Conference back40::soapbox

    he is still a lying, draft dodging, womanizing SOB. and i'll not likely
    change that opinion given the past two years performance.

    	Re. .1
    
    	Can someone educate me on this draft dodgeing buisness. I know he
    protested the Vietnam war and that has some people al up in arms, but
    as far as actually draft dodgeing, I thought he got out of the draft
    because he won a Rhodes Scholarship. Generally, or so I have been led
    to believe, if you were actively attending a college, you were exempt
    from the draft. So did he do something I'm not aware of, or are all
    college kids of the time draft dodgers. I'm looking for a real answer
    not an ideological argument. Did he burn draft cards, flee to canada or
    what?
    
    
    							S.R.
    

    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.

    	I didn't realize one could get a Rhodes Scholarship through
    politcal contacts. Kind of dampens my apprecation for the Whole
    institution. (I didn't realize he even had politcal contacts back then,
    he certainly didn't have a rich father) Oh well, I guess that makes him
    kind of like Qualye who used his contacts to get out of a war he
    SUPPORTED. ( I know, I know, not one square inch of Indiana fell to the
    V.C. so Quayle must have been doing something right)
    
    
    								S.R.
    

    quayle at least served in the US military and didn't have to lie about
    his position and whereabouts in the 60's come election time. HUGE
    difference.

    	I served in the military for six years and during desert storm. I
    think Deliberately trying to get into a unit whith 0% chance of
    deployment and then bragging about it is the worst sort of cowardise.
    Apparently he supported the war as long as others fought it. I was in a
    combat unit and took my chances on the role of the dice.
    
    
    
    								S.R.
    

    
    I dont think it was the worst form, just a common form.
    

                    <<< Note 18.6 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

>Deliberately trying to get into a unit whith 0% chance of
>    deployment and then bragging about it is the worst sort of cowardise.


	You may want to review the deployment of Reserve/Guard units
	in the Vietnam War. The "chance" may have been low, but it was
	not zero.

Jim

    If you were a young man during the sixties, becoming aware of right and
    wrong, trying to justify a war that didn't fit the norm, you know how
    hard it was to make a decision.  It was damn hard to be one of the
    first in your crowd,family,town to talk against our involvment in
    Vietnam.  We all wanted to be soldiers, but there was a real down side
    to the whole thing.  It was not clear cut.  Anyone who was there during
    those times knows it took a hell of a lot more courage, intelligence
    and backbone to question and protest the situation then it did to just
    go along.  
    
    Bill Clinton is not a draft dodger.  He worked within the system, like
    millions did to continue with his life and not be forced to go to some
    little country no one cared about and kill people he didn't know. 
    People who meant him or this country no harm what so ever.  
    
    Clinton is a brave man.  At the age of 14 he stood up to his step
    father and protected his mother from this guy.  
    
    Clinton is no skirt chaser.  If and I mean If he had relations with a
    couple women on the side,  How many men can cast the first stone on
    this one.  As I understand it Bill and Hillary had some kinda rough
    times relationship wise over the years.  Who hasn't.  On this issue I
    feel his personal love life has been kept on such a moderate scale as
    to be classified as NONE OF MY OR ANYONE ELSE's BUSINESS.  
    
    I say this man has led a clean life and should be judged politically
    only on his political record.  I think he has done a fine job.  The
    economy is strong, taxes in line, inflation in check.  He has dealt
    with foreign affairs in an intelligent manner,  No dirty laundry or
    chickens coming home to roost here.  He has shown the world he will act
    if provoked and he is a man of his word.  
    

Note 18.9 by ROMEOS::STONE_JE
    
    >to the whole thing.  It was not clear cut.  Anyone who was there during
    >those times knows it took a hell of a lot more courage, intelligence
    >and backbone to question and protest the situation then it did to just
    >go along.  
    
    BS. broadbrush everyone. your as bad as meowski. i had a choice. i
    thought about it. HARD. i went anyway. that was harder than running to
    canada.
    
    
    >I say this man has led a clean life and should be judged politically
    >only on his political record.  I think he has done a fine job.  The
    
    its a free country and your in the vast minority these days. good thing
    too.

    RE:.9

    	Surely you must have hung around with a large group of people that
    smoked an illegal substance during the Vietnam era.  You make a good
    case against second hand smoke.

    Joe

    
    It's no goddam wonder the guy is a piss-poor President.  He can't get
    on with the job properly 'cos he spends so much time defending himself,
    his wife etc from snipers like Haag.
    
    If you guys really loved yer country, you would give your President a
    couple of hassle-free months to do his job in peace.  Ya never know. 
    Maybe if he could concentrate on being President, he may do it quite
    well.
                         
    

    why does a "The Whole World is a Stage" comes to mind every time
    Clinton is in front of a camera?

	I don't think that we should just give Clinton a couple hassle-free months
simply because he is President is the right thing to do.  If he wants to 
impliment a policy that I disagree with, then it is my right and duty to let him 
know.  The President is an employee of the people.  If I do something my boss 
does not approve of, then I will be notified of this.  The same should happen to 
the President, whoever he is.

	Those that don't want us to hassle the President better remember their
words when a Republican defeats Clinton in '96.

ME

            <<< Note 18.1 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    he is still a lying, draft dodging, womanizing SOB. and i'll not likely
>    change that opinion given the past two years performance.

Is the Pot and Kettle topic here yet?!

                      <<< Note 18.9 by ROMEOS::STONE_JE >>>
                           -< Elvis would be proud >-

Given the vitriol rampant in this forum, THAT note took courage.

    
    RE: .9
    
    
     And what color is the sky in your world???
    

Andy! You're back!!!

:^)

From As You Like It by William Shakespeare

Jaquies "Seven ages of Man" speech:



"All the world is a stage and all the men and women merely players,
 and one mane in his lifetime plays many parts.
 His acts being seven ages.

 At first, the infant.  Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

 Next, the whining schoolboy with his satchel and shining morning face.
 Creeping like a snail, unwillingly, to school.

 Then the lover, sighing like a furnace with a woeful balad made to
 his misstress' eyebrow.

 Next a soldier.  Bearded like the 'pard.  Jealous in honor.  Sudden and
 quick in quarrel.  Seeking the bubble, reputation, even in the cannon's mouth.

 Then a justice: a fair round belly with good capon lined.  With eyes severe 
 and beard of formal cut.  Full of wise saws and modern instances and thus he
 plays his part.

 The next age shifts to the lean and slippered pantaloon.  With specatcles 
 on nose and pouch on side, his youthful hose, well saved, a world too 
 wide for his shrunk shank and his big, manly voice going again towards
 childish treble.  It pipes and whistles his sounds.

 The lase age of all in this strange and eventful history is that of second
 childishness and mere oblivion.  Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste,
 sans everything."

    
    
    RE: 18
    
    Yep Jackster....
    
    Had a really serious, highly visible project that took all of my time
    and attention for the last 3 weeks....
    
      Tried to read/enter from home once in awhile, but had serious modem
    problems...
    
      Anyway.... I logged in this morning and found the new and improved
    box and figured... why not? :) :)
    
      Same ol same ol though... except for some fresh meat limo-libs!! :)

    an answer on draft dodging
    
    Clinton got and educational deferment to avoid service as many other
    individuals had done. The deal was finish school and then join the
    military. At this point is was his obligation to serve when he got
    out of school. While still under this obligation, the birthday lottery
    was implimented. Clinton got a number in the 300s so that it was next
    to impossible for him to get drafted. This is the part I am not clear
    on, he got out of his committment to the military to enter the draft
    knowing full well that he would not be drafted.
    
                                  Steve J.
    
    P.S. Dan Quayle served in the National Guard. Many gaurd and reserve
    units were activated and sent to Vietnam.

  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

    George, I think you spoke too soon.
    
    One, no one can deny that the Soviet Union was an enemy of the
    United States (and vice versa) throughout its history (except for World
    War II).
    
    Second, no one has ever established as "fact" that Bill Clinton
    "protested in Russia."  How could you accept that lie?

    He protested and England. He traveled to Russia for his debriefings.
    :'}
    
    The high draft # was not the dodging, the backing out of his prior 
    committment to serve was.
                                Steve J.

    Would any of you wonder why the draft question plagues Bill Clinton
    if you found that he did indeed receive an official draft notice? 
    
    Would you defend Bill Clinton against the charge of draft dodging if
    you found that after receiving the official "Greeting" notification from 
    Uncle Sam that he began a "frantic" campaign to avoid that notice, a 
    campaign that used influence and deceit?
    
    Would you still speak of his courage if you found that he lied
    about the fact that he had in fact received a draft notice for more
    than 20 years?
    
    
    	These are not hypothetical questions! Check the facts. 
                                        
                                        

    He did receive a draft notice, that is why he got the deferment.
    
                            Steve J.

RE                   <<< Note 18.23 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>    One, no one can deny that the Soviet Union was an enemy of the
>    United States (and vice versa) throughout its history (except for World
>    War II).

  Sure we can. The constitution is clear that only Congress has the power to
declare war. Even Gerald Ford said that the Soviet Union was not our enemy but
a competitor. 
    
>    Second, no one has ever established as "fact" that Bill Clinton
>    "protested in Russia."  How could you accept that lie?

  I'm not accepting anything, just pointing out that the Soviet Union was
never our enemy.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 18.26 by NCMAIL::JAMESS >>>

>    He did receive a draft notice, that is why he got the deferment.
>    
>                            Steve J.

  You didn't need a draft notice to get a deferment.

  Back when the draft was in effect, everyone who was male had to register for
the draft on their 18th birthday.

  If you took no action you were placed in the 1-A category and were eligible
to be drafted. If you were eligible for a deferment, you went to your draft
board and claimed it as soon as you registered, not after the notice came from
the President (actually your draftboard). 

  In fact, if you waited for the notice then it was much more difficult to
get the deferment since in the eyes of the draft board you were already
drafted.

  George

    George in .22
    
    What you DON't know would scare you...that is why there was a "Cold
    War."
    
    I most likely said too much as it is...

      I was always very liberal until just a couple years ago.
      What got me really thinking was a debate Andre Moreau
      (Libertarian candidate) had with some candidate for some
      small political party.  This was Halloween night two years
      ago.
    
      Anyway, the other candidate talked about the need for some
      kind of social (i.e. welfare/entitlement) programs.
    
      Moreau's reply really impressed me.  He said that it is not
      the right of any citizen to receive money from any other,
      it is a PRIVELAGE.  He also said that when a country transfers
      wealth from one individual to another, that is not democracy,
      that is socialism.
    
      Philosophically, I believe it is wrong to dictate to any individual
      that they must give their money so that someone else gets it.  
      I do not believe in theft.  Distribution of wealth should be an
      act of volition and not of force.
    
      For philosophical reasons such as the above (and others such as
      why we have the right to bear arms) I have gobe from being very
      liberal to very conservative.  The main thing I have a hard time
      with as far as the 'right' goes is their sometime desire to bridge
      church and state.
    
      So what do I think of Clinton with his universal health care and the
      rest of his socialist agenda?
    
      GET THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE!!!  THE CONSTITUTION JUDGES YOU AND FINDS
      YOU GUILTY!!!
    
      Clinton is an absolute joke.
    
                                                      Tony
    
    

RE      <<< Note 18.29 by VMSSG::LYCEUM::CURTIS "Dick "Aristotle" Curtis" >>>

>    I'm sure that will make the Rosenburgs feel ever so much better.
    
  The Rosenburgs should never have been executed.

  Just because someone screwed up, that doesn't mean that there was a war
when there wasn't one.

  George

RE               <<< Note 18.31 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI "God cares." >>>

>      Moreau's reply really impressed me.  He said that it is not
>      the right of any citizen to receive money from any other,
>      it is a PRIVELAGE.  He also said that when a country transfers
>      wealth from one individual to another, that is not democracy,
>      that is socialism.

  So if my taxes pay for the fire department and my house doesn't catch fire
but yours does then wealth is being transferred from me to you and that's
wrong. Boy those liberals just don't get it, we need to put a stop to that
sort of thing.
    
>      So what do I think of Clinton with his universal health care and the
>      rest of his socialist agenda?

  Clinton is for the death penalty, GATT, NAFTA, and now he's talking about
prayer in school. In what way are those things socialist?

>      GET THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE!!!  THE CONSTITUTION JUDGES YOU AND FINDS
>      YOU GUILTY!!!
 
  First of all, how can the Constitution judge anything, it's a document not
a person or group of people. Second, in what way has Clinton violated the
Constitution?
   
  George

      re: .32
    
      The term 'enemy' can have several connotations.  I think its
      just a weak point you make in that you force the term enemy
      to equate to perhaps actual warfare between two countries.
    
      A different connotation concerning just what an 'enemy' is,
      I think, could place the former Soviet Union in that category.
    
      Just for one example, the Soviet Union used to claim that the
      entire world would one day be communist and that making for this
      to happen is one of its aims.  The United States has historically
      claimed that the world should be democratic.
    
      Clearly, this is a situation of ideological conflict and one wherein
      a different connotation of what it means to be an enemy would find
      the differing parties to be so classified.  I believe this is what
      'cold war' referred to.
    
      Your narrowness in terms of what it means to be an enemy is weak
      and as the strength of your position hinges in part on this, your
      position is correspondingly weak.
    
                                                      Tony
                                       

The Rosenburgs weren't executed.  The Rosenbergs were.

.9>    Clinton is no skirt chaser.  If and I mean If he had relations with a
>    couple women on the side,  How many men can cast the first stone on
>    this one.  
    
    	Millions, I'd wager.  And I'll be the first to stand in line.

RE               <<< Note 18.34 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI "God cares." >>>

>      Just for one example, the Soviet Union used to claim that the
>      entire world would one day be communist and that making for this
>      to happen is one of its aims.  The United States has historically
>      claimed that the world should be democratic.

  Well not really. It was Carl Marx who said that the entire world would be
communist but not through conquest, rather through revolutions started by the
proletariat within each country against the aristocracy. 

  The policy of the United States (spoken anyway) is suppose to be self
determination, not the forced implementation of democracy. 
    
>      Clearly, this is a situation of ideological conflict and one wherein
>      a different connotation of what it means to be an enemy would find
>      the differing parties to be so classified.  I believe this is what
>      'cold war' referred to.

  I think it's stretching the definition a bit to say that a conflict in
ideology results in enemies. Clearly I have a different ideological outlook
than many conservatives in this file but I don't consider them to be my
enemy.
    
  George

    .37
    
    nikita khrushschev stood up at the united nations and said (in russian,
    of course), "we [the soviet union] will bury you [the free world]."  if
    that wasn't a declaration of enmity, i don't know what is.  they were
    our enemy despite the fact that the war we fought with them was fought
    through the manipulation of other countries.  people still died, and it
    was our fault and that of the sovs.

RE               <<< Note 18.39 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    nikita khrushschev stood up at the united nations and said (in russian,
>    of course), "we [the soviet union] will bury you [the free world]."  if
>    that wasn't a declaration of enmity, i don't know what is.  

  Yes, but was he saying that he would bury us because the Soviet Union would
conquer us or was he saying that metaphorically predicting that Communists would
outlive (and hence have to bury) capitalists because our own proletariat would
rise up in Civil War and overthrow our Aristocracy?

  If it's the latter, then that's not really an enemy, just an undertaker.

  George

    When President Nixon visited Breshnev in the USSR, they had good dialog
    the first day.  About 2:00 that evening, Breshnev awoke Mr. Nixon and 
    lectured him in an angry tone the merits of socialism and communism.
    
    The last words of the night:
    
    President Nixon, your grandchildren WILL live in the name of socialism
    and communism.
    
    President Breshnev, my grandchildren WILL NOT live in the bondage of
    socialism; but your grandchildren and mine will live in the realm of
    democracy and freedom.
    
    -Jack
    

    
    Niki was going to bury us in corn.

    .40
    
    he wasn't playing undertaker.  i watched him say it.  his entire manner
    was truculent, and he was pounding the podium violently with his hands.
    'bout that time his troops in east germany built the berlin wall and
    started shooting people who wanted out.  that doesn't sound like a man
    who's planning to clean up on a fire sale when the us of a goes down
    the tubes, does it?

    
    
    Dick,
    
     His manner was "alledgedly" truculent....
    
    
     :)
    

    
    
    Yeah Goerge, that federal fire dept is something.

RE: Khrushschev

  So what ever came of Khrushschev banging his shoe on the desk? Once Kennedy
put up the blockade of Cuba Khrushschev backed down without firing a shot. He
was just bluffing and never intended to bury anyone. 

  Now if he had run the blockade most likely we would have become enemies but
it never happened. 

RE The Fire Department.

  Conservatives always bleat on about redistribution of wealth making blanket
statements implying that it should never happen. That's nonsense. You want a
federal example? Ok, how about the air traffic control system? 

  Clearly someone who flies a lot benefits a lot more from ATC than someone who
does not but everyone pays for it with their taxes. Why isn't that cited as
an example of the evils of redistribution of wealth? Or is that ok because it
involves moving wealth from the middle class who are less likely to fly to the
rich who are more likely to fly? 

