choices.  Dole, Clinton, and Perot.
    
    It really doesn't matter which one you choose...nothing will get done. 
    Perot has no chance, Clinton will only expand government, and Dole is
    unlikely to make the hard decisions necessary to balance the budget.
    
    Of the three, it a toss up between Perot and Dole, as to who will do
    the least amount of damage.  Since Perot can't win, I'll vote for Dole. 
    I went the third party route last election...I'm not making that
    mistake again.
    
    
    -steve

    With a republican controlled congress, Dole would not have to be the
    one to make "tough" decisions. He'd just have to sign on the dotted
    line. If the congress were to revert to its historic democratic
    control, then we'd indeed be back to gridlock.

    Would Dole sign off on the tough decisions?  I don't know.  He is the
    best hope for getting *anything* done, however, so he will get my vote.
    
    Of course, this is dependant upon whether or not the GOP retains
    control of Congress.  I have a strange feeling that it will not...maybe
    this is just an attack of conspiracyitis.  8^)

    RE: .3  bb

    > Poor Dole.  He's only got $1.5 mil left, and the billionaires
    > are playing tag team on him !

    Dole has almost reached his spending limit (because he receives
    Federal funds), but isn't he allowed a new limit for the general
    election campaign after the convention?

    Won't Dole be allowed to raise a lot more money and spend it in the
    fall?  (He'd be somewhat low in funds for the months leading up to the 
    convention anyway, if so.)

The issue of Dole's funding is really not that big a deal.

The RNC can still spend lots of money doing the negative thing with ol'
Slick and pitch for repbulicans in general, just not for Dole.

Also, is everyone sure that Newt's majority will hold up again? It seems
to be assumed that the Republicans will still control both houses but a
3rd Party candidate and/or Pat B. could screw that all up, too.

TTom

    Not only are there Slick, Dole and Perot, but Lowell Weicker (sp?) 
    ex guv of CT was on the toob last nite threatening to run under his own
    party, and add in a possible buchanan party, that could be five, 
    not including libertarians, communists, greens, natural law, etc.
    
    Perhaps Prophet Atlantis, Jello Biafra and Nun of the Above will also 
    jump into the fray.
    
    Supposedly Ralph Nader is running as a "Green" in Caliphornia.

    
    RE .14 - Steve
    
    >and Dole is unlikely to make the hard decisions necessary to balance 
    >the budget.
    
    Why do you think this? Dole has, for instance, lead the fight to
    freeze SS COLAs (for one year) in the mid 80's. This hard decision cost the
    Republicans the Senate in 86(?).
    
    Although I'm no great fan of Dole, I do believe he will make the
    difficult decisions. 
    
    					Ed
    
    

    The 'Republican Revolution' is considered to be a flop, pretty much.
    They almost never mention the Contract With America anymore, you'll
    notice.

    Republicans are trying to regroup so that they can hold the majority
    in both houses anyway (even though they urged 1994 voters to dump them
    if they didn't follow through on the Contract.)

    Democrats are regrouping, too.  They know they can win both houses
    back - it's just a question of how long it will take.  The lack of
    a Democrat trying to run against Clinton in the primaries is a big
    PLUS for the Democrats this year.

    
    Make that the "Conservative Revolution", which has been quite
    successful!!!!! 
    
    	Just listen to Bill Clinton these days. Why if he were not
    a lying scoundrel, any conservative would be a potential supporter!
                   

    
      Well, the Democrats certainly consider the Republican program
     a flop, and perhaps they are right.
    
      The Republican Congress passed a balanced budget.  Clinton vetoed it.
    
      They passed a middle-class tax cut.  Clinton vetoed it.
    
      They passed welfare reform.  Clinton vetoed it.
    
      I could go on, but you get the drift.
    
      bb

      
    In 1994, the Republicans said to dump them in 1996 if they didn't
    go through with the Contract With America.

    They didn't say, "Dump us in 1996 if we don't have a good enough
    excuse..."

    Now they don't even mention the Contract anymore.  I wonder if any
    of their opponents around the country will show videotapes of this
    'dump us if we don't deliver' pledge in their campaigns this year.

The Contract with/on/for America was a House thing and they did what they
said they would do which was introduce 10 piecesd of legislation.

That's exactly what they did. No more. No less.

The fack that some weren't passed by the House and most weren't passed by
the Senate and none got past Clinton doesn't matter.

TTom

    'Read the fine print' sounds like a scam, though.
    
    No wonder they don't talk about the Contract anymore.

Pure revisionist BS.

They said they would bring all the items up for a vote.

They did. They sent many on to the White House. They were vetoed.

Dole has his campain fodder in place already.

He doesn't have to mention the contract specifically.

He'll say that he submitted a balanced budget, Clinton vetoed it.

He'll say that he submitted wlefare reform, Clinton vetoed it.

Etc....

daryll

    
    They won't mention the Contract very much in this race because it
    doesn't help to offer excuses instead of results.

    So they're stuck with Bob ("Bob Dole is the only personal pronoun
    Bob Dole likes to use") Dole and whatever he can manage to say for
    himself about whatever views he may manage to hold by November.