  George 

    Ah, George.  Ever hear of landing fees and such?  You use it, you
    pay for it.  Or that's the way it's supposed to work.
    
    See, it doesn't allow the federal gov't to pee all over our rights
    as your so familiar with.  You don't want to pay for the ATC system?
    Don't fly.  It's simple.  And under this system the fed hasn't gone
    anywhere near your paycheck.
         

OK, then, George - why do you keep bringing up examples of reasonable
services which are performed by virtue of federal funding when the
question had to do with redistribution of wealth in terms of taking
money from one citizen and giving it to another without benefit of
obtaining any service from the latter? Is there some difficulty
discerning between them?

    .46
    
    > just bluffing and never intended to bury anyone.
    
    you, i assume, have that from nikita himself?
    
    just in case you don't, you might want to admit that you honestly don't
    know what he intended.  it is possible, in fact quite likely, that had
    the scrum been over something other than nukes in cuba, he might not
    have backed down but rather stood his ground and dared kennedy to make
    the first move.

RE               <<< Note 18.49 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    you, i assume, have that from nikita himself?
    
  Just look at what happened.

  After claiming that he would bury us he placed missiles in Cuba and Kennedy
put up a blockade. Rather than running the blockade he backed down. Would he
have done that if it were not a bluff?

  George

    Nikita thought Kennedy was a wimp.  He had no intentions of going to
    war.  He wanted to push the US to the brink as many times as possible
    to get what he wanted.  He and his staff knew that the US wasn't going
    to start a war, so therefore he could push as hard as he wanted to
    try and get his way.

RE         <<< Note 18.48 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>OK, then, George - why do you keep bringing up examples of reasonable
>services which are performed by virtue of federal funding when the
>question had to do with redistribution of wealth in terms of taking
>money from one citizen and giving it to another without benefit of
>obtaining any service from the latter? Is there some difficulty
>discerning between them?

  Ok so let me get this straight. If you think the spending is reasonable then
it is not wealth distribution, but if you think it is not reasonable then
it is wealth distribution.

  I'm REALLY surprised to see a conservative take that point of view.

  George

      George,
    
        On fire as an example of redistribution of wealth...
    
        That seems to me to be more of a practical, collective, and
        civil setup where everyone pitches in and every economic 
        group reaps benefits.  Sure, a poor home might suffer from
        a fire.  Then again, it might be some rich ones over in CA
        as in past years.
    
        My take on this is that in some cases we see the practical
        benefit of collective effort for certain things (such as roads,
        highways, sewerage, and fire protection).  And whether the
        dwelling is a rich man's or a poor man's, the protection is
        given.
    
        I'm also open to the notion that idealism gives way to practicality
        in certain cases.  One case in point is the right to bear arms.
        I should be able to bear a semi-automatic because the military 
        has one and the day may come when I might need to overthrow the
        govt.  So, on that rationale, why shouldn't I get an H-bomb?  I
        mean...THEY have 'em!!!
    
        And yet I insist that I oughtn't be able to have one, i.e. idealism
        has given way to practicality (in the extreme).
    
        I'll be honest.  I BELIEVE the Constitution does not allow redistri-
        bution of wealth.  But, I do not know it as I should.  I'll try to
        study it.
    
        But, I believe when the govt. assumes the power to tell employers
        they must provide health insurance (WHY???) and when it has the
        power to take money from some people to give to others, well I 
        don't believe that is what we are founded upon.
    
        Socialism and the rugged individualism this country was founded
        upon are antithetical.
    
                                                        Tony
        

RE              <<< Note 18.52 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	Maybe he (allegedly) thought that he had the upper hand, and
>    	was surprised to find out that he was outgunned, outmanned, 
>    	and outclassed.  His withdrawal was a matter of survival, not
>    	a bluff gone bad.

  All he needed was the latest copy of "Janes" and the latest issue of Aviation
Week and Space Technology" to see what the U.S. Navy had on hand. The size
of the U.S. Military has never been a secret.

  George

    all it was, was that he thought kennedy would back down.  when he saw
    that such was not the case, he backed down.  but i repeat, had it been
    something other than nukes in cuba, he might not have backed down -
    it's possible that he could have scoped our ability and desire to
    handle a long-distance conventional war with fair accuracy.

  Look up.

  See any dirt?

  See any Communists with shovels preparing to bury you with dirt?

  It never happened. We were never enemies.

  Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, nothing more.

  George

 Well, you learn something new every day, eh?

    
    RE: .58
    
    George...
    
    You get sillier by the minute...
    
    In context, and at the time, the threat was very real. Monday morning
    quarterbacking 30+ years after doesn't change the situation at the
    time. 
    
      Some bully facing you draws a line in the sand and/or pokes you in
    the chest with his finger... isn't considered an "enemy"?
    
     Right...
    

    
    Then Viet Nam was not our enemy, because it was only a "Police Action"
    and not a war....
    

re: Note 18.55 by STRATA::BARBIERI
        
>        That seems to me to be more of a practical, collective, and
>        civil setup where everyone pitches in and every economic 
>       group reaps benefits.  Sure, a poor home might suffer from

On what level?  The fire department is locally funded.  It isn't (yet)
bossed around by the fed.  The Police dept. however is gradually getting
sucked under federal control (due to funding), along with our school systems.  
This is bad.  FWIW:  If you own personal property you'll notice you pay tax on
it.  What is _this_ tax used for?  (Then why is the fed also barging in, or
why do you still have to pay personal property tax?)

>        in certain cases.  One case in point is the right to bear arms.
>        I should be able to bear a semi-automatic because the military 
>        has one and the day may come when I might need to overthrow the
>        govt.  So, on that rationale, why shouldn't I get an H-bomb?  I
>        mean...THEY have 'em!!!
 
Bad analogy.  The military has Automatic weapons.  For me to do that costs
way to much.  I can do it, but it's not affordable.  The H-bomb argument is
rediculous. 
   
>        I'll be honest.  I BELIEVE the Constitution does not allow redistri-
>        bution of wealth.  But, I do not know it as I should.  I'll try to
>        study it.
 
It doesn't. 
   
>        But, I believe when the govt. assumes the power to tell employers
>        they must provide health insurance (WHY???) and when it has the
>        power to take money from some people to give to others, well I 
>        don't believe that is what we are founded upon.
 
The problem you may be overlooking is:  Businesses are usually incorparated.
They exist at the whim of the gov't.  They are therefore bound to operate
under the gov'ts rules.  It is becoming increasingly popular for the gov't
to try and treat individual PEOPLE that way as well.  
   
A good example of this is many of the folks who race have car haulers which
say "NOT FOR HIRE" on them somewhere.  I am not engaged in commerce, therefore
I am not subject to gov't regulation.  I don't have to stop at weight stations,
etc...

>  Ok so let me get this straight. If you think the spending is reasonable then
>it is not wealth distribution, but if you think it is not reasonable then
>it is wealth distribution.

No - yet again, you still don't have it straight. If it's supplying a general
service which is accessable by all, it's not wealth redistribution. If it's
not supplying or procuring any service at all, it's wealth redistribution.

Actually a blockade is an act of war according to international law, so in
a way we did start to go to war with Cuba and the USSR.  It never went to
a shooting war as Khrushchev backed down, and Congress never did declare war.

re .62:

The 50,000 US soldiers who died in Viet Nam will be happy to hear there
never was any enemy, at least according to George.

re .58:


  Look up.

  See any swastikas?

  See any Nazis with shovels preparing to bury you with dirt?

  It never happened. We were never enemies.

  Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, nothing more.

Makes perfect sense, if our "alleged" "adversaries" didn't prevail, they
weren't our enemy either.  The thousands and thousands of US troops who
died fighting the Nazis will be glad to hear that as well.

-Madman

    .32:
    
    Wow, am I disappointed.
    
    Dick

    George:
    
    You don't think that self-avowed enemies of the US shouldn't be
    considered our enemy just because Congress hadn't "declared war"
    against them...
    
    funny, the terrorists blowing up the WTC all came from a group of
    self-avowed enemies of the US...as did the VC, N. Korea and killers of
    our Marines in Beirut...
    
    but of course, since the liberal Democratically controlled Congress
    didn't "declare war", they aren't "really" enemies of the US...hey
    George, maybe they're abberrations, huh? 

      Mad Mike,
    
        Question for ya.  So far as your understanding of the 
        Constitution is concerned, does the LOCAL govt. have the
        right to enact legislation which redistributes wealth?
    
        I get what you are saying about "at which level" and
        agree wholeheartedly.
    
        I don't know enough about a company being incorporated 
        and thus being subject to certain federal legislation.  In
        fact, I don't know anything about that!
    
        What about a ma and pop shop?  Like the corner deli?  Are
        they subject to laws that individuals aren't?
    
        By the way, I think we oughta be able to have automatic 
        weapons.
    
                                                   Tony

    
>        Question for ya.  So far as your understanding of the 
>        Constitution is concerned, does the LOCAL govt. have the
>        right to enact legislation which redistributes wealth?
 
Not if it's in violation of the Federal Constitution.
    
>        I don't know enough about a company being incorporated 
>        and thus being subject to certain federal legislation.  In
>        fact, I don't know anything about that!
 
Incorporating SUBJECTS you to local, state and Federal regulations.
Notice the word subject, people, individuals aren't supposed to be
subjects of anything, they are supposed to be sovereign.   

>        What about a ma and pop shop?  Like the corner deli?  Are
>        they subject to laws that individuals aren't?
 
Well, there is a trick.  Are you "in business", or are you engaged in
Commerce?  What is inherantly wrong with being engaged in business
which is a Constitutionally protected activity.  (Pursuit of life, liberty
and property, etc...)  When you are engaged in Commerce (conducting business
among the several states) you are subject to gov't regulation.  

Take for example: a roadside vegitable stand.  Do they need to have a 
license to conduct business?  At one time they didn't.  To the State the
farmer is operating upon his sovereign property.  If mom and pop are 
conducting business on property which is in the public domain, then they
need to be licensed and then become subject to gov't jurisdiction.
This origonated because it is inheritantly WRONG/Illegal to use public
property for personal gain.  For example if you go to a court house or
other PUBLIC building and see someone who DOESN'T work for the gov't selling 
something, they must be licensed.  The state/local level merely extended
this requirement to "everyone".  In a nutshell, the U.S. citizen is
a bankrupt/debtor "share-cropping" on the creditors land.  The creditors
agent is the government.  So to engage in an occupation or business 
invariably is in the public sector if one holds a social security number.
   
>        By the way, I think we oughta be able to have automatic 
>        weapons.
 
We can, if you have a lot of money and are a responsible person.

    Apparently some staffers inside the WH are bent on embarrassing the
    administration...
    
    The way to combat the Republican victories in the '94 elections is to
    target the source
    
    Rush Limbaugh!  A certain WH memo is circulating that proposes a
    government sponsored radio "talk" show [guess that the official propoganda,
    not the news media versions] that would interview various administration
    officials in a 'friendly' format.  As to callers, there would only be a
    'selected' audience to be allowed to ask questions.
    
    As to who should host this show...no other than
    
    
    Hillary Rodman Clinton 

    
    RE: -1
    
    What would it be called??
    
    "The Witching Hour"???
    
    :)
    

    
    Every recent president has lambasted the press - with no effect.
    
    Best advice, never taken, is "Pretend he isn't there."  It's like
    being banned by the church - good for sales.
    
      bb

Rush says the admin has pressed Stephen Speilberg and Norman Lear into
assisting with the efforts to put the radio show in action.

    
    this has got to be a republican plot.

    "Government sponsored" radio talk show??????  You're kidding right????
    

    
    
    <------
    
    Ever hear of NPR???
    

<---  Are you indicting "All Things Distorted"?  I'm outraged!  ;^)

That program has the best on-site reports with sound effects in all
of radioland.

j.

    re: .33
    
    George,
    
      There's something I took exception to awhile back and it is
      the following...
    
      "First of all, how can the Consitution judge anything..."
    
      Its really not a small matter.  All of our state employees such
      as cops, courts, etc. have no right to judge anyone.  So far as
      judgment is concerned, what they do is provide _evidence_ and it
      is determined whether or not the evidence demonstrates that a
      person has transgressed some LAW.  When I served jury duty, even
      the judge did not judge.  What he did is he helped us understand 
      the law.  It was he who officiated the proceedings of the court
      so that the law was abided by.
    
      It must be the law that judges.  People merely bring forth evidence.
      If I speed on a freeway, a cop provides evidence that I transgressed
      a law.  He does not in any way uphold his own authority to judge;
      his service is to the LAW and his work is to uphold that.  It is
      the law that judges.
    
      This should be obvious as no cop has the right to judge anyone of
      wrongdoing if a person has not transgressed a single law.
    
      This is a powerful point and IF its something that the liberal 
      'mindset' at large sees as you do, then thats quite a problem that
      is best eradicated!
    
      And I believe the Consitution has been largely abandoned and (being
      objective here) if there was some way that some court could uphold
      the Consitution and hear evidence regarding Clinton's (and other
      politicians) abidence to it, it would be intense.  Hypothetically,
      if we could have such a thing take place, most of our politicians
      would be found wanting and would quickly lose their jobs.
    
      For their most important job is to uphold the law.
    
                                                     Tony
                                                        

re: Note 18.78 by STRATA::BARBIERI
    
>      It must be the law that judges.  People merely bring forth evidence.
>      If I speed on a freeway, a cop provides evidence that I transgressed
>      a law.  He does not in any way uphold his own authority to judge;
>      his service is to the LAW and his work is to uphold that.  It is
>      the law that judges.
 
It is the jury who judges.  If I were a juror and you came before the
court, charged with speeding, I wouldn't move to convict you because the
law is unjust IMO.  The Judge makes sure rules for that statute or 
jurisdiction are followed.  He also reads you your instructions as a
juror which you may either follow, or not.  The juror is the ultimate
judge.  A Judge however may rule to aquit a defendant even if a jury
convicts, but not the other way around.
   
    
>      And I believe the Consitution has been largely abandoned and (being
>      objective here) if there was some way that some court could uphold

The Constitution is being circumvented.  Sovereigns are being turned
into artifical citizens.  Citizens who convieniently don't fall under the
Constitutions protection.  Read your drivers license, social security
card, banking agreements, financial paperwork, birth certificates....

It is extremely difficult to live within ALL the protections of the 
Constitution.  It is difficult because politicians purposely made it that
way.  They are counting on the fact that their subjects are too stupid or
apathetic to understand what is happening.
                                                       

    I'm sitting at work on the day after Thanksgiving and thought that I
    would add my $.02.
    
    The fake compassion of the Clintons is like paying a buck at a
    toll-booth. They give nothing that genuinely benefits humanity or
    society. Instead, they collect self-serving tolls by forcing the
    producers of the country into financing an expanding class of
    parasites. They collect destructive tolls by draining the only real
    benefactors of the needy and society, the competitive value and job
    producer. And, then they collect the jackpot, a usurped livelihood
    replete with force-backed political power and praise-filled honors.
    Such Hitlerian-type compassion includes purposeful murder. For example,
    "if this law saves one life, then it's worth it" type demagoguery hides
    the 100 or 1000 or million innocent victims hurt, impoverished, or
    killed directly or indirectly through such sound-good,
    toll-booth-compassion laws, laws that subjugate society through
    socio-fascist control.
    
    The most illustrious, criminal-minded fake of the 90's is the smooth
    talking Hillary Rodham Clinton. Faking compassion and using
    hypocritical demagoguery, she foments envy against the productive
    class, the competitive producers of wealth and jobs. She viperously
    moves forward, feeding on the remaining seeds of superior health
    systems and competitive entrepreneurs. Her grand wealth distribution
    schemes would consume the source of all earned values and well-being.
    Her above-the-law greed, epitomized by criminal political bribes, would
    devour any remaining sense of justice and honesty in America.
    
    Seeking orwellian control through virtuoso lying, the Clintons are
    emasculating America's long-term economy for their own power. Left
    unchecked, the Clinton's megalomaniac agendas and criminal money/power
    grabs would destroy health care, individual rights, the economy, and
    maybe start a war to avoid impeachment or jail, perhaps for murder.
    Such fakes, as the Clintons, would happily loot and kill without limits
    to sustain their destructive livelihoods.
    
    ...Tom 

	... and that's the truth.   plplplppppllpllllth!

    plplplpLppllpllllth

    paper here is LOUDLY demanding that slick maintain his course and not
    compromise his principles (that's gonna get a letter from me for sure).
    the paper says "caving into dole, gingrich, and whackos, the likes of
    helms", would "destroy the very foundations gained by the peoples in
    this country over the last 50 years."
    
    this is panic. BIG time panic.
    
    the paper cited helms position on gays, the military, non-support for
    the national endowment of the arts as examples of radical right wing
    destructive polices.

    today's paper has lengthy article entitle "Dole's Cave-In". it rants on
    and on about the "tremendous political vicotry the president gained
    over Dole and republican dominated congress". this will draw another
    letter from me. not only is it pure political rubbish but last i looked
    congress is still controlled by dimmicrits.
    
    the brainwashing of the braindead continues.

    
    they'll probably be saying to themselves "theres that
    nut from <wherever haag lives> again".

    not so holtski. they don't publish any of my letters. the DO publish
    letters of flamethrowers because that fits with their stereotypical
    portraits of all repubs. i write letters that refute there obviously
    wrong allegations. they won't print anything like that unless its from
    a HHH idolizing, homeless, black with 12 kids lesbian.