    Considering how poorly he speaks, he can't say much (no matter what
    he manages to think by then.)

    
    the contract became unpopular because of gingrich's high
    profile, because of the government shutdowns, and because
    republicans touched the third rail and dared to say that
    entitlement spending was the primary culprit of deficit 
    spending.  popularity has to be part and parcel of the
    political equation when trying to get something done,
    but it is not, alone, a measure of leadership.
    

    Much of the Contract is sitting in the lap of the senate, with the
    majority leader holding the bag. Look for him to reach into the bag and
    get things passed and sent to Clinton's desk this summer, where they'll
    either be vetoed (giving Dole a point of contrast, particularly on
    popular items) or signed (giving republicans a check mark on the list.)
    There's a lot of politicking left to be done before November, despite
    Ms Conlon's attempts to declare the race over.

    
      Gee, I wonder if Clinton will promise health care reform in 96.
    
      bb

    
    The Republicans misread the American people.

    Newt's single-digit approval ratings (at one point) were a good
    indication that he did not enjoy popular support in this country,
    but they plunged ahead with Newt (and Bob Dull) leading anyway.

    Many Americans were somewhat chilled at what they were trying to do,
    so Clinton looked like a hero for stopping them.  (Clinton's ratings
    have gone up since he vetoed the Republican budget.)

    So when Bob Dole complains to the voters that Clinton vetoed the
    Contract, a lot of voters will think, "Thank goodness."

    
    Whatever Clinton does sign this summer will look like a victory for
    both sides ("Hey, we agree on something!  We can work together!")
    

    
    The race is far from over, of course.
    
    I do agree with the Doctah about that.
    

    
      The race hasn't started, and won't for four-five months.
    
      And third party people will have a big effect.
    
      bb

    
    This summer, look for Bill Clinton to urge slight changes in Contract
    bills so that he can sign them.  ("Let's work together.")

    This will spell out the problems with the bills (so that the American
    people can see why he may decide to veto the bills), and it will put
    the Republicans in the position of looking uncompromising if they
    refrain from taking the cited 'problems' out of the bills.
    

    
    Clinton should be careful as governing via veto is risky indeed.
    Just ask former President Ford.
    
    As for Clintons approval ratings...I thought they were rising 
    because he's been essentially invisible while the repubs were
    engaged in the primary battles which dominated the news.
    
    Ross will be good for laughs.
    
    Dole should be careful to not let Buchanans supporters desert
    the party and run to Perot. He'll need that voting block and
    more to defeat Bill Clinton.
    
    And on a more humorous note... you know you're presidency is not
    doing that well when Unsolved Mysteries features one if your 
    psuedo-scandals while Al DAmato is investigating another.
    These are truly strange times in the political arena.
    
    						Hank

    i'm voting for ross!  i think he's cute!!

>    Dole should be careful to not let Buchanans supporters desert
>    the party and run to Perot. He'll need that voting block and
>    more to defeat Bill Clinton.

Ol' Ross is helping out with this one. He's badmouthing Buchanan, along
with Dull and Slick.

TTom

    Clinton's approval ratings rose BEFORE the primary season began,
    actually.

    Studies have shown that the Presidential candidate with the more
    optimistic message almost always wins.

    Dole has his "Boo hoo, nasty President Clinton has vetoed our best
    stuff" and "He'll destroy the country yet" and "Who knows what awful
    things they did in Whitewater" messages, but no clear vision about
    what he thinks or wants for this country.  He'll harp on the dreary
    stuff anyway, because it's all he has.

    Clinton will keep his head up in this election.  He'll rise above
    the accusations and keep a very positive message about the future.

    Like it or not, campaigning is a very strong suit for Bill Clinton.
    It has never been a strong suit for Bob Dole.

re: .37

You forgot to say amen. You always say amen at the end of a 
prayer.

daryll

    Also, voters were angered by all the negative political ads among
    Republicans during this primary season.

    The White House response was that they realized that the Republicans
    would be very negative towards the President (since they were willing
    to be exceptionally negative towards each other), so they were prepared
    for it.  They will concentrate on positive messages about the future.

    Dumping a crapload of Whitewater stuff at Clinton will probably not
    help Dole's campaign much.  ("They're doing it again.  All this negative
    campaigning is still awful, don't you think so?")

    
    Suzanne has been reading too many op-ed and editorial pieces lately..

    Ross Perot, America's answer to the UK's Screaming Lord Sutch, 
    only better.
    
    Maybe this election won't be so dull afterall.

       Dole has plenty of ammo to paint Clinton an obstructionist to 
reform.

He will take credit for delivering the bills to his desk.

"You wanted change, look who is standing in the way."

I've even heard Democratic analysts begrudgingly agree that this strategy 
could work.

daryll

>"You wanted change, look who is standing in the way."

A voter could easily come to the conclusion that Dull has been standing
in the way a lot longer than Slick.

TTom

That's true Tom.

I expect Dole to turn his negatives into positives in this 
campaign.

He'll give Clinton credit for being a great speaker, a great 
poltician. He'll make a point of noting that maybe he isn't the 
best speaker or the best campaigner, but that doesn't translate 
into action.