    > "destroy the very foundations gained by the peoples in
    > this country over the last 50 years."
    
    Shesh, what about the foundations from 1776?  I reckon they don't
    matter anymore.  They're right, the country has slid down into the
    toilet over the past 50 years.  Friggin socialist bahstahds.
    
    It's obvious why Freeholders were the only ones allowed to vote in
    the past.  Lots of folks are voting themselves a free ride.

    > not so holtski. they don't publish any of my letters.
    
    Gene, in an effort to balance my paranoia... do you really think
    you're the only one who thinks that way?  Are you in a majority or
    a minority position of thought, irregardless of what the paper says?
    
    If the general public isn't buying that propaganda you may see the
    paper change its tune.  Maybe.

            <<< Note 18.83 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    the paper cited helms position on gays, the military, non-support for
>    the national endowment of the arts as examples of radical right wing
>    destructive polices.

    The editors of this liberal rag consider gays in the military and cuts
    in the NEA to be "radical" right wing policies?

    Oh, boy.  Are they in for a shock!

    I believe that far more radical change is envisioned.

Note 18.89 by STAR::OKELLEY 
    
    >The editors of this liberal rag consider gays in the military and cuts
    >in the NEA to be "radical" right wing policies?

    yup. they write about it almost daily.
    
    >Oh, boy.  Are they in for a shock!
    >I believe that far more radical change is envisioned.
    
    yup. and in answer to madmike. things are changing here. DRAMATICALLY.
    the far left (they call themselves centrist now) here simply hasn't got
    the message yet. they patted themselves heartily on the back for
    helping ensure that MN still has a dimm controlled state house. tho
    they lost many seats on 11/8 and many of those dimms, from rural areas,
    are backing away from past policies.
    
    the media is not giving up. the political power brokers in this state
    comprise about 10 menopausal old men that will be a pain until they are
    all dead and buried. their vision of a socialistic uptopia is slipping
    from their grasp and they just can't understand it. if they are still
    around in '96 (many are very old now), they will witness the final
    dismissal of their philosophy as the entire country, including MN,
    issue rebuke their entire agenda. 

            <<< Note 18.80 by DASHER::RALSTON "Who says I can't?" >>>

Man, are you stuck on a track, like an old album with a deep scratch. Snap 
out of it. As much as you'd like the world to fit your Randy binary 
paradym of producers/nonproducers, good/evil, etc./etc., it doesn't work 
that way. Wake up and see the world for all its complexity and shadings. 
It's no wonder you're an athiest; If our great moral play is as simple as
you portray, who needs a divine Playwrite? The plot's as simple as 1 + 1 (or I
should say 1 + -1), right? 

The Clinton's aren't monsters. If you have problems with their policies, 
argue them. If you have evidence of misconduct, point it out. But as soon 
as you go into an all-black rant, your credibility goes out the window and 
any rational producer or nonproducer will dismiss you with a wave of a 
hand. 

Yeah, your nonsensical portrayal of the clintons will be greeted with a 
"hear! Hear!" by a lot of 'Boxers. But don't be fooled into thinking you're on 
to something because of it. They've got their own agendas. Anything 
derogatory toward the BC and HC is music to their ears, no matter how 
monotonal. 

    
    Anyone catch the CNN snippet on Billary?
    
    Seems he's still a bit peeved about those evil (evyl?)
    repubs questioning his ability to be CinC and his 
    relationship with the armed services.
    
    So in a bit of in-your-face grandstanding (IMO), our
    esteemed President decided to gather up a few Navy
    commanders and go for his daily job donning a new
    warm up suit, in Naval blue and gold with the words
    "Commander in Chief" lettered across the back.  Nice
    press photo op.
    
    The comments were made, they were inappropriate, get
    over it already.
    
    W.
    
     

    re: .91, USMVS::DAVIS
    
    Now you've hurt my feelings, all the work I did to contrive my comment
    on the Clintons and you run me through with the sword of anti-good/evil
    paradigm (by the way this is how you spell it). I will have to take my
    simplistic moral play away from where 1 + -1 doesn't equal zero, which 
    is apparently the world you live in, and speak among those who are not 
    clue impaired.
    
    >who needs a devine playwrite?
    
    Those who's brain has been manipulated by self-proclaimed authorities
    and look to those "authorities" for answers. Oh yea, that's you.
    
    ...Tom

    
    >Seems he's still a bit peeved about those evil (evyl?)
    >repubs questioning his ability to be CinC and his 
    >relationship with the armed services.
    
    slick is still trying to recover from his loses early on with the gays
    in the military fiasco. jesse ain't so stupid. he knew right where to
    throw that dagger. slick is REALLY between a rock and a hard place.
    look for his admin to completely self destruct in the next 2 years.

    .94 - didn't it pretty much destruct in the first two?

    >>.94 - didn't it pretty much destruct in the first two?
    
    you ain't seen nothing yet.

    
    hillary's new numbers from cnn...
    
    approve - 48%
    disapprove - 49%

    
    >approve - 48%
    >disapprove - 49%
    
    approve/disapprove of what? her talk show appearances? mercifully the
    witch is politically dead. its her coming fight to retain power within
    this administration that could really hurt the country.

   >approve - 48%
   >disapprove - 49%
    
    ...and that poll was taken from members of the HRC fan club!

 Hillary Rodham Snarf

News clip in NewsWeek: new facts out in the Whitewater case that would
lead to indictments. Clinton's publicist flew to NYC, met with major
network bigwigs, begged them to not run this as a news item. They agreed.

    this is the beginning of a new round of panic acts to protect slick
    from his past. they will fail. the press will turn on him and his
    presidency will spiral into disgrace and, if he runs, will lose
    re-election bid in a 69-28% spread with a few for the libertarians and
    the like.

    Has anyone else received solicitations from investor newsletters which
    highlight investment strategies for "the day that Bill Clinton
    resigns because of the Whitewater scandal."?
    
    

           <<< Note 18.102 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    this is the beginning of a new round of panic acts to protect slick
>    from his past. they will fail. the press will turn on him and his
>    presidency will spiral into disgrace and, if he runs, will lose
>    re-election bid in a 69-28% spread with a few for the libertarians and
>    the like.

Wishful thinking disguised as prophesy. Example number 123,456,565,021.

    > if he runs, will lose re-election bid in a 69-28% spread with a few
    > for the libertarians and the like.
    
    depends who the GOP puts up against him.
    
    Dan Quayle's putting his hat in the ring.  You think the electorate
    will reward the GOP for putting *that* choice in front of them?  I'm
    speaking in hypotheticals, of course; I would hope that the primary
    season shows Quayle for mincemeat and he ducks out early.  But the GOP
    now has plenty of chances to shhot themselves in the foot, plenty of
    loose cannons on deck- witness Helms- and there's plenty of time for
    them to nominate a buffoon to run in the next election.
    
    DougO

    i predict Dole will be the GOP candidate...maybe Gramm.
    
    jeff

re: .106

Those choices...YUCK!!

My prediction:

  Bill Clinton v. Bill Weld.

  George

    Compared to the others, Dole will look like Eisenhower by 1996.

    I was not voicing agreement with .108...
    
    Bill Weld might make an interesting choice, but I don't think he has
    enough experience or national exposure yet.

Note 18.105 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >Dan Quayle's putting his hat in the ring.  You think the electorate
    >will reward the GOP for putting *that* choice in front of them?  I'm
    >speaking in hypotheticals, of course; I would hope that the primary
    >season shows Quayle for mincemeat and he ducks out early.  But the GOP
    >now has plenty of chances to shhot themselves in the foot, plenty of
    >loose cannons on deck- witness Helms- and there's plenty of time for
    >them to nominate a buffoon to run in the next election.
    
    its not that simple. but i am counting on a couple of things to happen.
    1) that slick's presidential incompetance coupled with exposure and
       proof of very bad past activites will drive voters away and have
       the press turn on him. that's not that far fetched.
    
    2) the repubs don't nominate a dolt. they won't. they see a golden
       opportunity now and in '96. they'll come up with a compromise
       candidate and select a strong shower as VP and cream dimms. 

I'm not anxious to elect more governors to the Presidency. We haven't done
well here:

Gerry (Whoops - watch your step, Mr. not-elected-President)
Jimmi
Ronnie
Billary

Maybe we should look at Mr. Rogers (we'd sing "Please Won't You Be My
Neighbor" to Canada and Mexico); or draft Lee Iacocca.

  Weld has national experience that he gained as one of the top people in the
Justice Department during the Reagan years. He's one of the ones that quit in
protest over the job Meese was doing as AG. 

  Being a libertarian Republican from Massachusetts he is well known in New
Hampshire and could win that primary. That would be enough to get him on the
ticket. 

  Being a moderate libertarian he would probably give Clinton more trouble than
some flaming wacko from the right wing. He's also a likable guy which would
give him an edge over other mean spirited leading contenders in the GOP. 

  And, for a Republican he'd do a good job,
  George

Note 18.114 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
  >And, for a Republican he'd do a good job,
  
    just had to throw that little jab in there didn't ya george? just
    couldn't write one decent note with the dreaded "R" word without a
    little knife to the ribs?

RE           <<< Note 18.116 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    just had to throw that little jab in there didn't ya george? just
>    couldn't write one decent note with the dreaded "R" word without a
>    little knife to the ribs?

  You got it.

  George

    >Dole will look like Eisenhower by 1996.
    
    you think he'll be dead by then?  He's only 71 now...
    
    what *do* you mean?
    
    DougO

    I predict sitting president Gore Vs. Gramm in '96.  Maybe a key
    independant and/or Libertarian candidate as well, but I don't know who.
    I doubt it'll be Perot, and I think the 3rd party may make a strong
    showing.        
    
    Y'all heard it here first.

    
    Get used to it, Gene.  Now that the Clinton agenda is dead, the
    next two years all the libs can do is whine.  Boy would I rather
    hear them do that, than just pass their idiocies into law !
    
      bb

    >    ... but i am counting on a couple of things to happen.
    > [...]
    >    2) the repubs don't nominate a dolt. they won't.
    
    Yes, that is what I was pointing out; that your unspoken assumption was
    that the GOP doesn't nominate a dolt.  Thanks for confirming.  And they
    still might.
    
    People might want to think about the fact that the '96 primary season
    will look verrrrry different, since California, pissed off at being
    handed such lousy choices in the June primaries last time, moved its
    primary up to March.  You'll see far less of the wannabes campaigning
    in the podunk states with early primaries; they'll have to spend some
    time with us voters out west much earlier now.
    
    DougO

Note 18.120 by GAAS::BRAUCHER  
    
    >Get used to it, Gene.  Now that the Clinton agenda is dead, the
    >next two years all the libs can do is whine.  Boy would I rather
    >hear them do that, than just pass their idiocies into law !
    
     yup. george et al are putting up a good front. but deep down (maybe
    not so deep) these dimms are hurtin' big time. and it ain't gonna get
    better for them in a long LONG time. their idealology has failed. i
    predict it will now suffer an ever escalating horribly painful death.

                      <<< Note 18.120 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                          -< Two more years of it... >-

    
>    Get used to it, Gene.  Now that the Clinton agenda is dead, the
>    next two years all the libs can do is whine.  Boy would I rather
>    hear them do that, than just pass their idiocies into law !

I don't know whether you're  in New England or whether you watch football, 
but there's a lesson to be learned in the Minnesota-Patriots game. Get a 
little cocky and you could find yourself on the outs real fast. You better 
hope your pals in the grand old party have more sense than you and don't 
take BC's loss for granted. We shall see...

RE           <<< Note 18.122 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>     yup. george et al are putting up a good front. but deep down (maybe
>    not so deep) these dimms are hurtin' big time. and it ain't gonna get
>    better for them in a long LONG time. their idealology has failed. i
>    predict it will now suffer an ever escalating horribly painful death.

  But you forget the one big thing we have going for us is that the GOP
ideology has failed about a half dozen times and unlike you, we don't mind
trying out something new. 

  George

    There was a big Repub bash attended by the Potty Faithful and many
    Potty Bigwigs in Wash. DC on the night of the Big Upset.  At every
    major Repub upset or victory there were wild uninhibited cheers... 
    Major disappointed BOOs upon Ollie's defeat...  but when Bill Weld's
    victory was announced, there was a conspicuous silence.  The
    commentator thought this was becuz the Potty was not interested in
    centrist Republicanism like Weld's, but reveling in a right-wing
    recrudescence.
    
    I spoze this note will be followed by some RepubApologist averring that
    the silence was not a snub, but merely was because his victoire was an
    expected thing.
    

    hooz Bill Veldt?

    >Heard on NPR...
    
     It was obvious from the spin, Dan.

    
    from my limited involvement in republican politics one thing is crystal
    clear to me - the heirarchy of power is *earned* with incredibly hard
    work and successful campaigns.  so that when someone says dole is the
    "leader" of the party, he really is the leader in the hearts and minds
    of the republican party.  he has worked hard for many, many years at
    republican politics, has been very successful and so his will cannot be
    thwarted easily.  so don't expect someone like weld or wilson to upset
    the nomination.  it will be dole, i'm almost sure.
    
    jeff

    You can be almost sure, but you are almost surely wrong. Dole won't
    take the nomination. Believe it, or don't.

RE                      <<< Note 18.128 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    from my limited involvement in republican politics one thing is crystal
>    clear to me - the hierarchy of power is *earned* with incredibly hard
>    work and successful campaigns.  

  The two most successful Republicans of the last 50 years were Ike and
Reagan, neither of whom spent all that much time working as Republicans. Ike
was a non partisan Army officer until a year or so before his election and
Reagan started off as a Democrat and an actor only partly involved in politics
before becoming a Republican to be Governor of California. 

  In fact, when you think of it, it's been a long time since anyone who had a
long career as a Republican served two full terms as President. I think you
have to go back to McKinley to find one that was elected to two terms as
President.

  George

    George, you make a good point.  Nobody even knew Eisenhower's political
    affiliation, just that he would win election easily.  (The modern-day
    equivalent is clearly Colin Powell: is he a Republican or a Democrat?)

    >  In fact, when you think of it, it's been a long time since anyone who
    >had a long career as a Republican served two full terms as President.
    
     Ok, when's the last "long time" democrat to serve two full terms as
    President? 

    Weld is far too liberal to make it as a Republican nationally.
    However, if he'd be honest and switch parties, he'd make a very
    good Democratic replacement for Clinton on the '96 ticket.  Lacking
    that, I'd say the Dem candidate in '96 will probably be Al Gore, and
    the Repub candidate will be Pete Wilson.  I wish Quayle would stay
    home, he's just going to complicate matters.
    
    I wish Schwarzkopf would run, and I don't care what party he's in.
    I've got more respect for his intelligence, experience, knowledge
    of world history and international affairs, and patience, than any
    of the politicians who are already starting to salivate over '96.
    
    Chris

RE     <<< Note 18.132 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "what's the frequency, Kenneth?" >>>

>     Ok, when's the last "long time" democrat to serve two full terms as
>    President? 

  Franklin Roosevelt comes to mind. That would have been 50 years after
McKinley. In fact, FDR was elected 4 times in a row. And he was a real career
Democrat. 

  George

    Yeah, decades before I was born. But in my lifetime, a republican
    President was returned to the oval office. Two, in fact. Interesting,
    no?
    
     And for the record, I find your implication that Reagan wasn't a
    "real" republican because he was once a democrat to be especially
    humorous in light of your belief that criminals can be rehabilitated.
    :-)

Re     <<< Note 18.136 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "what's the frequency, Kenneth?" >>>

>    Yeah, decades before I was born. But in my lifetime, a republican
>    President was returned to the oval office. Two, in fact. Interesting,
>    no?

  You are not following the discussion. This started because someone said
that Republicans have a system where by only those with years of dedication
and service to the Republican party get leadership positions. I then pointed
out that the only two successful Republican Presidents since the turn of
the century were not life long Republicans.
    
>     And for the record, I find your implication that Reagan wasn't a
>    "real" republican because he was once a democrat to be especially
>    humorous in light of your belief that criminals can be rehabilitated.

  Some criminals are rehabilitated. But what does that have to do with the
method in which Republicans pick their leaders?

  George

Note 18.128 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >People might want to think about the fact that the '96 primary season
    >will look verrrrry different, since California, pissed off at being
    >handed such lousy choices in the June primaries last time, moved its
    >primary up to March.  You'll see far less of the wannabes campaigning
    >in the podunk states with early primaries; they'll have to spend some
    >time with us voters out west much earlier now.
    
    kaliphs have always struted around in june come election year with the
    high and mighty attitude that THEY controlled the outcome. so now
    that's not so important as having decent choices. hypocritical
    attitude.
    
    one interesting bit of "possibles". had kaliph's primary been in march
    of '92 instead of much later, this trash in the WH most certainly would
    still be banging bimbos in the chicken stuffing factories.