Could work. Time will tell.

daryll

    
    suzanne,
    
    why don't you just tell the folks in d.c. to cancel the election?
    let's see what possibly could happen between now and november:
    
    china-taiwan crisis
    mid-east crisis
    whitewater
    bosnia
    russian elections (in june, commies are making a comeback)
    economy
    
    

    RE: .44  Andy

    > Suzanne has been reading too many op-ed and editorial pieces lately..

    Ironically, I live in an ultra-conservative city with one newspaper,
    so the only op-ed and editorials available to me locally are from
    local and national conservatives. 

    Yes, I do read conservative op-ed and editorial pieces.

I think there's some kinda point being missed here.

To rag on Slick cause of these things and more does nothing to prove that
Dull will be better or otherwise significantly different.

I do agree that a lot can and prolly will between now and then to change
a lot of what the polls are saying.

BTW, is Dull a member of TLC or CFR?

TTom

    RE: .49  Daryll

    > I expect Dole to turn his negatives into positives in this campaign.

    It would help if he knew how to speak.

    > He'll give Clinton credit for being a great speaker, a great 
    > poltician. 

    "Yes, Bob Dole is a dreary, dull old guy and President Clinton is an
    energetic young guy who generates excitement when he speaks, but..."

    I'm sure Clinton will thank him for this.  :)

    > He'll make a point of noting that maybe he isn't the best speaker or 
    > the best campaigner, but that doesn't translate into action.

    Then Bob Dole comes up dry when he tries to talk about his own ideas
    (because he hasn't found any, yet.)

    As demonstrated in the primary debates, Bob Dole cannot debate (and
    he doesn't do well at owning up to his own negatives by making some
    major positive point in the process.)

    He can't speak.  This will hurt him badly in the election.

                      <<< Note 686.53 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
  >  "Yes, Bob Dole is a dreary, dull old guy and President Clinton is an
  >  energetic young guy who generates excitement when he speaks, but...
  
     is all talk and his record proves it.

     That'll play. It'll play well. 

     daryll

>					 and President Clinton is an
>    energetic young guy who generates excitement when he speaks

Exactly who the hell is it that he's "exciting". I must not have been
paying attention.

    Suzanne:
    
    Not sure what it's like in your neck of the woods, but up here in New
    Hampshire Bill Clinton is perceived as a political whore.
    
    Hope this sheds alittle light on your utopia.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .55  Daryll

    >> "Yes, Bob Dole is a dreary, dull old guy and President Clinton is an
    >> energetic young guy who generates excitement when he speaks, but...
  
    > is all talk and his record proves it.

    > That'll play. It'll play well. 

    It never plays well for a candidate to describe himself as being dull
    compared to another candidate.

    As for Clinton's record, I got a copy of his accomplishments from the
    local Democratic party a couple of weeks ago.  It is very impressive.

    Obviously, little he's done has impressed Republican voters, but you
    probably realize that a Republican Presidential candidate can't win
    without gaining some Democratic voters (the so-called 'Reagan Democrats'.)

    If most Democratic voters find Bill's record impressive, Dull Bob Dole
    won't be able to win them over with his dreary delivery.

    
    Suzanne,
    
    	Can you enter the list of accomplishments you received, either
    here or topic 18?

    >Like it or not, campaigning is a very strong suit for Bill Clinton.
    
     Well, he's certainly better at becoming president than he is at being
    president, that's for sure.

    Hank, if I can find the time to enter the list of accomplishments,
    I will.
    
    It's so long, though, that I'll probably have to wait until this
    weekend.

    Suzanne:
    
    I think this bears repeating.  The bottom lime with many of the enemies
    of Bill has little to do with his acomplishments.  It has to do with
    the character and integrity of the office of the presidency.  
    
    Let's put it this way.  Would people feel any better in Jane Fonda were
    president?  No, because she is still considered by many as a treasonous
    harlot.  There are simply some stains that cannot be erased.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, I read an interesting article in Newsweek a few days ago (about
    the difference between growing up in the 1930s and growing up in the
    1950s/1960s, and what it means for this presidential election.)

    It explained a lot about why Clinton hasn't been hurt all that badly
    by the accusations against his character.

I've seen some with character but since when does a_office have
integrity?

Oh you mean the occupant, like Nixon, I guess...

As for what makes people feel better, put this one down as another right
wing mantra that is continously underestimated. 

Believe it or not, people do things cause it makes 'em feel better. Just
the facks!~

    re: .21
    
    Dole is a bit too moderate to do what needs to be done, fiscally.  As
    President, he may moderate even more, IMO.
    
    I was unaware that he led the charge to freeze SS colas,
    previously...guess I wasn't really keeping up with politics at that
    time.  There may be some hope for him... 8^)
    
    His previous crowings on a national health care system, a few years
    back, were a bit too liberal for my tastes (as in, he suggested that we
    need one...and we all know how the government would bounce this
    ball- same way the bounce the SS ball, Medicare ball, etc... and these
    balls are losing air fast).
    
    
    -steve                   

    re: .41
    
    Just what IS Clinton's message for the future...this week?

    Jane Fonda is a HELL of alot better looking than any of the others. 
    Ya, I'd feel better voting for her. She's a babe.  Besides, the president
    is basically a puppet anyway. His speeches are written for him not by
    him. What he can, can not, or wants to do are not really in his control
    anyway.  Besides, Dole will die and wither away just like his bad arm.
    He's too old for this.  Makes Reagan look like a marathoner. Yeh, nice
    field.  Looks like we are reduced to AGAIN to simply voting for the lesser
    of the evils & for who will do the least damage, rather than most good.
    I'm sick of politics.  I vote JANE!
    
    /ZWOLF

    TTom:
    
    Yeah, and Nixon left in disgrace...so???  I have no problem with that. 
    What I do have a problem with is ignorant backriver statements like,
    "It's the Economy Stupid" made by that nincompoop Carville in 1992. 
    Obviously by the results of 1994, it was alot more than the economy.
    
    -Jack

>    "It's the Economy Stupid" made by that nincompoop Carville in 1992. 

You mean the guy that successfully led Slick's election campaign. Yeah,
he must be a real idjit. Now who was it that was in charge of Bush's?

>    Obviously by the results of 1994, it was alot more than the economy.

Yeah, but the question is what willl it be in 96. Dull has already gone
on record as saying that he's surprised that people are interested in the
economy, job security and that sorta thing.

TTom

    Clinton's campaign this year has to focus on keeping Democratic voters
    in the fold (and making sure most Democrats vote in November 1996.)

    Republicans have a bad habit of insulting Democratic voters.  Clinton
    won't insult Republican voters in this election.  He can afford to just 
    leave them alone.

    Everyone has to court the Democratic voters this year, and they won't
    win registered Democrats with insults.

re .54:

Maybe Dole could pick Keyes as VP.  Although Dole may lose debating to Clinton
due to his speaking ability Keyes would eat Algore for lunch in a debate.

    Keyes has already beaten Dole in a debate.  Somehow, I doubt that
    Dole will pick a VP that would be a significantly better speaker
    than Dole.

    I think Dole will pick a relatively unknown Republican governor
    (so that it looks as if he's running with an 'outsider', and so
    that this other person will not as easily outshine Dole.)
    
    Finding a VP who is less interesting than Dole is going to be tough.

re: SPECXN::CONLON 
    
>    The 'Republican Revolution' is considered to be a flop, pretty much.
>    They almost never mention the Contract With America anymore, you'll
>    notice.

    Thanks for the laugh! Most people understand what was promised,
    what was done, and by whom. Stalled by Clinton is not the same as
    a flop by the republicans (unless your a dim).
    
    A few weeks back Newt was talking about a new 'Contract with America'
    for the next congress.
    
    Doug.
    
    

    RE: .73  Doug

    > Stalled by Clinton is not the same as a flop by the republicans

    The 1994 momentum is gone.  That's why the so-called Revolution is
    regarded as a flop.

    > A few weeks back Newt was talking about a new 'Contract with America'
    > for the next congress.

    If he's courting Republicans with this, he won't get far.  They can't
    win (over time) without courting the registered Democrats that they're 
    always so anxious to insult.

    Newt has gone as low as having *single-digit* approval ratings since 
    the 1994 election.

    Is he really going to be the one to engineer the direction of the
    Republican party in 1996?

    He'll probably make this new direction scarier and less palatable
    than the last new direction.

re .75:

>    Newt has gone as low as having *single-digit* approval ratings since 
>    the 1994 election.

George Bush had *single-digit* disapproval ratings.  There is no way
he could possibly lose the election to some noname hick govenor of some
backwater state.

(SOAPBOX, 1992)

    George Bush had 90%+ approval ratings because of the Gulf War.
    People united with him against Iraq.  This feeling didn't last.
    
    Bill Clinton has a more stable approval rating which reflects most
    of the registered Democrats in this country and some other voters.
    
    What can Newt do (that he hasn't already done) to get a significant
    rise in approval ratings?  He's already done one Contract With America
    and his ratings have been as low as the single-digits since then.
    
    Some Republicans here have agreed that Newt *hurt* the popularity of
    the first Contract With America.

    So the Republicans are going to let him try doing the same thing again
    with a new Contract?  Doesn't sound like much of an idea.

>    The 1994 momentum is gone.  That's why the so-called Revolution is
>    regarded as a flop.

Try talking to someone outside your closely-knit-circle-of-friends and
see how this shapes up, willya? There are plenty of people in this country
who have a different view. I suppose if they knew where you got those
leftist spectacles they might feel differently.

    
    .54 suzanne- can't agree with you more...
        I heard Dole's reply to that infamous question about pregnancy from
        a rape, and boy, this man couldn't string a sentence, let alone
        convey a coherence thought! It was amazing.
    
        I find it incredulous that just because he had spent time as a
    	politician and had failed in past presidency quests, that NOW is
        his rightful time to live in the WH, and that alone justifies 
        everything. I guess that's what bothers me the most about Dole -
        that he thinks we? owes him the presidency. 
     
    .62 jack -
        about jane fonda... a traitorous harlot, eh??
        well, time has told and what has time told you... she was QUITE
        right, you know. That &^*% war was a mistake and she had the
        honesty to say so. All things being equal (like all politicians
    	are slime), Jane would make a refreshing President indeed!
    