    Dole doesn't want the nomination.  He has a good, powerful position
    now, why would he subject himself to the presidency?  Perhaps as a
    pre-retirement post?
    
    I figure it will be either Sonny Bono, Charlton Heston, or perhaps Al
    Gore.  My money's on Sonny.  Who could compete?

    Every time someone endorses him he could sing "I got you babe..."

    DOOM DOOM DOOM!!!

    
    RE: .141
    
    Sorry.... wrong....
    
     There's only two of them in the title, so it should only be:
    
     DOOM DOOM!!!
    
     Hope this helps....
    

re .98
        
    >approve - 48%
    >disapprove - 49%
    
    >>approve/disapprove of what? her talk show appearances? mercifully the
    >>witch is politically dead. its her coming fight to retain power within
    >>this administration that could really hurt the country.
    
    general approval, as in, "do you approve or disapprove of hillary's
    performance as 1st lady?"  there was some major siginificance
    attributed to the neas outnumbering the yeas, but i don't recall what.
    some kind of a first, no doubt.
    
    bill
    

    
    
    I approve of the way she put the star on top of the Christmas tree...
    very nice picture...

    
    Her pictures on the front page of the Glob and the inside yesterday were 
    both very flattering imo.

    It must be unprecedented for a First Lady to have a net negative
    job-approval rating.

    
    Probably if she hung out at the White House baking effing cookies it'd be
    higher.                                                   

    I would like a recipe for those effing cookies. I hear they're good.
    I'm tired of chocolate chip.

 Go to Effingham, Illinois.  They may have the recipe.





Jim

How many approved/disapproved of her shoe getting stuck and
slipping off while she was performing the Official Duty of
Placing The Star Atop The National Xmas Tree?

How many approve/disapprove of her always wearing slacks so
that her calves won't be on display?

    Oh Deb, you disappoint me :-)  Unfortunately, the American public
    is all too often duped by appearance.  Too many get caught up in
    "the image" and forget about substance.
    
    

    
    Karen, who's being duped?  It was just a general comment about the
    quality of the pictures.  Most pictures of her are horrendous and I was 
    surprised to see two very nice ones in one day in the Glob.
    
    My feelings about her substance I'll keep to myself 8^).
    

    >>quality of the pictures.  Most pictures of her are horrendous and I was 
    
    well they ain't got much to work with.

    don't get personal, Haag...this is the First Lady we're talking about,
    I'm sure some limolibber will call you on that...
    
    besides, you ain't no sight to behold so your reply belongs in P&K

    >don't get personal, Haag...this is the First Lady we're talking about,
    >I'm sure some limolibber will call you on that...
    
    >besides, you ain't no sight to behold so your reply belongs in P&K
    
    i know i ain't ravin beauty fritzlhead. she ain't either.

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of venison sausage... :-)

    Lloyd Bentsen quit...

    
    i heard he was planning to. he has in fact resigned?
    

>          <<< Note 18.158 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>
>
>    
>    i heard he was planning to. he has in fact resigned?
>

My hopes went up until....



I read .157!

Bruce    

    I believe he resigned but Clinton has not accepted his resignation as
    of yet.  

    >>Lloyd Bentsen quit...
    
    jack is right. slick ain't accepted the paperwork yet. but he will. 
    
    I SAID RIGHT HERE MANY TIMES that people will start bailing out on this
    clown big time now. panetta won't be around much longer. he was clearly
    uncomfortable this weekend discussing this admins role in the yugo
    mess. no one like to be associated with a loser.

    According to NPR this morning,  Benson says the announcement that he
    hasresigned is premature, much like Mark twains first obituary.
    
    meg

    
    bentsen left the impression he is indeed leaving, just not right now.
    teevee news says he's going back to texas to join his son in a 
    business venture.  

    
>    According to NPR this morning,  Benson says the announcement that he
>    hasresigned is premature, much like Mark twains first obituary.
    
 get it straight from the horses mouth.  i am not resigning at this time.
    however, as soon as the story is dropped from the news, i'll resign.
    
    jeff

    
    it seems more americans agree with jesse helms than not.  in a
    cnn/usa today poll 47% answered "no" to the question, "is bill
    clinton up to the job of commander-in-chief?"  44% said yes.
    
    
    bill

    If Bill would learn the role of a 'statesman President', instead of
    always going tit for tat, he'd be looking a lot smarter these days just
    letting ole Jesse stick his foot in his mouth.  But by mouthing off
    against the likes against Jesse and Newt, the latter whom I agree with
    his message by disagree with his method of delivery, Bill would be
    sitting quite pretty these days.

    I'm amused by the "if Bill would only do this" notes.
    
    The Clinton presidency is OVER.  
    
    The country's being run by Dole/Gingrich. 
    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 18.167 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>


| The country's being run by Dole/Gingrich.

NEWT: I wanna do...

DOLE: I am against that

NEWT: I wanna do...

DOLE: I am against that

NEWT: I wanna do...

DOLE: I am against that


	In other words, gridlock will now were a new name.... the republican
party.

>               <<< Note 18.168 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
>
>| <<< Note 18.167 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

  ...... stuff deleted because it's a liberal dream ........

>	In other words, gridlock will now were a new name.... the republican
>party.
>

Just keep repeating it over and over again, then get a buddy to use one
of the repeats as a reference, then start an arugement saying "If we assume
that Newt and Dole are at odds....."  and the next thing you know, it'll
be the subject of a whole chapter in your grandchildrens history books!

Bruce

    Glen -- let's wait and see on the gridlock possibility.  I think Dole
    and Newt will work together reasonably well, and they'll get their
    agenda advanced.

    Glen:
    
    Average staff of a democrat committee chairman - 120
    
    Average staff of the new republican chairman - 25
    
    What does this tell you Glen?
    
    -Jack

    
    That shortly it will be:
    
    Average staff of a new republican (majority) chairman - 119
    Average staff of a new democrat (minority) chairman - 2
    
    								-mr. bill

| <<< Note 18.171 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Average staff of a democrat committee chairman - 120
| Average staff of the new republican chairman - 25
| What does this tell you Glen?

	That you haven't included the 2000 staff member reduction that happened
since Clinton took over. Mr Bentsen was so kind to inform everyone of this
tidbit this morning....

    a disaster in the making. the circling of the wagons.
    
    
    
well i said it would happen. i figured that when slick got into real trouble 
politically his arrogance wouldn't let him make the moves necessary to save
his own party let alone get anything done with the repubs. after the 11/8
shelling he took i looked for some signs as to the strategy the WH is going
to take. a couple of weeks ago the witch stated in a national Q & A that the
president will stick to the policies that got him elected. that was a very
clear warning sign and i documented it right saying that's the worst position
the admin could take for it would alienate just about everyone, including vast
peoples in his own party. then the speech last night.

during a speech last night the president said he will stay the course. i 
expected this but found it hard to swallow anyway. slick said "the american
just don't understand" his achievement and policies. this was an incredibly
telling speech and set of comments. its either his blind arrogance or his
complete stupidity that has him so dogged determined to try and educate 
america on why his policies are the way to go. this after a compete rebuke
of those policies on 11/8. as much as i detest this man, i don't think he
is stupid. therefore, i believe its his arrogance that has led him to this
line of reasoning.

the president as much said that the american people were to stupid to figure
out his policies for the country. and thus voted many a friend out. there are
indeed many braindead in this country but one thing seems to slipped him by
completely. the american people spoke. they spoke loud and clear that they
DO NOT WANT this presidents policies as defined for the last 2 years. and here
is slick hollaring about staying the course. the center of the dimmicratic
party challenged their president to change that course and they were rebuked
as well. on top of that look at the other messes he's in (not counting a 
completely iept foreign policy):

 - personnal friends pleading guilty to felonies
 - whitewater coming back
 - the dimm party in outright revolt
 - a repub dominated congress hell bent for change
and on, and on.

this country is headed for very bad times here and abroad the next couple of
years.

tell me. does ANYONE think the right move is to stay the course?

    
    my wife and I were discussing last night how we thought that BC would
    find a more moderate position.  we thought that his apparantly
    emotional tie to power and public opinion would sway him to do what
    might make him look good to a larger number of people.  we were either
    wrong (it seems) or he really is blinded by something (could it be his
    wife?).
    
    jeff

    
    
    Naaaaaah... she ain't leading him around by the nads.....
    
    
    Is she???
    

    re: .175  Why doesn't Slick "get it"? (Paraphrased)
    
    I really believe that in the face of increasing failure and rejection
    by the American people (as well as the world in general), instead of
    re-evaluating his positions and philosophies like a rational person
    might do, he's instead retreating and withdrawing into himself,
    and will become increasingly defensive, aloof, strident, and
    belligerent over time.  Watch for him to raise both the volume
    and frequency of his voice over time.  Pretty soon he'll be pounding
    the podium (again).
    
    If you think Nixon went off his trolley in "the final days", wait'll
    we get a load of the undoing of Clinton.
    
    Chris

           <<< Note 18.174 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>
                          -< panic politics defined >-

>tell me. does ANYONE think the right move is to stay the course?

Yup. Some small turns here and there, but basically, he's been trying to do 
what he said he would do before he was elected. And he was elected. So I 
expect him to do what he said, not what Newt wants. I didn't vote for Newt.

Note 18.178 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
>>tell me. does ANYONE think the right move is to stay the course?
>
>Yup. Some small turns here and there, but basically, he's been trying to do 
>what he said he would do before he was elected. And he was elected. So I 

    you really ought to THINK before writing notes like this. he's
    re-nigged or compromised into oblivion just about all his campaign
    promises. that's not even a debateable statement. it's common knowledge
    by all.

    re: Note 18.178 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
    Contrary to popular opinion, The President of the United States doesn't 
    run our lives (yet).  Congress enacts legislation.  BillC
    is supposed to formulate policy/drive the bus.
    
    The people don't like where the bus is going.  BillC is sweating.
    If you look carefully at the newz, you will see BillC looks scared.
    Seriously.  What does this tell you?
                      
    It tells me a lot.    

    	re .178
    
    	Here here. 
    
    	I didn't vote for newt either. 
    
    	Unemployment is down, consumer spending is up and he tried to
    inplement national health care like he said. I would have preferred
    that he got it through, but at least he tried. Federal payroll's
    reduced by 70,000 white house staff by one quarter. Repealed the
    fedreral Gag order on abortion. Expended the earned income tax credit
    thereby lowering taxes on 15 million (rounded) Americans while only
    raising taxes on the top two highest brackets (1.5 million Americans)
    Managed to get Cedras out of Haiti with out a shot fired. (Yes I know
    he did screw up Somalia big time, without military experiance he should
    not have let the SECDEF over rule the onsite general.)
    
    7 out of 8 ain't bad
    
    Yep that's what I voted for. Keep going.
    
    							S.R.

    Yeah, "tax the rich" has been so successful in the past...

           <<< Note 18.179 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    you really ought to THINK before writing notes like this. he's

Trust me, I do. Not that it always does me any good...

>    re-nigged or compromised into oblivion just about all his campaign
>    promises. that's not even a debateable statement. it's common knowledge

I agree that he has been far to accommodating to the opposition and special 
interests. I had hoped, given his oratorial skills, that he would have been
a stronger leader and taken his centrist philisophy and its programs to the
people, pitched it hard, and gotten them to force the entrenched liberals
and reactionary conservative to back his program, like Reagan did. But he
didn't. He's too much of a pol, through and through. It's a fault, a common
fault and a disappointing fault for me since I was hoping to see
progressive policy given more fiscal responsibility, but it's not the
disaster or the crime you make it out to be. I believe he still wants to
balance progressive policies with fiscally responsible implementation, and
I hope he stays that course - only with more resolve and commitment. Maybe
coming to the realization that he has nothing to loose anymore, he'll do
that. And if he does, he'll probably be re-elected -- unless the Repubs 
live up to the gruesome partisanship that poisons DC and keep trying to 
slander him to death.

    Gosh, I don't recall any of the republicans slandering him during the
    last election...does anybody else?  And the voters kicked out a
    majority of the democrats because of evils like Limbaugh and Falwell et
    al.  
    
    Boy, you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the
    American public.
    
    -Jack

    I think bill should stay the course.  With a lot of perseverance and a
    little luck, he can demolish Washington DC as a power in the United
    States of America.  This power vacuum will be filled by governments at
    the state and local level, thus undoing decades of corruption.
    
    Other than that, I think he's a clown.
    
    re: Hillary leading him... I suspect her only control is that she would
    testify against him, but then that might go boths ways...

         <<< Note 18.184 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

>    Gosh, I don't recall any of the republicans slandering him during the
>    last election...does anybody else?  And the voters kicked out a

You've got a short memory. They haven't even stopped yet. In fact, they're 
just warming up.

>    majority of the democrats because of evils like Limbaugh and Falwell et
>    al.  

No. In fact, I don't think those guys had much to do with the election 
results at all. They preach mostly to the choir anyway.
    
>    Boy, you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the
>    American public.

Nope. I think the voting public is pretty smart by and large. Did a good 
thing cleaning house. I hope progressives come back smarter and less likely 
to take their majority for granted. 

Where you and I differ is that I believe a majority of people are
progressive. They want to make things better. They don't want to roll back 
the clock to some mythical past. But they also don't want pols who were 
given the privilege of serving them to misuse that privilege to build 
little empires for themselves. So we can them.

Conservatives will always win victories from time to time; you're part of 
nature's self-correcting process. But your time will always be fleeting. 
You can no more halt the progress of mankind than put an end to time 
itself.

Note 18.183 by USMVS::DAVIS 
    
>>    re-nigged or compromised into oblivion just about all his campaign
>>    promises. that's not even a debateable statement. it's common knowledge
>
>I agree that he has been far to accommodating to the opposition and special 
>interests. I had hoped, given his oratorial skills, that he would have been
>a stronger leader and taken his centrist philisophy and its programs to the
>people, pitched it hard, and gotten them to force the entrenched liberals
>and reactionary conservative to back his program, like Reagan did. But he
>didn't. He's too much of a pol, through and through. It's a fault, a common
>fault and a disappointing fault for me since I was hoping to see
>progressive policy given more fiscal responsibility, but it's not the
>disaster or the crime you make it out to be. I believe he still wants to
>balance progressive policies with fiscally responsible implementation, and
>I hope he stays that course - only with more resolve and commitment. Maybe
>coming to the realization that he has nothing to loose anymore, he'll do
    
    a little soul cleansing is a good thing. painful sometimes, but good.
    george, wordy, mr. bill et al know this to be true as well. they are
    simply to pigheaded to admit the truth.

Re: Note 18.186               
USMVS::DAVIS                                         31 lines   8-DEC-1994 13:25

    
>    Boy, you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the
>    American public.

>>Where you and I differ is that I believe a majority of people are
>>progressive. They want to make things better. They don't want to roll back 
>>the clock to some mythical past. But they also don't want pols who were 
>>given the privilege of serving them to misuse that privilege to build 
>>little empires for themselves. So we can them.

Excuse me?!  The house has been a consortium of misuse of public trust for
years my friend.  You talk about little empires...we just witnessed a 30 year
effort of building little empires....and incidently, people who sue their 
constituents over term limits....people who chair committes that created 
unbelievable levels of beurocracy and hacks...chairs who made the most
ridiculous rules putting them into a safe little egg shell.  Pubs were treated
as second class for years on the committees.  What Rodham did behind closed
doors with healthcare is a monumnet of the arrogance that goes on in that
administration...and you have the nads to sit there and point fingers at
me because I'm not progressive enough?  Go back and crawl under your rock!!

>>Conservatives will always win victories from time to time; you're part of 
>>nature's self-correcting process. But your time will always be fleeting. 
>>You can no more halt the progress of mankind than put an end to time 
>>itself.

What ever gave you the idea I was anything other than libertarian?  I am 
progressive for the most part...just keep your stinky laundry out of 
my paycheck and don't infringe on the rights of others.  The democrats
have set this paradigm in their mind that deficit spending will always be 
the way.  So have some repubs but dems carry the dubious honor since they 
were the majority in congress!

-Jack

         <<< Note 18.188 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

>Excuse me?!  The house has been a consortium of misuse of public trust for
>years my friend.  You talk about little empires...we just witnessed a 30 year
>effort of building little empires....and incidently, people who sue their 
>constituents over term limits....people who chair committes that created 
>unbelievable levels of beurocracy and hacks...chairs who made the most
>ridiculous rules putting them into a safe little egg shell.  Pubs were treated
>as second class for years on the committees.  What Rodham did behind closed
>doors with healthcare is a monumnet of the arrogance that goes on in that
>administration...and you have the nads to sit there and point fingers at
>me because I'm not progressive enough?  Go back and crawl under your rock!!