                                                   

    RE: .78  Jack

    > Try talking to someone outside your closely-knit-circle-of-friends and
    > see how this shapes up, willya? There are plenty of people in this 
    > country who have a different view. 

    Clinton's approval ratings are pretty much as good as they've ever been.
    The Republican Congress' ratings are pretty low.

    Meanwhile, a pack of Republican outsiders has grabbed the attention
    of a great many Republican voters (despite what Dole says about how
    the voters are uniting behind "Bob Dole".)

    > I suppose if they knew where you got those leftist spectacles they 
    > might feel differently.
                           
    If you think that the only people who support Clinton are on the left,
    you're going to miss the most interesting part of this whole election. :)

    The voters in the middle are the prize in this election (especially the
    Democrats who could vote a number of ways.)  Newt won't win them for the 
    Republicans this year with another stab at the Contract.
    
    Some Republicans will try to win these crucial voters by insulting
    them, but it won't work.

         This election will likely become a complete shambles. Both sides
    are going to resort to the tactic of digging up dirt on each other. The
    only certainty in the election is that it will be a complete disgrace.
    It is a sorry day in America when politics have sunk this low. 
        
         -Could someone please tell me how to get this ridiculous p-name(?)
    off my note name? I have regained control of my account, finally. 

    
    At the Notes> prompt, type:  set prof/pers=""
    

    President Clinton's campaign will not be about dirt on Bob Dole.
    Dole is an old man who is still wounded from a World War.  

    Clinton won't throw dirt at Dole, specifically.  He'll make Dole
    look stupid in any debate they have together, but anyone could
    do that to Dole.

    Clinton will keep the campaign on a positive level, I think, while
    not allowing himself to appear damaged by whatever Dole does.
    ("Hey, things got dirty in their own primaries, so of course they're
    going to throw dirt at us.  We still have our positive message.")

> That &^*% war was a mistake and she had the honesty to say so.

Well, it's obvious that you weren't a POW. Or an MIA. Or even a combatant,
or friend or relative of same. So I suppose your opinion isn't of much value
in the matter.

The war sure as hell was a mistake. But what Jane did was inexcusable.
If you care to defend her actions, we'll take it at face value.

Yes, there is a BIG difference between saying "the war is wrong" and being
photographed with NVA antiaircraft guns.

>    The voters in the middle are the prize in this election

"The voters in the middle", as always, are the sheep. "The voters in the
middle", as always, are those without sufficient gumption to take a stand
for an overall principle that makes a difference.

"The voters in the middle" get just what they deserve. It's a crying shame
that the rest of us have to put up with it. But that's democracy in action,
so what the flock, right?

    I have a problem with this term "voters in the middle" Are they cowards
    that simply refuse to stand for what they believe? 

    RE: .86  Jack

    >> The voters in the middle are the prize in this election (especially
    >> the Democrats who could vote a number of ways.)

    >> Some Republicans will try to win these crucial voters by insulting
    >> them, but it won't work.

    Perhaps Newt will borrow these sentiments for his next Contract:

      > "The voters in the middle", as always, are the sheep. "The voters 
      > in the middle", as always, are those without sufficient gumption 
      > to take a stand for an overall principle that makes a difference.

      > "The voters in the middle" get just what they deserve. It's a crying 
      > shame that the rest of us have to put up with it. But that's democracy 
      > in action, so what the flock, right?

    If this attitude is apparent this year from the GOP, these moderate
    (mostly Democratic) voters don't have much of a reason to vote Republican, 
    do they.

    RE: .88  

    > I have a problem with this term "voters in the middle" Are they cowards
    > that simply refuse to stand for what they believe? 

    No, they're voters who vote on the actual issues of the election.

    They do not necessarily vote for a specific party (for the sake
    of voting for a specific party or a specific candidate who presents
    himself as a symbol of a particular ideology.)

    In 1980, many of these voters were called the 'Reagan Democrats'.

    They can be convinced to vote for a certain candidate because of
    how the candidate approaches them (and how the candidate courts
    their votes.)

    Insulting such voters is kinda political suicide in a national election.

    According to the news tonight, Ross hasn't actually committed to
    run in this election.

    He's only committed to run if drafted by his new party.  (Is this
    considered being as good as an actual commitment?  They haven't
    found any other suitable candidate, have they?)

    He'll screw it up for the Republicans for sure! That means we'll have
    four more years of unbalanced budgets, no welfare reform, and complete
    gridlock. Nothing will get done.

    Well, I'll believe he's running when he actually says he's running
    (and not that he might run under certain conditions, etc.)

    It's interesting that he is hinting about running now that Dole has
    clinched the GOP nomination.  Funny timing. :)

    Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan said today that his voters feel deeply
    alienated from the Republican party and that they can be
    persuaded to vote for Ross Perot, if he runs.

    Pat Buchanan still isn't ruling out running as an independent
    candidate himself, per CNN this evening.

 Well, I am one who will NOT vote for Perot...

Buchanan has become an afterthought. He's meaningless. You can 
believe that those that voted for Buchahan in the primaries will 
follow him into a 3rd party, but for the most part, it won't 
happen.

I know more than a few Buchanan voters and they will be voting 
for Dole in Nov. because the ultimate goal is to get Slick OUT.

Why pray tell will be Slick's positive message in Nov?

"Middle class tax cut, this time we mean it."

Spare us the insult to our intelligence.

daryll

    
    re: .51
    
    Suzanne,
    
     My comment was more of an oblique reference to your writing style.
    Like many editorial writers, it's long on rhetoric and short on facts
    and/or substance...

    
    	Ohe thing is for sure. If Perot's "Party" runs someone for
    president, that someone MUST be Ross Perot. There is no other way for
    Ross Perot to back the party with his own money!
    
    

re .97:

Didn't Perot's party get enough votes in the last election to be eligible for
Federal election funds?

      Didn't 'Hanoi Jane' actually hang out in North Vietnamese territory
      for awhile and exhort the Vietcong?  I would sure like to know how
      anyone can say she was in the right.
    
      Its one thing to be outspoken about the war being wrong, its quite
      another to actually be an encouragement to Vietcong!
    
      I have heard stories of being a POW there.  Terrible things.
    
      I also wonder if the Vietcong were partners with the Cambodian
      communists and then, in a sense, proponents of the Khmer Rouge.
      We're talking some serious immorality here.
    
      Man, to hold Jane Fonda up as 'right' in light of history is
      really...I don't know the word...psychotic perhaps???
    

    
    	But she has such a nice body.
    

    -1 yup, made in the USofA

    But very little of what you see today is original factory equipment

    You people are strange you start with the subject of "ross for boss"
    and write more about everything and everybody else but him throughout
    the file
    
    

>                     <<< Note 686.103 by HOTLNE::LAPORTE >>>
>                 -< what happen to "Ross for Boss:Ross Perot" >-
>
>    You people are strange you start with the subject of "ross for boss"
>    and write more about everything and everybody else but him throughout
>    the file
    
    
    	First time in the notesfile, eh ::Laporte? 
    
    

    That's because we all know Ross is a crackpot...bu thought we'd create
    a suppository just for him!

    Someone on CNN predicts "the general" will announce his candidacy
    sometime in the next couple of weeks. 
    -ss

Perot says he'll run for president if nominated

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Ross Perot said Wednesday he will make a second run for
president this year if nominated by members of the Reform Party, the
organization he created in the wake of his 1992 bid.

His comments came just a day after former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm [-]
once a prominent Democrat -- announced his candidacy for the Reform Party
nomination.

``If the people want me to (run), certainly,'' he told Larry King on his
CNN television show. ``This is all I have done for the last five years, and
the only reason I do it is because I love this country.''

Perot ran as an independent candidate in 1992, spending about $60 million
of his own money and finishing with 19 percent of the popular vote. He said
he has dedicated his life in recent years to political reform.

The announcement [- on the same show where Perot launched his surprise bid
four years ago -- sets up a competition for the Reform nomination, to be
decided by party members at their two-part convention next month.

A lifelong Democrat, Lamm has not held political office since 1986, when he
left the statehouse after three terms. In declaring his candidacy, he said
he would run no matter what Perot does.

Lamm said Wednesday that he would almost welcome Perot's entry into the
race, saying it could boost interest and excitement in the nominating race.

``If I could get the nomination in this party he's created, if he wants to
contest it, obviously that's the best scenario because you start off with a
certain David and Goliath quality,'' he said from San Jose, Calif., where
he was campaigning.

Knowing that activists across the country were gathering signatures to put
his name in nomination, Perot said he was the best person for the job.

``If anybody should do this, I should do it. I'm in a unique position to do
it,'' he said. ``A lot of people who would want to do it and might even be
better doing it aren't in a position to do it, wouldn't have the freedom to
do it. I have that freedom.''

Perot's comments didn't draw much reaction from President Clinton, who was
happily golfing in Charlotte, N.C., said White House spokesman Michael
McCurry.

``He was much more interested in his golf game,'' McCurry said. He added
that inquiries to Clinton campaign pollsters and other political types
found that ``no one was paying any attention.''

As Perot built the Reform Party, he has repeatedly said that the party and
its principles are bigger than he is.

``This is not about me,'' he said when asked previously if he would run.

Asked what he thought about Lamm, Perot said, ``He's a fine man. We're
delighted he's on the ballot.''

He added that he wants to be supportive of Lamm ``in every possible way''
and make sure he gets maximum public exposure.

But he said, as he did in 1992, he will respond if his supporters want him
on the ballot, although he did not say whether he would campaign for the
nomination.

``If they feel I am the person they want to do this job then certainly I
will give them everything I have to get it done,'' he said.

Perot said his party will be more effective this year, making endorsements
in every House and Senate race.

``In '94, we weren't organized. This time around, we will be organized,''
he said.

Perot has frequently used ``Larry King Live'' to announce his intentions.
In 1992, he told King he would run for president if people in all 50 states
got his name on the ballot. Last year, on the show he declared his plans to
build a third party.

Perot said he wants to run again to be sure his generation is not the first
to leave the next generation a weaker nation.

``I have a deep affection and love for the American people,'' he said.

As for issues, Perot said:

--Cigarettes should be taxed with proceeds funding health care for smokers.