Strike a nerve, Jack? Yeah, the abuse of power has been building for years. 
Like any other threashold, you go through a long strench of near breaking 
before the stresses finally give. In this case, voters saw the problems of 
entrenched political power but thought that still better than truning power 
over to those who would turn back the clock to the time when men were men, 
women were women, and the aristocracy could do pretty much whatever they 
damn well pleased unfettered by taxes and regulation that would compromise 
their near absolute economic power over everyone else. But they finally 
crossed the line, and the conservs became the lesser of two evils. I expect 
that equation to change pretty quickly.

By the way, lumping HC's closed-door health care committee into your 
thesis about the left's abuse of power shows how hysteria clouds reason. 
Anyone with a sense of perspective could see that she was trying to turn 
out a workable solution to a HUGE, complicated problem within a very short 
timeframe. Not the part about the closed doors, but the impossible 
schedule. It should've been a 4-year process, not an 18-month one. That 
would allow them to have more public debate and participation. 

>What ever gave you the idea I was anything other than libertarian?  I am 
>progressive for the most part...just keep your stinky laundry out of 

Now there is an oxymoron! Progressive libertarian. If you want to see the 
libertarian ideal fully realized, hop in a boat and ride for about a week 
up the Amazon. But hold on to your hat - and the head underneath it.

Tom

     <<< Note 18.188 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
    
    >Excuse me?! The house has been a consortium of misuse of public trust
    >for years my friend.  You talk about little empires...we just witnessed a
    >30 year effort of building little empires...
    
    This is the reason that men who seek power and authority over others
    get into politics in the first place, especially national politics. It
    is interesting to me that people think the change over to republican
    control will make a differance in this respect.
    
    ...Tom

            <<< Note 18.190 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

>    This is the reason that men who seek power and authority over others
>    get into politics in the first place, especially national politics. It
>    is interesting to me that people think the change over to republican
>    control will make a differance in this respect.
    
Tom, your cinical philosophy is...um...well documented. And the above is a 
good example of the flaws in your binary theory. I've know a fair number of 
politician, some conservative, but more liberal. ALL got into politics 
because they wanted to do some good. They didn't do it to feather their 
nests. They didn't do it to suck the blood of "producers." They did it 
because they had a vision for what government should do (or not do, as the 
case may be) and felt compelled to act. There are other motivations, to be 
sure, like vanity -- and, yes, power. But they go into it most certainly not 
with the desire to get something for nothing.

But as the saying goes, power corrupts.

By the way, since you are such an admirer of business, what is the 
difference between the lure of power of higher positions in a company and 
the lure of power in politics? Is one good and one bad? Was (pick your 
favorite tycoon) good, but Abe Lincoln bad, by definition?

RE: Note 18.191
USMVS::DAVIS

>But as the saying goes, power corrupts.
    
    Most, I won't say all because that never applies, were corrupted prior
    to entering federal politics, by state or local politics. There are
    some who go directly into federal politics as an outsider but they either 
    become corrupted by the system or get out after the first term. The
    problem is one of false authority. They place themselves above their
    constituents and then for some reason we look to them for answers, when
    their answers aren't any better than yours or mine. The fact is that
    politics is the way for lazy people to have power without making an
    effort to produce something of need for society.

>By the way, since you are such an admirer of business, what is the 
>difference between the lure of power of higher positions in a company and 
>the lure of power in politics? Is one good and one bad? Was (pick your 
>favorite tycoon) good, but Abe Lincoln bad, by definition?
    
    In most cases, again I won't say all, business, especially in companies 
    run by the original founder, higher positions are the result of value
    production to the company, mostly related to profits. Profits are
    gotten by producing something that society wants and are willing to
    spend the money earned. This requires productive thinking and effort. 
    In politics it requires donated money and political clout, either gotten 
    by the person running or from some supporter. This clout is gotten not by 
    productive effort (value to society) but by the smoke filled room mentality.
    
    ...Tom

    I see the labels a'flyin here...  ;-)
    
    Progressive = Liberal = Democrat
    
    Conservative = Republican = Evil meanie
    
    Libertarian = Conservative + not rich enough to be a Republican
    
    
    How about we get a new one in here.  Republicrat, only because it
    sounds a little better than Demolican.  Now lets try our new labels.
    
    Republicrat = power mongering criminals
    
    Libertarian = harmless academics
    
    This will give us a nice basis for discussion...

    How about a libergressitivican?  Has a nice sound to it, it does. 
    

    
    Liber-rat - Libertarian pedophiles.
    
    Republitarian - A wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Missed the guy's name, but during an interview for the boob tube,
    some dim called Clinton "a Republican in drag".
    
    

    
   > Missed the guy's name, but during an interview for the boob tube,
   > some dim called Clinton "a Republican in drag".
    
    well, the proof is in the pudding.  in the last 10 days or so, our
    esteemed leader has called for an increase in defense spending,
    a middle-class tax cut, the downsizing or elimination of various
    government agencies, signed gatt, and dumped jocelyn elders.  he
    is doing the things he talked about during the campaign, but merely
    paid lip-service to until the dems got waxed last month.  it looks
    like he's getting serious.  the repubs better keep an eye out, 'cause
    if ole slick puts a stamp of moderation on the repub agenda before
    allowing a reasonable chunk of it to become law - while keeping hillary
    in the background - the public just might get to like this new balance
    of power and re-elect him, especially if perot runs, or fields a 
    candidate.  that is, if one of the scandals doesn't get him first.
    
    four more years? is it possible? aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh......
        
    bill

In article <3cmor5$s59@news1.cle.ab.com>, kdw@cle.ab.com (Ken Whitehead) writes:
From: kdw@cle.ab.com (Ken Whitehead)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Castro laments Democrats defeat
Date: 14 Dec 1994 12:35:49 GMT
Organization: n/a
Lines: 13
Distribution: world

Paraphrased from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 12/14/94:

In an article written by Tim Golden & Larry Rohter of the New York Times
and reprinted today in the PD, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro commented on
the recent summit in Miami, which Cuba was not invited to, but that's not
the interesting part.  In the article, Castro is quoted as lamenting,
"How is it that the US voters showed so little mercy toward their President
last month?  The young candidate seemed to have such an atractive social
agenda..."  Castro went on to say that while many other nations wanted
Bush to win the '92 election, he rooted for Clinton.  "We hope he will
be successful." 

No need to comment further, IMHO, that just kind of says it all.

    
    Well, Bill y C. went before the nation with his version of a
    middle-class tax cut :  Ups child deduction under 13 years and
    $75K to $5K, up to $10K deduction for college tuition, and wants
    the IRA back.  Republican senator Tennessee Freddy came on after
    and decried, "Politics as usual" but promised to work with the Prexy
    if he means it.
    
    Dept of Energy is probably going/gone.  Remains tucked into Commerce.
    
    HUD is going to get big chop-chop.  (this isn't news)
     
     BB

> wants the IRA back

Sinn Fein will be happy to hear that.

    paper here is ranting and raving about the lose of a national social
    conscience. what fools. gotta love it.

* According to a USA Today note from the newspaper Yedioth
Ahronoth, an Israeli woman filed for divorce in October because
her husband had become so infatuated with Hillary Rodham Clinton
that he ordered her to color and style her hair in a manner
similar to Ms. Clinton's.  During Ms. Clinton's visit to Jerusalem
in October, the man waited in front of her hotel "for hours" just
to see her. [USA Today, 11-1-94; Charlotte Observer, 11-4-94]

	But WHICH version of her hair????? 

    NEWS ANALYSIS / Deficit Drops Off Clinton's Top 10 List 


    David E. Rosenbaum 

    Washington 

    For the first two years of his presidency, Bill Clinton insisted that
    reducing  the federal budget deficit was his highest calling. Last
    night, he reversed course. What is  most important is not the details
    of what he proposed: a variety of tax breaks  designed mostly for their
    political appeal and a seemingly pain-free method of raising the 
    revenue to pay for them. 

    The Republican Congress is no more likely to adopt this president's
    budget  offerings than the Democratic congresses were likely to accept
    former President George Bush's. 

    Much more significant is what the measures say about how the president
    is  positioning himself ideologically for his next two years in office
    and his race for  re-election. 

    Rather than try to persuade the public that the deficit is a corrosive
    force  that must be brought under control to keep it from eating away
    at the country's economic  roots, a view held by most economists but
    relatively few politicians, Clinton has opted for  the course
    Republicans have followed for years. 

    For him, as well as for his political opponents, lowering the deficit
    will play  second fiddle to lowering taxes. 

    The Republicans who will be controlling Congress beginning next year
    have  promised to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
    budget by early in the next century, but they have given no indication
    whatsoever how they intend to  accomplish that. Instead, they have
    emphasized the handsome tax breaks in their script. 

    Clinton's tax proposals are not so generous, but for better or worse,
    he is on  the same stage. 

    The president's advisers dispute the notion that he has flip- flopped
    on this  issue the way he did, for example, on policies regarding Haiti
    and Bosnia-Herzegovina. 

    The advisers say that Clinton has always wanted a middle-class tax cut
    -- after  all, he proposed one during his election campaign -- but that
    reducing the deficit had  to come first. 

    For three straight fiscal years, the deficit has fallen. In part, that
    is  because of the budget Clinton pushed through Congress last year.
    The deficit is expected to begin to  rise once more in the fiscal year
    that begins next October unless taxes are increased or  spending is
    reduced further. The president ignored that in his speech last night. 

    Presidential assistants who spoke to reporters yesterday on the
    condition that  they not be identified insisted that the tax cuts
    Clinton was offering would be fully offset  by spending reductions. 

    Maybe so. But the proposed tax breaks were described with considerable 
    specificity. The spending cuts were described only in the most general
    terms. 

    A White House spokesman said the administration would describe the tax
    measures  in even greater detail today but would not deal publicly with
    the specifics of the  spending reductions until next week. 

    No mention was made last night of reducing the deficit further in any 
    significant way or of steps to keep it from rising beginning in 1996. 

    The most unpleasant part of the president's tax proposals -- that they
    will be  gradually introduced over a period of years rather than
    becoming effective immediately --  also was not discussed. 

    Furthermore, most of the savings in spending -- $52 billion out of a
    total of  $76 billion -- would be accomplished without immediate
    political pain by extending the freeze  on discretionary spending
    programs through the year 2000. 

    The freeze has been in effect since 1991 and was to have expired in
    1998. It has  indeed held down spending. But the administration is not
    saying which programs are in  line for cuts in 1999 and 2000 to
    maintain the freeze, whether they would be in the  military or social
    programs or what. 

    Since no one knows who would take the hit, there is no current
    political cost to  the president. 

    Some of the staff assistants who have worked on budget-cutting measures
    for two  years expressed disappointment last night. 

    One young assistant said bitterly, ``This is a rather Orwellian view of
    fiscal  responsibility, to cut taxes just as the deficit begins to
    soar.'' 

    And an economist on a congressional staff said: ``The first rule when
    you're in  a hole is to stop digging. We're in a hole. But they're
    starting to dig again.'' 

    DougO:
    
    In your eyes, doesn't it seem a tad suspicious that this is
    happening...coming from your candidate and all?
    
    -Jack

    Is it 'suspicious' that Clinton is trying to out-republican the
    republicans?  no, its just politics.  The people have spoken.  They
    don't want deficit reduction, apparently.  They don't want to hear
    about complicated problems like health care reform.  They just want
    lower taxes and feel good sloganeering.  Clinton is just trying to
    please.  I'm disgusted, not suspicious.  The way to beat the GOP is to
    point out loudly and often that their proposals will worsen the deficit
    sooner, and veto their bills.  He isn't doing it.  He's wrong.
    
    DougO

    Welfare Reform Worries Doctors / 
    They predict epidemic of uninsured 


    Washington 

    Millions more Americans will be forced to go without health insurance
    if the new Congress slashes the welfare rolls, doctors who favor a
    Canadian-style,  tax-financed universal health system said yesterday. 

    Almost 40 million Americans now lack health insurance, and their ranks
    would  have swelled to 50 million had it not been for a dramatic
    expansion in Medicaid,  according to the doctors' report, ``The Growing
    Epidemic of Uninsurance.'' 

    ``Even the current Scrooge-like Medicaid system is threatened by
    welfare  reform,'' Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of the Harvard Medical
    School and Cambridge Hospital said at  a news conference. 

    The report, drawn from Census Bureau data, said the number of uninsured 
    Americans has grown by 6.3 million since 1989 despite the addition of
    10.5 million people  to Medicaid rolls. 

    Since families enrolled in the main welfare program, Aid to Families
    with  Dependent Children, also get Medicaid, ``slashing AFDC
    eligibility would automatically  slash Medicaid, leaving millions more
    uninsured,'' the report cautioned. 

    ``Even if many of those cut off AFDC find jobs, most are sure to be
    low-wage  positions without health benefits,'' warned the study by
    Woolhandler and others from the  Center for National Health Program
    Studies in Cambridge, Mass., Physicians for a  National Health Program,
    and the Public Citizen Health Research Group. 

    Woolhandler said she recently lost a 46-year-old patient who ignored
    chest pains  for two days because he lacked insurance. She and her
    co-authors advocate a government-financed health system for all. 

    The ranks of the uninsured have been growing by 100,000 a month. 

    If current trends continue, 43 million Americans will be uninsured by
    the 1996  elections, Woolhandler and Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe of Public
    Citizen predicted at a news  conference. 

    But if Medicaid stops growing at 200,000 a month, ``the number of
    uninsured will approach 50 million by 1996,'' the report said. And if
    ``AFDC is slashed, the  number may be closer to 60 million.'' 

    Some 15.3 percent of Americans lack health insurance. 

    Two-thirds of the uninsured come from families with incomes under
    $25,000. But  the report said the percentage of middle-income Americans
    (up to $50,000 income)  with no insurance has climbed to 12 percent
    from 8 percent in 1989. 

    Some 3.8 million people with incomes over $50,000 had no insurance. 

    Clinton Spokeswoman Myers Quits / 
    She was first woman to hold prestigious White House post 


    Washington 

    White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers has formally notified
    President  Clinton that she will leave her job as the president's chief
    spokeswoman at the end of the  year. 

    Myers, who fought off an attempt by White House Chief of Staff Leon E.
    Panetta  to replace her as part of a staff overhaul this fall, said
    yesterday she has not  decided what to do once she leaves. Her last day
    in the position will be December 31, but she  will leave the White
    House next week for Christmas with her family and not return. 

    Myers, who had spent her career in California before joining the
    Clinton team,  said she has held discussions on several job offers and
    will sign up with a Washington  agent to give some speeches but has not
    settled on her future. 

    The first woman to hold the prestigious White House post, Myers most
    likely will  be replaced by a man, sources said. The leading candidate
    is State Department  spokesman Michael McCurry, approached earlier by
    Panetta for the job. 

    Myers served as press secretary in Mayor Frank Jordan's campaign. She
    held the  same post in Dianne Feinstein's 1990 bid for governor and the
    California campaign of Democrat Michael Dukakis in the 1988
    presidential race. 

    She was a popular figure inside the White House. ``She is the toughest, 
    funniest, quickest press secretary any of us has ever worked with, and
    she handled some tough times  with grace and skill,'' said senior
    adviser George Stephanopoulos. 

    Myers's tenure at the White House was a rocky one, attributed by her
    supporters  there to Clinton's original decision to diminish her post
    in rank, stature and access  while still expecting her to function --
    as press secretaries have in recent history -- as  one of the most
    important and powerful players in the White House. 

    An avid and relentless defender of Clinton, Myers got his protection
    when  Panetta moved to shift her out of her post. She appealed to the
    president, who overruled  Panetta, upgraded the post and reportedly
    told Myers she could stay in the post until she  decided to leave. Last
    week, she said, she made that decision. 
    

    
    Of course, we don't know yet.  But I still think it's a good bet
    that draconian spending cuts, and large layoffs among feds are
    coming attractions.
    
    And I'm encouraged by the bipartisan interest in Entitlements.
    My own rule would be this : An Entitlement must have an independent
    revenue source.  Anything else is an Appropriation.  No COLAs, no
    guarantees.  When we can afford it, we do it, when not, we don't.
    
    Social Security would stand this test.  Federal pensions, welfare,
    medicaid, medicare - none of these would.
    
    I'm sorry to sound harsh, but this is the sort of medicine the USA
    spending disease requires.
    
      bb

Note 18.207  by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    >lower taxes and feel good sloganeering.  Clinton is just trying to
    >please.  I'm disgusted, not suspicious.  The way to beat the GOP is to
    >point out loudly and often that their proposals will worsen the deficit
    >sooner, and veto their bills.  He isn't doing it.  He's wrong.
    
    many of us have know all along he is a man without conviction,
    characterer,...guts. he will say/do whatever is politically acceptable
    for that DAY. he's been wrong since day one. he will not change. our
    best option is to rid ourselves of him asap. no later than nov. '96.

    
    Well, I'm encoraged.  I think he has read the mood of the country
    and is belatedly changing course.  He IS the Prez, he CAN modify
    the Republican agenda constructively.  You may be very surprised
    at how bipartisan this is going to go.
    
    I noticed that after the speech, many Repubs were respectful.  The
    tuition idea (which is new, unlike the rest) is a very good one
    and I bet something like it passes this year.
    