--Abortion should be legal. Otherwise, rich women will go to other
countries to have abortions anyway and poor women will end up aborting
themselves with ``coat hangers and all these terrible things.''

--Social Security should be restructured or it will run out of money as
more and more retirees begin collecting benefits.

Should Lamm win the Reform Party nomination, it is unclear whether he would
be entitled to $32 million in federal funds that Perot is eligible for
based on his 1992 showing. The Federal Election Commission has not made a
decision, but commissioners have indicated it is unlikely that another
nominee would qualify.

Perot said that money should go to whomever the Reform Party nominates.

``I am moving the earth with lawyers now to make sure that that can be
transferred to whoever the candidate is,'' he said.

If Perot is not on the ticket, he could not use his personal fortune to
finance the Reform Party's candidate. He would be subject to campaign
spending limits and could only give $1,000 to the party nominee.

This week, the Reform Party is mailing a write-in survey to its members to
determine who will be listed on a nomination ballot at the party's Aug. 11
convention.

People may write-in whomever they wish, but the only names mentioned on the
ballot are Perot and Lamm.

The survey is expected to reach close to 1 million of the 1.3 million
people who have signed petitions to get the Reform Party on state ballots
this November.

So far, organizers have succeeded in getting the Reform Party or a
designated candidate certified for 21 state ballots.

    
|Perot says he'll run for president if nominated
    
    What's with the "if nominated"?
    
    
    								-mr. bill

Ross buys himself a political party, and talks as if he might not get
nominated by it.

I hope he's just blowing smoke, 'cause if he doesn't know how to get
nominated by his own party...

    Ross just doesn't get it, does he?  He's getting all dressed up
    for the senior prom, and he's going to pull up to the dance hall
    in his limo, only to find that his prom was last year and the
    current senior class doesn't want him there.
    
    It'd almost (but not quite) be sad if it weren't so tedious.  Why
    does anyone (including the media) think he's still a viable "product"?
    
    Chris

    I'm probably going to regret saying this, but I like Ross.  He made a
    lot of sense to me when I watched him on some C-Span program quite a
    while ago.  {incoming}

    It's gotta be that Dallas heat. You don't have a crazy aunt that you
    keep in the attic, do ya? :-)

    Yeah, I liked him four years ago, too.  But he blew it with his
    absurd drop-out drop-in coyness, and even more so with his assorted
    eccentricities and paranoia (hey, it's okay to be paranoid, but at
    least have the good sense to suppress excessive public display of
    such :-)).  Finally, his choice of Stockdale (whom I admire, but
    was not a realistic choice for Vice President) pretty much sealed
    his fate as a novelty candidate instead of a practical choice.
    
    There was a time when he could have won it, but it's a different
    time now.  The fact that he can't (or won't) see that only serves
    to further illuminate his lack of grounding in reality.  He has no
    more chance of being elected president than I do.
    
    Chris

>		Finally, his choice of Stockdale (whom I admire, but
>    was not a realistic choice for Vice President) pretty much sealed
>    his fate as a novelty candidate instead of a practical choice.

For the rest of my life, whenever I hear the name "Stockdale", I will
picture in my mind, Dana Carvey and Phil Hartman sitting in a car with
the white-haired character of Hartman as Stockdale letting out a terrorized
yell -

		"GRIDLOCK!!!!"

    
    	Gotta love Ross' false humility.
    
    	He wouldn't step forward and say he wanted to be the nominee. 
    	Instead, he played the old "Well, if the people really want me, then
    	I guess I will have to do it for them" story.  As soon as Lamm 
    	steps up and says he'll take the job, Ross comes out of the
    	woodwork to eliminate the "opponent".
    
    	

Really reminds me of PeeWee Herman in far too many respects.

he goes to the movies???

No, but he achieves the same effect whenever he opens his mouth.

he plays with his mouth?

    Right height for it.

    Old Ross might just be crazy like a fox here...
    
    All of a sudden we have a two man race for candidacy in the Reform
    Party, where there was only one man last year (Ross), and one man this
    year (Lamm).
    
    One man running for president, representing a little-known 3rd party
    isn't going to make much of a splash, but a two-person runoff, a
    primary election taking place in the Reform Party this summer while the
    Dems and Repubs are doing nothing, might just stir up enough media and
    public attention to do the Reform Party candidate a whole lot of good
    in the election.  Could that be their plan?

> Could that be their plan?

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that Rawss can quell his ego for
sufficiently long periods to come up with plans that involve anyone
other than himself.

    
      So, does the Reform Party have primaries or caucuses ?
    
      bb

    >So, does the Reform Party have primaries or caucuses ?
    
    Haven't needed to, yet...
    
    But if Ross and Lamm are going to stage a knock-down drag-out fight,
    and if they make it entertaining enough so it gets lots of media
    exposure, especially during the off time for the major parties, then
    they might just have a shot at it...
    

 Rush plays a pretty funny sketch about Ross and his secret codes for 
 activating his supporters.




 Jim

    I wish someone would just use a little bug spray on the gnat!
    
    

Rush or Ross?

    cockrush would be difficult to spray all over.

| <<< Note 686.128 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "it's about summer!" >>>

| cockrush would be difficult to spray all over.