    The tax legislation (inevitable now - only the compromising remains)
    will come AFTER budget cuts, which will come AFTER various reforms.
    
    Hope everybody has CSPAN come January !
    
      bb

    
    Herb Stein and Charles Schultz were on NPR and when questioned 
    about the tax adjustments, called them giveaways to the middle
    class and ill-advised at a time when the budget deficit reduction
    should be recieving priority.
    
    They noted that by and large those who have the aptitude for higher
    ed. generally go to college or university  regardless of official
    government encouragement. 
    
    I think the cuts in the departments are a good thing, but in my
    view we have to apply that money to fund our deficit, keep HEAD
    START, and improve our readiness. As the deficit reduces the tax 
    bite should come down, for everyone, not just those with kids under
    13 or with tuition bills. 
    
    Encouraging the IRA contributions with favorable tax treatment? yes!.
    Frugality and deferred reward was once a feature of this nation's
    ethic. We should encourage it to be so again.

    went to a Christmas gathering over the weekend and met a government
    employee who had been on an overseas assignment for the past 3 yrs...he
    said that this administration is laughed at in Europe and cannot be
    believed since they obviosly flip-flop on very issue trying the find
    the right political winds to sail; newspaper editors of the major daily
    call for a wait til '96 approach to dealing constructively with the
    US on any iniatives.
    
    On another topic with the same guv employee, the head of his agency
    told the Congressional review board that they would hit to 25% target
    of headcount reduction by GFY96 and was told by the CRB to keep on
    cutting till they hit 33%...their problem is like Digital's - the
    talent is walking away leaving professional bureaucrats to run what
    remains into the ground...he's looking for an early-out since next year
    he'll reach the magical age/service number.

    Gene:
    
    >many of us have know all along he is a man without conviction,
    >characterer,...guts. he will say/do whatever is politically acceptable
    >for that DAY. he's been wrong since day one. he will not change. our
    >best option is to rid ourselves of him asap. no later than nov. '96.
    
    I'd be very interested in knowing a politician who is not this way.
    Remember the number one job of *ALL* (and I really think that the word
    all applies in this case) politicians is to either keep there jobs, by
    being re-elected or by setting themselves up for a future outside of
    politics. Anybody who relies on any of these guys to get a job done for
    the people has their head in the toilet.
    
    ...Tom

Note 18.217 by DASHER::RALSTON
    
    >>many of us have know all along he is a man without conviction,
    >>characterer,...guts. he will say/do whatever is politically acceptable
    >>for that DAY. he's been wrong since day one. he will not change. our
    >>best option is to rid ourselves of him asap. no later than nov. '96.
    >
    >I'd be very interested in knowing a politician who is not this way.
    
    tom,
    
    as with everything, there are degrees of rotteness and incompetance.
    slick has taken those traits to new lows for a sitting president of the
    US. what ron said back a couple of notes it what i've been saying for
    years. and its scary. our allies and foes (and potential foes) are
    rapidly losing respect for the office of the president of the US.
    that's an EXTREMELY dangerous position for us to be in. it incites
    opportunism and risky ventures. it also will tempt this president, when
    he finally gets a clue and figures it out (if ever), to try for a "ninth
    inning home run." that could get a lot of people killed for virtually
    nothing but a dying political career. not a pretty picture.

    re: .218, Gene
    
    I agree with all that you say here Gene. The problem I have is that the
    same can be said for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush, 
    such as: 
    
        >>he will say/do whatever is politically acceptable
        >>he will not change.
    
    The office of president has changed from one of leadership, based on
    what is best for each individual in the US, to one of political and
    personal power. Unless we elect someone who cares that the freedom
    and prosperity of each individual American is of prime importance, the
    US will continue to decline until the country is in ruins.
    
    ...Tom
    
    
    
    
     Buffer: NOTES$EDIT                              | Read-only | Insert |
    Forward
    
    Press F10 or CTRL/Z to add your note
    

    tom, re-read my note. i stated that this president has driven the
    office of the president to new lows. really low lows. 

    RE: .220, Gene
    
    >i stated that this president has driven the office of the president to new 
    >lows. really low lows.
    
    Yes, and I think the next president will continue lower and lower,
    unless we elect someone like I described. Changing from a democrat
    politician to a republican politician and perhaps back again will never
    change the direction in which we are moving.
    
    
    ...Tom

    
    Oh come one.  Lows, yes. "New lows", no.  Andrew Johnson (D) vs his
    GOP congress, and Richard Nixon (R) vs. his Dem one got lower than
    this.  Clinton is just another prex on track to lose his re-election
    bid, just like Ford, Carter, Bush.  Truman (1952) and Johnson (1968)
    at least had the good sense to withdraw when it became hopeless.  It
    would not surprise me if Clinton decides not to run.  So what ?  In
    all of our history, single term prexies are the norm, not the
    exceptions.
    
      bb

    BB:
    
    Maybe you missed my note I entered yesterday concerning the Europoean
    viewpoint of this President and administration.  It's actually worse
    than when Carter was President because then, there were still 2
    Superpowers... 

    
    Yes, but he was eligible.  Party leaders talked him out of it.
    See McCollough's bio.  bb
    

    Truman was a stupid Irish mobster...

> a stupid Irish mobster...

Dear me, I thought he was talking about Billy Bulger.
No...  sorry...  that'd be Whitey Bulger.

    No...I'm talking about Harry S. Truman.
    
    Harry Truman was in cahoots with the Prendergast gang...Irish mobsters
    from the mid west!  His hands were just as dirty as Joe Kennedys...
    
    -Jack

    
    Harry S Truman.
    	   ^
    	   no dot.
    
    NNTTM.

    Ok...I'll bite....
    
    What is NNTTM?
    
    -Meaty

    No Need To Thank Me.
    
    NNTTMHA

    hairy arse?

    <---- CLose enough. But, please, not too close, eh?
    
    8^)

Interesting commentary on the radio this morning. Seems that Bill is proposing
several ways to cut government spending; all of them initially proposed by the
Reagan administration. These were cuts that Bill talked about during
his campain but once in office he ran into stiff opposition from guess who?
The democratic leadership in congress. Seems the common-tators thought that
Bill will be able to get more of what he promised the american people because
of the republican congress and that his second 2 years should be better than
his first 2, setting him up for his presidential re-election as the president 
who can work with the republican congress!

Doug.

    It's all a plot...but I'll take the rest of my ravings to the NWO
    topic, for the conspiracy impaired.  8^)

    Whitewater? Still there unresolved and being quite ignored by the
    media, the same media who could not get enough of Watergate and any
    rumors associated with it. I am also curious as to why Hillary isn't
    the Secretary of the Treasury. Anyone who can turn $10,000 into a 
    $100,000 in one year is a financial genius. 
    
    
         

                      <<< Note 18.240 by SECOP1::CLARK >>>
                       -< Whitewater is still with him >-

>    Whitewater? Still there unresolved and being quite ignored by the
>    media, the same media who could not get enough of Watergate and any
>    rumors associated with it. I am also curious as to why Hillary isn't

The reason is simple, if you're not rabid:

1) There's no news to report, so why report? I know you'd LIKE there to be 
shocking revelations, but tough.

2) Whitewater wasn't about corrupting the democratic process by a SITTING 
president. It's a decade-old "scandal" that would have died a log time ago 
if the repubs didn't latch onto it as a key part of their political 
strategy to discredit Clinton. Given the election results, one wonders why 
they still seem determined to beat a dead horse, so to speak. Maybe they 
see morelife in the red-nosed man from Arkansas then most of the 'boxers...    
         

    Whitewater will be back to haunt the Clintons.  A few days after
    the election I believe I read that a lot was put on hold "temporarily"
    because of the shuffling of so many committee members.
    
    The media obviously does not WANT to now what went on (where are
    Woodward and Bernstein when you need them).  The media will be forced
    to cover this, but their inaction so far shows just how slanted they've
    become.
    
    Nixon didn't get nailed for the WG break in, he got nailed for the cover-
    up and so will the Clintons.  Once they've been booted from the WH,
    they'll get to pay the piper.
    
    

    These no news to report on the OJ trial but we keep getting bombarded
    with that crap?
    
    CSPAN only!
    
    

    
    Saw a bumper sticker yesterday at the Pheasant Lane Mall that read: 
    
    
    SMOKE THE DOPE
    FROM HOPE IN '96
                  
    
    It took me a few minutes 8^).

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
    
 re   Note 18.240                              
      SECOP1::CLARK                                     
                       -< Whitewater is still with him >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Whitewater? Still there unresolved and being quite ignored by the
>    media, the same media who could not get enough of Watergate and any
>    rumors associated with it.
    	
         Funny, a short while back the conserative defenders of Newt, over
    in the Newt Gingrich note, were saying that the allagations that Newt
    had to be halled into court before he would pay child support are not
    true, because, if they were the media would be all over them. But if
    the media is not all over whitewater it's because they don't want to
    be. I guess it's amazing what you can assume when you work from the
    premise that any media coverage you don't like is biased.
    
>    	 I am also curious as to why Hillary isn't
>    the Secretary of the Treasury. Anyone who can turn $10,000 into a 
>    $100,000 in one year is a financial genius. 
    
    
     Because She was investing in comodities, which is a riscky venture, not
    appropraite for goverment. Just ask orange county about high risk
    investments for gov. funds. Sorry, but no scandal here either.
    
    
    								S.R.   
    

    re -1
    
    
    you're a worse grammar and speller than i. and you did it without
    trying. 

    	re -1
    
    	Sorry, I'm dsylexic and I don't know how to use a the spell checker
    on vax. No excuse for the Grammar though, just in a hurry.

Re: <<<Note 18.245  DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE>>>
    	
   >      Funny, a short while back the conserative defenders of Newt, over
   > in the Newt Gingrich note, were saying that the allagations that Newt
   > had to be halled into court before he would pay child support are not
   > true, because, if they were the media would be all over them. But if
   > the media is not all over whitewater it's because they don't want to
   > be. I guess it's amazing what you can assume when you work from the
   > premise that any media coverage you don't like is biased.
    
the media is not all over whitewater because someone took a poll a few
months ago which resulted in the majority of those polled saying that
whitewater was receiving too much coverage.  the week-end after the poll
results were released, most of the news shows covered the newly red-hot
topic of ww over-coverage, and by sunday evening the entire media had
stopped talking about it.  this probably had nothing to do with the fact
that bill clinton's negatives were dragging down the whole dem party, and
whitewater was known by the pollsters to be the main reason that these
negatives were so high. ;^) (recall that hillary's negatives had ramped up
after the commodities windfall was made public, as well.)  unfortunately
for the liberal media though, the non-coverage of the clinton scandals
prior to the election didn't help, and with the repubs being in control
of the committees in the next congress, the media coverage for the time
being is irrelevant. but, they'll be there with bells on when the hearings
start.  

the knee-jerk negative coverage of newt doesn't have anything to do
with the non-coverage of whitewater.  the media - especially the teevee
networks - should be ashamed of themselves for exercising daily
fact-free vendettas against him.  not to be unexpected though, from a
group of "journalists" who clearly demonstrated during the '80s that
they were more sympathetic toward gorbie than our own president, ronald
reagan.

its time for brokaw, jennings, and rather to follow foley, sasser, and
simon into the public bit-bucket.

bill

    

    re: Note 18.241 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS
    
    > The reason is simple, if you're not rabid:
    
    No news to report?  Hmmmm, I'm sick of effin OJ news... howbout
    something different?

    <<< Note 18.249 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
                    -< PS. Clark, it was $1000 -> $100000 >-

>    No news to report?  Hmmmm, I'm sick of effin OJ news... howbout
>    something different?

I'm with you there, Mike. Trouble is, the public eats that crap up, so the 
media, a bottom-line-driven operation to the end, trip over each other for 
the privilege of feeding them. Not nearly the widespread appetite for 
unspectacular white-collar crime.

    What actually happened in Whitewater may have happened a decade ago,
    but BC and his gang are lieing(sp?) about it now.  That is what we must
    concern ourselves with.  If they are not telling the truth about
    Whitewater, how can we trust them to tell the truth about other things,
    such as our so-called health care crisis.
    
    ME

       <<< Note 18.251 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>

>    What actually happened in Whitewater may have happened a decade ago,
>    but BC and his gang are lieing(sp?) about it now.  That is what we must
			     ^^^^^^|
				   Alledgedly

>    concern ourselves with.  If they are not telling the truth about
>    Whitewater, how can we trust them to tell the truth about other things,
>    such as our so-called health care crisis.
    
Suppose it turns out that the accusations leveled "for the good of the 
country" by BC's repub allies turn out to be false. Can we trust them on 
tax policy or any other topic of governance?

    I think that the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality rate
    of simalarly developed nations says a lot about the state of health
    care in the US.

>    I think that the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality rate
>    of simalarly developed nations says a lot about the state of health
>    care in the US.

I think the fact that all the people who can afford medical care in the US
come here instead of their own simalary developed country says a lot about
the state of health care in the US.

I think the fact that most infant mortalities happen to families on welfare
says a lot about our governments ability to provide good health care.

/scott

>I think the fact that most infant mortalities happen to families on welfare
>says a lot about our governments ability to provide good health care.

Do you think those on welfare would get better healthcare if welfare were
eliminated?

>>I think the fact that most infant mortalities happen to families on welfare
>>says a lot about our governments ability to provide good health care.
>
>Do you think those on welfare would get better healthcare if welfare were
>eliminated?

If welfare was eliminated, and nothing else took it's place? I wouldn't
say they'd get better, but I don't think they'd get much worse...

However, if you want to include not only welfare being eliminated, but 
something taking it's place, then yes, they would get better health care.

This "something" is as follows:  (note, this only deals with healthcare,
and is only a very rough idea)

Allow all contributions to medical facilities to be tax deductable (with
no limit). Then the money pooled into these facilities would be allowed 
to be invested in anyway the facility wished. All interest would be tax free.
Then create a law which says if you do not have health insurance, and 
can not afford health insurance (say you make under $X) you medical bills at
a facility will be paid in full by it's local investement fund.
Also make a law stating that the only withdrawels a medical facility are
allowed to make are to pay for medical bills or to be donated to another 
medical facility's fund. 

Also, any type of health care will be covered under this, not just emergency
care... thus providing an incentive to get regular checkups, etc.

If the medical facilities investment fund starts to get too low, then they
go to their community for help, much like blood drives, but you'll donate 
your money instead of blood...

How's that for a rough description of what I'd like to see?

/Scott

That's very nice, but what makes you think it would work?

    Do this...upgrade all hospital automation, implement heavy tort reform,
    remove obtrusive government policies...and congrats...you have just cut
    the brunt of healthcare costs!!!
    
    -Jack

    Get humn doctors, they don't get sued as often as the pompous ones.
    
    This was shown to be true among ob/gyn's in a study.  Those who
    appeared to their clients to actually care about them as people were
    sued 25% as much as those who had the bedside matter of pitbulls, no
    matter what the outcome.
    
    meg 

    That's human acting doctors.

Note 18.253 by CSC32::M_EVANS 
    
    >I think that the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality rate
    >of simalarly developed nations says a lot about the state of health
    >care in the US.
    
    no it doesn't. it says a lot about rampant drug usage among young women
    giving birth. eliminate infant deaths caused by bad lifestyle choices
    and the mortality rate plumments. that has nothing to do with the
    "state of health care in the US".

>That's very nice, but what makes you think it would work?

it would save the tax payers mucho bucks... as their taxes go down, they
have more money in their pockets. When people have more money, they give
to charity much more (instead of having the money they would've given taken
from them via taxes and wasted)... Also, having no cap on how much you
can deduct will also increase the amount of money available to cover those 
who don't have coverage and can not afford it... (note, if you can afford it 
but choose not to have it, then you are not eligable to be covered by the 
medical funds...)

I think it's pretty obvious that it'd work a heck of a lot better then the
current system which wastes money and doesn't encourage regular checkups,
etc., plus it'd make lots more people feel charitable and better since they
feel their money would be going for good use (I know I would...)

Of course, there still might be problems with it... I mean, I just thought
the idea up today...

/Scott

    re: .261
    
     Haag's right on this. The high infant mortality has much less to do
    with the state of healthcare than it does with the state of the women
    and girls having these children who consistently make poor lifestyle
    choices (smoking, drinking, drugs, poor nutrition, etc.) Providing the
    very best in healthcare cannot eliminate infant mortality among people
    too stupid to take care of themselves during pregnancy and take proper
    care of their babies after delivery.

    While drug use and teen pregnancy can account for some of this, our
    high infant mortality rate has been going on since the 50's.  It has
    been proven that prenatal care from the first trimester on, and
    appropriate counseling regarding nutrition and drug use (including
    alcohol and tobacco) reduces low birth weights and infant mortality.
    