	Bonnie... think about what you just said.... I think that might be a
new word for premature ejaculation!

    cockroach, i meant cockroach!

I though "cockrush" was a kinda cool slur for the guy.

| <<< Note 686.130 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "it's about summer!" >>>

| cockroach, i meant cockroach!

	Uh huh..... and I believe you too... really.... :-)

                  Perot "Too Busy" To Debate Opponent Lamm
                                      
                                   Perot
                                      
   DENVER (AllPolitics, Aug. 8) -- Texas billionaire Ross Perot has taken
     to California's airwaves to promote the Reform Party's Long Beach
    convention, and to the chagrin of former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm,
                      said he's too busy for a debate.
                                      
    "We got a letter saying there would be no joint appearances because
    (Perot) was too busy building the party and organizing events," Tom
     D'Amore, Jr., Lamm's senior campaign advisor, told The Associated
                                   Press.
                                      
   Perot's 15-minute radio spots airing Thursday and Friday are designed
        to build excitement for the convention, said Platt Thompson,
      California state coordinator for the Perot Reform Committee. "It
   really helps to get Ross out there publicly to promote the event," he
                                   said.
                                      
    But Lamm's camp says the best way to promote the event is through a
     Perot-Lamm debate, especially because there is no opportunity for
                    debate during the convention itself.
                                      
   "What is the convention about? It's about the selection of the nominee
    for president," said D'Amore. "And if the two nominees are the focal
    point, what better way to promote it that to expose these two people
                             and their issues."
                                      
    Although he hasn't bagged the Reform Party nomination yet, Perot is
    also looking into buying a series of prime-time infomericals like he
                                did in 1992.
                                      
    "We have been talking to people about the possibility," Reform Party
    spokeswoman Sharon Holman told The Washington Post. But, she added,
    "there have certainly been no media buys. If Perot is the candidate,
      we'll be prepared. If Dick Lamm is the candidate, we'll have the
                       information prepared for him."
                                      
                        Copyright � 1996 AllPolitics
                            All Rights Reserved

    It seems to me that Perot, Lamm, and their Reform Party are getting
    far more press and treatment as a "viable party", etc., than Harry
    Browne and the Libertarian Party.  Why is that?
    
    Also, why do polls show Perot getting as much as 10% or more of the
    vote, and Browne isn't even being mentioned in these polls?  Is Perot
    potentially "taking away" more votes from Dole or from Clinton this
    time around?
    
    I'm a bit annoyed that Perot struts in fairly late in the game and gets
    taken seriously by the media and apparently by the voters, after the
    loony experience of the last weeks of his 1992 run.
    
    If Perot is in any debates and Browne is excluded, I'm not going to
    be a happy camper.  Not that anything about this miserable election
    is ever going to make me happy...
    
    Chris

The standard answers to this are:

(1) Perot got a significant percentage of the vote in 92.
(b) Perot has a significant amount of money to play with.

TTom

Money talks.

This, as far as I can tell, is the only reason why Perot hasn't been
"gonged" yet.

|   It seems to me that Perot, Lamm, and their Reform Party are getting
|   far more press and treatment as a "viable party", etc., than Harry
|   Browne and the Libertarian Party.  Why is that?
    
    Hey, look at the bright side.  In another week, Harry Browne will be
    the "fourth most talked about man in Talk Radio".
    
    
    (It has been most unamusing to hear Ross talk about "if nominated"....)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    I did love the New York delegate who worried about the Reform Party's
    "appearance problem" that Ross owns the party.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >It seems to me that Perot, Lamm, and their Reform Party are getting
    >far more press and treatment as a "viable party", etc., than Harry
    >Browne and the Libertarian Party.  Why is that?
    
    Having two candidates and staging a convention is what did it, IMO.
    If the Libertarian party were to stage a similar convention, it
    would help get their ideas out too.  If Perot can afford it, then
    the Libertarian Party ought to be able to afford it.  
    
    That's always been my problem with the Libertarian Party -- they
    don't get in the limelight enough.  If they did, they might get
    somewhere.
    
    Even if the whole "convention" was staged, it got some excellent
    press, with CNN commentators treating it just as if it were the
    repub or dem convention.
    

>    Having two candidates and staging a convention is what did it, IMO.
>    If the Libertarian party were to stage a similar convention, it
>    would help get their ideas out too.

I believe they _did_ have a convention.

>                                         If Perot can afford it, then
>    the Libertarian Party ought to be able to afford it.  

Um, Perot's prolly worth more than all the Libertarians put together.

> Um, Perot's prolly worth more than all the Libertarians put together.

... and stingier, too (which is saying a piece)

Agagagagag!  But Perot's willing to spend a chunk of his money massaging
his own ego.

    Is he willing to go the next step and have himself converted into a
    beam of pure energy?

Not sure that would be very bright in his case.

    Kinda like a 25 watt pure beam of energy.

    
    Night Lights for $100 Art.
    
    								-mr. bill

    When did Alex quit?

    
    >Night Lights for $100 Art.
    
    
    	That's not a very good trade, unless you have ALOT of night
    	lights.