    However, try finding that care.  Even with a reasonable insurance
    program finding a participating care-giver that could see me in my
    first trimester two years ago proved to be impossible.  Those without
    access to decent health insurance are most likely never to see anyone
    until they show up at the ER in labor.  Find an OB in this town who
    takes medicaid and you are most likely going to find yourself on a
    waiting list that pushes you well beyond 16weeks before your first
    visit.  
    
    meg

    The paucity of OBs  is mostly due to the astronomical cost of insurance
    and the fear of malpractice suits (according to the ob/gyns I've met
    and spoken to about this issue, including the ones who delivered my
    daughters.)

    .265
    
    Quite right.  A few months ago the Atlanta Constipation had a 
    lengthy article about the number of OBs that were becoming strictly
    GYNs because they couldn't afford malpractice insurance.  Sadly enough
    most of them were in some of Georgia's more rural counties where
    there aren't exactly an abundance of OB/GYNs to begin with.  Women
    are having to drive considerable distances for pre-natal care and to
    deliver their babies.  The only ironic part of the article is one of
    the women who was featured in the article was the wife of a lawyer;
    she wasn't a happy camper, especially when the reporter indicated
    that others (including her husband who had a rep for suing doctors)
    was part of the problem.
    
    

>                                            Find an OB in this town who
>    takes medicaid and you are most likely going to find yourself on a
>    waiting list that pushes you well beyond 16weeks before your first
>    visit.  
    
FWIW, my friend the high-risk OB told me they receive roughly half of
what they bill.

Note 18.263 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
    
    >> Haag's right on this.
    
    i can now leave and rest in peace.

    as always, Gene, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

    re: Note 18.253 by CSC32::M_EVANS
    
    > I think that the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality
    > rate of simalarly developed nations says a lot about the state of
    > health care in the US.
    
    Not so.  In the US, Doctors will make major efforts to save a baby or
    child which is doomed in other countries.  A 5 month old premature
    baby who dies after a few weeks of survival is added to the
    infant mortality rate.  The statistics don't tell the whole story.
    
    MadMike

re .-1:

Huh?  If the baby dies shortly after birth or five months later, it's still
counted in the infant mortality rate.

>   <<< Note 18.271 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>
>re .-1:
>
>Huh?  If the baby dies shortly after birth or five months later, it's still
>counted in the infant mortality rate.
>

The baby was 4 months short of 9 months in the womb!

Bruce

OK, so if it dies when it's born prematurely or several months later,
it goes into the infant mortality rate, no?

    
    U.S. District Judge Susan Wright says there is nothing in the 
    Constitution that would provide Clinton immunity from the lawsuit
    Paula Jones has brought against him, but she has ruled that the suit 
    will wait until Clinton is no longer in office, noting that because 
    Jones didn't file the suit until two days before the statute of 
    limitations would have run out, there was no apparent urgency in 
    the case.
    

While the trial won't start till after he's out of office, pre-trial
stuff can happen while he's in office, like depositions, etc...

will the public have access to this stuff, like the pre-trial stuff of 
the OJ case???

/scott

    I think it's a shame.  Too bad the democrats set a prescedent with the
    Clarence Thomas hearings...otherwise, he wouldn't be in this
    predicament.
    
    By the way, I hope Patricia Ireland and company are supporting Ms.
    Jones in this.  
    
    -Jack

    jack the shame is that msss. patty and that nest of feminazi's in NOW
    are NOT supporting paula. they've dismissed the charges as baseless.
    damned hypocrites the whole lot of them.

    
    Clinton just announced he will seek reelection at a press conference
    today.
    
    He said he wasn't worried about his party nominating somebody else.
    
    

    Saw in USA Today that Gephardt was considering running against
    Clinton.
    
    

RE: Note 18.280
    
    >Clinton just announced he will seek reelection at a press conference
    >today.
    
   And I'm sure everyone participating in the press conference will vote
    for him.  :-)
    
    ...Tom    
    

    Gephart or Clinton?  I would hate it if I were a Dem.
    
    Paula Jones comment:
    Clinton comes out as a loser as the pre-trial stuff still goes on. 
    Many people will use the allegations to bash Clinton.  BC would be
    better off if the charges were taken care of.  It would leave no
    questions unanswered.
    
    ME

    That's easy coming from you Komar...your a judge!  
    
    BUT DON'T WORRY...MY SENTENCE ENDS IN 1...(COUNT EM)...1 DAY
    CHUMP!!!!!!!!!! 

    Any one see Paula in a recent Penthouse? She doesn`t look exactly like
    little miss innocent!

    I heard those photos were expected to be for her boyfriend's eyes only,
    and that she sued to keep them from being publicised. Quite a different
    thing than if she accepted an offer to do a layout for Penthouse, IMO.

    .286
    That`s not the issue. Seems to me that Tanya Harding tried to sue them
    as well (she lost also I think). I think she left herself open for this
    type of action from her ex-boyfriend. 

    
    Bottom line is just don't trust men, then?  Hmph.  Nice.

    Deb, when are your new pixs coming out?

    
    
    Anyone who would take pics of a SO and then sell them, or show them to
    anyone else is scum.  Plain and simple.
    
    
    Mike

>    Any one see Paula in a recent Penthouse? She doesn`t look exactly like
>    little miss innocent!

Those pics have nothing to do with what happened between her and Clinton...
As others have said, those pics were for private eyes only... it doesn't
relate on her character one bit. (Now, if she did a spread for all the
world to see, that would be different...)

Anyways, they are pretty lame... she's just topless in 'em... 

/scott

    .-1 that's fur shure.... :-)

    >Anyone who would take pics of a SO and then sell them, or show them to
    >anyone else is scum.  Plain and simple.
    
    
    worse than that mikey. they are slimy, greasy, low life, pond scum
    ameoba's (sp).

    If you all think it is so bad why isn`t it against the law? I don`t
    think I ever said I agreed with what he has done but it is obviously
    not against the law. Perhaps women should know more about the man they
    undress for!

    
    
    
    Cuz we don't want government to dictate common decency.  Next question?

    
    Oh, well, yes I see Mr.Crane, put the blame on the victim.  Lovely.
    
    I'm sure we've all, or at least most of us have, been screwed over by
    someone we trusted.

	pictures of the dynamic duo to whom this note is devoted
	can be found in the new AHD.  oh joy.  oh rapture.  oh please.

    No, I don`t think I intended to put blame on her, if I did then I`m
    sorry. Yes, I also have been screwed over by someone I trusted but I
    also learned to be more cautious about the people that I put my trust
    in. If you are concerned about putting the blame on the victim then why
    is Mr. Clintion to blame? Because she says so...I don`t think so.

>	pictures of the dynamic duo to whom this note is devoted
>	can be found in the new AHD.  oh joy.  oh rapture.  oh please.



 what?!?!?

    
    I'm not discussing the President, merely the photos in the nudiemag.

 >>   	AHD?

	american heritage dictionary

    1995.
    
    Isn't this the year that Hillary gets indicted?

    Got a major kick out the attempted "Post Mortem" on WhiteWater
    that the press was doing on CSPAN... saying how "we all got
    carried away and it was fueled by political opposition blah
    blah blah..." When, in fact, the fun hasn't even begun yet.
    
    I wonder what it is about being "in the media" that attracts
    so many people with their heads wedged in their rectums...
    
    -b

    ...fergits she ain't in JOYOFLEX... 
    
    |-{:-)
         

      >>            -< Let's all laff at Mz. DesMaisons as she... >-
    
    lets not. while i, and most others know dano is funnin, lady is truely
    one of the beautiful people on this planet.
    
    and don't you forget it.

                              YassuhBOSS!!  |-{:-)

     <<< Note 18.304 by MPGS::MARKEY "AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes" >>>

    
>    I wonder what it is about being "in the media" that attracts
>    so many people with their heads wedged in their rectums...

Actually, before they get into the business, they're just like you and me. 
What screws the folks in the media up is that they get to see what's going 
on firsthand. They're actually on the Hill, at the SCOTUS, in the streets, 
instead of getting their information second hand, from reliable filters 
like Rush. No wonder they're so bloody out of touch!

Tom
  

    
    
>Actually, before they get into the business, they're just like you and me. 
>What screws the folks in the media up is that they get to see what's going 
>on firsthand. They're actually on the Hill, at the SCOTUS, in the streets, 
>instead of getting their information second hand, from reliable filters 
>like Rush. No wonder they're so bloody out of touch!
    
    oh puhleeze....
    
    

    I bet he really believes it, too.

    
    
    that's the scary part....
    
    

    
    the power of the media corrupts them, as it would many people.  Plus
    journalists inherently think of their professions as sacrosant - they
    really are elitists in the classical sense.
    
    jeff

    
    Re: notes talking about Clintons lack of a honeymoon...
    
    Wasn't that really the fault of the Clintons?
    They did promise results within the 1st 100 days didn't they?
    (something about focusing like a laser or something like that?
    And didn't they also have the travelgate fiasco occur quickly
    within the 1st year?
    
    						Hank

    >Wasn't that really the fault of the Clintons?
        
    The furor over gays in the military hit before he'd even been
    inaugurated- it wasn't the issue he would've chosen to start with,
    but it was great fodder for his opponents.  That was a blindside,
    and that was no honeymoon.
    
    DougO

>    The furor over gays in the military hit before he'd even been
>    inaugurated- it wasn't the issue he would've chosen to start with,
>    but it was great fodder for his opponents.  That was a blindside,
>    and that was no honeymoon.

Um... gays in the military was STARTED by Clinton... not his opponents.
He got what he deserved...

/scott

    And Bush got a lengthy honeymoon, right?

    
    If the media were "fair" and "unbiased" in their reporting BEFORE
    Clinton got elected, he would never have had the chance at any sort of
    honeymoon...
    

  >  The furor over gays in the military hit before he'd even been
  >  inaugurated- it wasn't the issue he would've chosen to start with,
  >  but it was great fodder for his opponents.  That was a blindside,
  >  and that was no honeymoon.
   
  As I recall, this was one of the issues he used to get the gay vote.
  He did it to himself.

  >   If the media were "fair" and "unbiased" in their reporting BEFORE
  >  Clinton got elected, he would never have had the chance at any sort of
  >  honeymoon...
   
    Amen!!! (but then, these day's I'm almost glad he is president :-)

  Doug. 

  

Note 18.314 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >The furor over gays in the military hit before he'd even been
    >inaugurated- it wasn't the issue he would've chosen to start with,
    >but it was great fodder for his opponents.  That was a blindside,
    >and that was no honeymoon.
    
    come on dougo! you admitted 2 soapboxes ago that slick jumped on the
    gays in the military as a possible "easy" early term victory. i
    distinctly remember that. now it a "blindside", eh?? rright. my my but
    how easily we forget.
    
    slickster wasn't being blindsided when he attempted to confront the
    military brass on the issue. that was a scary picture. a president of
    the US so out of touch with the military to confront them publically.

    y'all have different memories than I do.  Clinton was jumped way early
    in the game when it was well known that his chosen issue would have
    been the economy.  He even held a post-election pre-inauguration 'town
    meeting' with business leaders, economists, and academicians, on the
    economy, which was well recieved and showed that he had a good handle
    on the issue.  The Gays in the Military issue was one upon which he
    could be attacked, and was, and the religious right did it.   And yes,
    Mark, nothing so rotten was done to Bush to derail him the first week.
    He had a honeymoon- in fact, during and after Desert Storm, he had a
    love fest, the kind of approval ratings Clinton has never seen.  Don't
    even pretend to compare the way they've been treated.
    
    I see your selective memories aren't restricted to the 'character'
    issue.
    
    DougO

  >  The Gays in the Military issue was one upon which he
  >  could be attacked, and was, and the religious right did it.
 
  Excuse me, but I recall a certain highly praised member of the military 
 (female) comming out of the closet and being discharged as a result, as 
  the reason Clinton had to deal with this issue early.

  Doug.

>    y'all have different memories than I do.  Clinton was jumped way early
>    in the game when it was well known that his chosen issue would have
>    been the economy.  

He made the issue of gays in the military a top priority in his first 100
days... nobody else forced him too, or attacked his ideas till he stated
them...Go look it up in some old papers, I dare ya...

>    He even held a post-election pre-inauguration 'town
>    meeting' with business leaders, economists, and academicians, on the
>    economy, which was well recieved and showed that he had a good handle
>    on the issue.  

HAHAHAHA!!! Well recieved! What a joke!

>    The Gays in the Military issue was one upon which he
>    could be attacked, and was, and the religious right did it.   

Sure, conservatives attacked his idea, but only after HE MADE IT AN ISSUE
FOR HIS FIRST 100 DAYS!!!

>    And yes,
>    Mark, nothing so rotten was done to Bush to derail him the first week.

However, if he tried to pull the same stunt, his popularity would be way down
too...

>    He had a honeymoon- in fact, during and after Desert Storm, he had a
>    love fest, the kind of approval ratings Clinton has never seen.  Don't
>    even pretend to compare the way they've been treated.

What a minute... are we talking a honeymoon with the press or the public...
Of course Bush would have a honeymoon w/ the public, after his success in the 
first few years in his term... But old Billy-boy is dumb... He goes and upsets
the large conservative masses in this country w/ the gays in the military issue
in his first 100 days after pretending to be much more conservative in the
election then he really was... then continues to upset the masses with
a varity of other numb-brained ideas... most which failed because people
realized how bad they were... So of course Clinton wouldn't have a honeymoon
with the public, since the public doesn't like him! (just look at the last
election)... the press on the other hand, tried their best to make it a
honeymoon but the public's anger kept them from doing a good job, even while
the press were pitching only meatball questions to bill and hill.
    
Doug... you really have a problem.

/scott

    
    Wow !  Did you live in the same country I did in 1993 ?  Bush was
    pilloried from day one, press and opponents, till he committed
    self-mate by capitulating on raising taxes, whereupon the Dems
    canned the agreed-to spending cuts, and scuttled his every move.
    Never had a chance, although he was so bad a prex he wouldn't have
    done much with one if he'd got it.  The only prex worse we have had
    since Nixon is this one, who waffled on everything, and is waffling
    now.
    
    Contrast that with Reagan, or with Kennedy !  As for gays, of course,
    Clinton brought it up (perhaps, rightly), but didn't realize he
    could just order the military, or if he did, he shrank from it and
    waffled forever, then parleyed.  As in Haiti, etc.  Clinton is not
    the first novice in the White House to be cowed by the military, but
    it is a sickening thing to watch nonetheless.  Wouldn't have happened
    to Ike, or FDR, or Reagan.
    
    Your guy just doesn't measure up.  Into the footnotes with Gerald Ford.
    
      bb

    > Wow !  Did you live in the same country I did in 1993 ?  Bush was
    > pilloried from day one, press and opponents, till he committed
    > self-mate by capitulating on raising taxes,
    
    nonsense.  Bush was inaugurated in '89, after 8 years in the
    administration of his predecessor ('out of the loop' on Iran-Contra,
    but 'well-trusted' on everything else, remember?)  Oh, he had political
    issues to deal with his first term, and he didn't get everything he
    wanted, no president ever does; but he got to define his own issues,
    set his own agenda, pursue his own legislative initiatives, without the
    fundamentalists breathing down his neck.  Marison challenges me to go
    dig up some newspaper reports on how the gay-in-the-military issue was
    forced and whether or not the Town Meeting on the economy was 'well
    received' or not.  I'll see what I can find.
    
    DougO
    

Note 18.324 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    >    wanted, no president ever does; but he got to define his own issues,
    >set his own agenda, pursue his own legislative initiatives, without the
    
    its called leadership dougo. its been sorely absent for a couple of
    years now. all the excuses in the world can't change that sad fact.
    good presidents set strategy and legislative agendas and pursue them.
    poor presidents make excuses for failing to do so. so do their
    supporters.

    Clinton got 89% of his legislative initiatives through, his first year,
    Gene; don't tell me about leadership.  What he didn't get was a
    honeymoon, a period when the opposition and the press weren't on savage
    attacks, a period when he could begin to develop the public image as
    president that a candidate simply never has, that a newly inaugurated
    president has to grow into.  This isn't leadership we're talking about,
    this is savage attack-dog politics as practised by the New Right; and
    Clinton's presidency suffered from it.  From day one.  And you won't
    rewrite the record on it by misremembering it.
    
    DougO

    > You're probably right on this.  Of course, all the "y'all" are
    > all wrong, and not you...
    
    Partisan sentiments obviously color memories.  Doesn't make either
    set more 'right'.
    
    >   So why didn't he make the economy his first issue? 
    
    He did.  He tried.  He got no honeymoon, though, so the press followed
    the attack-dogs and blew up the gaymil issue.
    
    DougO
    

    
    DougO...
    
     Do you check for thumpers under your bed each night???
    

    My bed's a platform, Andy, even dustmice can't get under it.  I sleep
    quite soundly, thank you kindly.
    
    DougO

    Clinton caused his own problems by breaking his campaign promises on
    the eve of his inauguration. Of course, he could always have told the
    truth during the election (when he got his free ride), in which case
    there would have been no inauguration...

                 <<< Note 18.310 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "LAGNAF" >>>

>    I bet he really believes it, too.

You mean the press isn't in those places and you are? Jeez, I guess I am a 
gullable SOB.

Note 18.327 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >Clinton got 89% of his legislative initiatives through, his first year,
    >Gene; don't tell me about leadership.  What he didn't get was a
    >honeymoon, a period when the opposition and the press weren't on savage
    >attacks, a period when he could begin to develop the public image as
    >president that a candidate simply never has, that a newly inaugurated
    >president has to grow into.  This isn't leadership we're talking about,
    >this is savage attack-dog politics as practised by the New Right; and
    
    what the hell are you talking about dougo. your equating the beating of
    slick by the press corps (funny joke) with something called attack dog
    politics practised by the new right - whoever that is. he had a 9 month
    honeymoon during the campaign. he's had another 2 years for formulate
    policy and execute a plan. he failed miserbly. go on. keep blaming the
    press. hell, they haven't really turned on him - yet. when they do
    it'll be ugly for the man has an indefensable past and an indefensable
    record as president. they'll butcher him like no other president
    except perhaps lincoln - whom the press corps beat without mercy.

    DougO:
    
    Since when is Sam Nunn, or any of the military higher ups for that
    matter part of the religious right?  They are the ones who dictate
    policy in the military!
    
    DougO, this was a simple yet expensive lesson that "It's not just the
    economy stupid".  If an individual leads the country yet did not merit
    the position by character or temperament, then you have to expect 
    no honeymoon...anymore than you'd feel comfortable entrusting a member
    of NAMBLA to babysit your son!!
    
    -Jack

   Too much concern with any President....the Congress is the power.
 It don't go unless they say it does. Party members are more independent than
 in the past and so go their own way. Clinton was the 'victim' of the new
 independence. He was silly to allow himself to be caught up in the devisive
 gay issue.

   The real pity is that although the Repubs are 'in control' I expect they will
 succumb to the privileges of power and will really be no better than those 
 they replaced. The public will be so turned of that the 'threat' of a third
 party in '96 will be real. Hopefully the voting public won't be sucked into
 the 'same old same old' in sheeps' clothing.

  
    - Bob
   

    Gene, if you don't know the new right you're more out of touch than is
    Clinton.  And I'm not 'confusing' the attackdog politics of the right
    with the media glare so much as identifying them as two parts of the
    same phenomenon- media frenzy being based mainly on perception of
    weakness or vulnerability, whether the source is the slaverings of a
    fundie preacher denouncing Clinton for considering that gays deserve
    the right to serve their country too, or whether its from some schmuck
    legal clerk claiming to have witnessed file shredding or a trooper
    claiming he procured women for the governor...the media will cover it
    and demand comment from the one in the spotlight.  Clinton has been
    through all of that and much more.  And such has NEVER been the
    treatment meted out to any other president upon his inauguration, at
    least none in this century.  The 'honeymoon' is tradition.  It was
    violated to attack Bill.  That's all I've claimed, and its undeniable,
    and you who fight it so hard are simply denying history.
    
    DougO

    your right about one thing dougo. the honeymoon for any president is
    over. i, for one, am damned glad for that.

    Bill Clinton has had enough honeymoons in his life anyway!!

    Re: 337
    
    You seem to have a very selective memory if you claim that Clinton has
    suffered a tough time with the press.  apparently you don't think that
    the press and Congress going after Quayle, before during and after he
    was elected as much of a problem.
    
    the difference is that Clinton created his own problems and should have
    been taken to task for them during the campaign.  the problems Quayle
    faced were created by the media for their own purposes and then they
    insured that they could continue by exaggerating any issue after the
    election.
    
    No, this Pres has caused his own problems and has not faced anywhere
    near the scrutiny that he should, nor will if he really decides to run
    in '96.
    

    Quayle wasn't president.  His taking the heat actually took pressure 
    off Bush.  Not the same as Clinton's taking heat from day one.
    
    DougO

    You mean him being an idiot made Bush look good.

    Re: 341
    
    Do you really mean that the attacks on Quayle were not designed to
    weaken Bush and attampt to reflect him in a negative light?  Also, the
    fact that the media could create, yes create, stories about Quayle to
    further their agenda didn't do anything to hurt Bush.
    
    Once again, you seem to have jumped to a liberal response without even
    trying to have any kind of balance or fairness in your statement.
    
    It should be expected.
    

    No, that isn't what I said.  You're the one who brought up comparisons
    to attacks on Quayle as if they were equivalent to attacks on Clinton. 
    The men occupy (-ied) different offices and the attacks are not
    equivalent.  Simple, for most of us.
    
    DougO

    I disagree.  Most of the Bush haters lamented over the fact that 
    Quayle was only a heartbeat away from the Presidency.  Furthermore,
    the vice presidential debate carried similar ratings to the
    Presidential debates.
    
    Anytime I see Andrea Mitchell on the tube, I turn the station.  She is
    just another Commie Chung!
    
    -Jack

    Attacks on Quayle did not have the effect of stopping Bush from 
    getting his programs into Congress.  Attacks on Clinton substantially
    impeded the progress of his initiatives through Congress.  Attacks on
    Quayle had vastly different effects are thus were not comparable.
    
    DougO

    The reason Doug is because George Bush spent more money on social
    programs than his predecessors.  The attacks were put on Clinton simply
    because he's an ass. (no censorship!! Ass is another name for donkey
    which is the symbol of Clintons party!!)

| <<< Note 18.345 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Most of the Bush haters lamented over the fact that Quayle was only a 
| heartbeat away from the Presidency.  

	Jack, I think most of the Bush supporters ALSO felt this way. :-)

    Possibly...but the media didn't have to make a headline out of the fact
    that Dan spelt Potato incorrectly!!!

    > but the media didn't have to make a headline out of the fact
    > that Dan spelt Potato incorrectly!!!
    
    What really happened was that a kid in a spelling bee spelled it right,
    then Quayle stepped in and told him he was wrong.  It was not only that
    Qayle's spelling mistake played right to the gallery of opinion about
    him, but the self-positioning as an authority figure on spelling that
    gave the story legs.
    
    DougO

>     <<< Note 18.350 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>
>
>    > but the media didn't have to make a headline out of the fact
>    > that Dan spelt Potato incorrectly!!!
>    
>    What really happened was that a kid in a spelling bee spelled it right,
>    then Quayle stepped in and told him he was wrong.  It was not only that
>    Qayle's spelling mistake played right to the gallery of opinion about
>    him, but the self-positioning as an authority figure on spelling that
>    gave the story legs.
>    
>    DougO


No, Sir!  The teacher gave Dan several cards to help grade the spelling
bee.  The card he was given for potato had Potatoe spelled in big, helvetica
bold print like all the other cards.  Can you spell 'SETUP'?

Bruce

    	What **REALLY** happened was that the flash cards he was given
    	by the teacher of that classroom had it spelled P-O-T-A-T-O-E,
    	and he was just going by the spelling on the card.

    > The card he was given for potato had Potatoe spelled in big, helvetica
    > bold print like all the other cards.  Can you spell 'SETUP'?
    
    awwwwww...where do you guys GET these sob stories?  poor old dan
    quayle, set up by an elementary school teacher.  oh, yeah, I believe
    it...NOT.
    
    DougO

     The flash card did indeed say POTATOE; they showed the thing on NBC
    nooz.

    
    I never knew that about the flash card.
    

    A man with Presidential potential would not have hesitated to override
    the flashcard.  
    
    -Stephen

    I don't recall him being seriously "attacked" for not knowing how to
    spell "potato," though I didn't pay a great deal of attention. 
    Presumably the spelling bee was a media event designed to dramatize a
    commitment to education.  In this context and given Quayle's
    then-established rep for mis-speaking himelf in comical ways, the gaffe
    was probably newsworthy.
    
    It is probably true that Quayle was treated pretty mercilessly by the
    media, and painted as more of a buffoon than he was/is.  
    
    -Stephen

    This whole spelling thing is just an example of how the media tried to
    weaken Bush by pointing out the supposed and created shortcomings of
    his VP.  So, DougO don't try to claim that the attacks between Quayle
    and Clinton aren't comparable, other than from the standpoint that
    Clinton got,gets and will get what he deserves.  Quayle was attacked
    because he was a conservative supporting a conservative agenda and the
    media couldn't stand it.  Also, by deflecting discussion to the VP they
    hoped to undermine Bush.
    
    You still have trouble seeing the antics of the liberal side, don't
    you.
     

    If anything, Clinton has been sheltered!! Sure, Rush gives him a fair
    going over and we're pretty tough on him in here and some minor rags
    like the Washington Times, but as far as full-bore Clinton bashing,
    it's not likely to ever have the media presence of the Quayle
    bashing. How many sitcoms have taken up Clinton bashing? How much
    Clinton bashing do you hear on the nightly news? How much Clinton
    bashing do you read in your average daily newspaper? The difference
    is enormous. Clinton is a coddled little cherub! The liberal press
    can't even report on WhiteWater without an accompanying self-assessing
    editorial about the unfairness of it all.
    
    -b

    -.1 is there any oxygen on your planet, Brian?
    
     Chip

    Quayle got pummeled often in the press.  Sometimes he deserved it, but
    sometimes not.
    
    Algore has made some gaffes comperable to what Quayle has done, but
    there hardly is a peep about these things on the news.
    
    ME

    ... ya but Gore's were quality gaffes not quantity gaffes :-)

     The media's inordinate attention to Dan Quayle's minor miscues
    reminded me most of 7th graders laughing and pointing, yelling "he
    fahted! he fahted!" It was on that level, anyway.

    I think it's been fairly well identified that, quite to the contrary of
    DougO's opinion, that Clinton has gotten a pretty easy ride considering
    what this guy could be pilloried on.
    
    The issue, quite frankly, is how is this guy going to get handled when
    the 96 election gets going.  Particularly if he gets a challenge from
    his own party.  Personally, I think that if a reasonable Democratic
    candidate comes forward the negative press on Clinton will increase
    exponentially - just like it should have during the 92 campaign.
    
    Also, doesn't it seem odd that little Hillary has been kept out the
    spotlight since before the election.  I can assure you that they will
    do their utmost to keep her under wraps all the way up to 96.  she is
    more of a liability to him than he is to himself - as hard as that is
    to imagine.
    

    In Great Britian, it is spelled, POTATOE.
    This is what I heard anyway.
    
    Andrea Mitchell another quota hire for the media industry, was the one
    who consistently railed Quayle over this nonsensical issue!
    
    -Jack

>    In Great Britian, it is spelled, POTATOE.
>    This is what I heard anyway.

It's spelled that way in lots of places, including on restaurant menus.

And whenever and wherever it's spelled that way, it's wrong.

/john

    > is there any oxygen on your planet, Brian?
    
    > Chip
    
    
    Considering we're on the same planet Chip, you tell me. Is there?
    
    -b

    > I think it's been fairly well identified that, quite to the contrary
    > of DougO's opinion, that Clinton has gotten a pretty easy ride
    > considering what this guy could be pilloried on.

    You mean that from the point of view of those doing the piling-on, you
    haven't gouged him in the press as much as you could have?  Clinton has
    been treated more ruthlessly from before day one than any other
    president in the postwar years; not since FDR's day and the socialist
    new deal cry has there been such utter bile issued about a president
    and especially about his wife.  Dream on, Rocush; the viciousness won't
    be forgotten.  
    
    What a bald-faced attempt to deny the recent past!
    
    DougO

    DougO:
    
    Hillary got attacked because she's a blabber mouth DougO...A BLABBER
    MOUTH (Insert Ralph Cramdens voice here)!!!!
    
    Why do you think she is set hidden??

    >What a bald-faced attempt to deny the recent past!
    
     Some of us consider the level of character assassination from the
    press leveled at Bush to be of the same magnitude as that experienced
    by Clinton, and less deserved to boot. And attempts to deny that can be
    equally validly termed an "attempt to deny the recent past!"

    Your mileage varies.  Sure, Bush took it in the shorts; it was only
    natural, he was the first president since Vietnam to mobilize half a
    million men and women at arms, and the anti-war sentiment of the
    Vietnam and post-Vietnam generation was bound to come out over that.
    
    Clinton has received at least as much vituperation, it seems from here,
    without any such polarising issue.  He was simply attacked because it
    seemed he represented that the highwater mark of the new right had been
    passed.  We can see that such a judgement was in error, with hindsight,
    but that doesn't unsay any of the bile that was heaped upon him.
    
    DougO

    Bush's treatment during the Iraqi invasion and ouster from Kuwait was by
    far the most evenhanded (and even pro Bush) treatment of his entire
    term.
    
    >Clinton has received at least as much vituperation, it seems from here,
    >without any such polarising issue.
    
     Going back on the major campaign promise that got you elected on the eve 
    of the inauguration, gays in the military as the first order of
    business, the attempt to give his wife power over 14% of the GNP are
    not polarizing issues? And the continuing saga of Whitewater- which
    could eventually reach Watergate proportions when and if all the
    evidence comes out- hey, he's bought and paid for his own trouble. Not
    that the press isn't only too happy to sing his praises and then turn
    on him like a pack of mad dogs... But it is not without reason that
    he's gotten the treatment he has. Mebbe it's the "glare of the
    spotlight" effect... :-) 

    .376
    
    Of course, you, being Ms. Miracle Worker and all that, have never been
    in any kind of situation, being under pressure, where you may be at a
    loss for works, might misspeak, or heaven forbid, actually make a
    mistake?????

   >Your mileage varies.  Sure, Bush took it in the shorts; it was only
   > natural, he was the first president since Vietnam to mobilize half a
   > million men and women at arms, and the anti-war sentiment of the
   > Vietnam and post-Vietnam generation was bound to come out over that.
   
   Huh? 
 
   > Clinton has received at least as much vituperation, it seems from here,
   > without any such polarising issue.  He was simply attacked because it
   > seemed he represented that the highwater mark of the new right had been
   > passed.  We can see that such a judgement was in error, with hindsight,
   > but that doesn't unsay any of the bile that was heaped upon him.
    
   Why do I get the feeling that history is being re-written (again!).

    Doug.

	Re: By DougO (hi.)

   > ...................................................Clinton has
   > been treated more ruthlessly from before day one than any other
   > president in the postwar years; not since FDR's day and the socialist
   > new deal cry has there been such utter bile issued about a president
   > and especially about his wife. 


	And how much of this (which I should say I don't agree with)
	is the fault of the first couple? 

	From the beginning of this presidency, we've seen nothing
	but a sophmoric performance by the white house. 
	A white house that has overseen one debacle after another. 
	A white house trying to govern the US Arkansas style and failing 
	miserably.
	A white house unable to work with a congress of the same party.
	A first couple that preached to us about the mistakes and
	greed of the 80s'. yet practiced the very same tactics to
	amass their own wealth. (Let alone the income they failed to report).
	Failure to present old tax returns until the pressure became
	so intense they had to.
	Cattle futures.
	A president that goes on MTV to answer questions about his
	underwear.
	A first lady that conducted a task force on health care reform
	behind closed doors and resisted all attempts to make the
	proceedings public. (I believe this is still in the courts).
	The Haitan debacle.	
	Travelgate.
	Troopergate
	The death of Vince Foster and the very shady behaviour of
	key white house staffers immediately after the unfortunate death.
	Lani Gunier (sp?)
	Whitewater, still ongoing.
	The [forced] resignation of so many people I can't keep track of em all.
	Let alone the sexual harrassment case he'll face once out of office.
	Didn't inhale.
	The list is damn near endless.

	And you know, most of this could have been avoided or immediately
	defused if only the first couple had been forthcoming when questioned.
	But this first couple seems to have an aversion to honest
	straight forward answers. Even when things turn out
	ot be completely innocent, this couple leaves people wondering
	why *they* weren't more open and honest when initially
	confronted. Quite frankly, they should have  known better as Hillary
	was involved in the Watergate hearings. 
                                                 
    	
	
	

    Re: .376
    
    >you, being Ms. Miracle Worker and all that
    
    I'm certainly not a miracle worker.  However, it seems I _am_ a
    slippery little devil....

    >   And how much of this (which I should say I don't agree with)
    >	is the fault of the first couple? 
    
    You don't agree with it, Hank?  You reproduce the list of the issues
    upon which they've taken darts, and in which I can spot maybe three
    that have to do with the job for which he was elected, and you can
    claim with a straight face that you don't agree they should've taken
    all the heat?  Style issues matter, appointments issues matter, policy
    issues matter.  Everything else has been trumped up to cripple him and
    the negative policies worked; he's viewed as ineffective, even though
    he has several triumphs in trade and in his legislative record.  I must
    admit I'm amazed at how inept his PR has been, and disappointed in his
    over-reliance on poll data.  He isn't leading, he's blowing in the
    wind.  Yes, he's at fault for some of it.  But no other president has
    been so treated.  I simply can't believe he didn't even try to make the
    GOP take the blame for scuttling health care reform; that points out
    his fatal weakness in strategy in taking on too large a vested interest
    in the initial approach.  Hillary in charge of health care wasn't the
    issue that defeated it, and you know it; insurance and medical industry
    big money politics were the reasons it was defeated.  Hillary was
    merely the convenient lightning rod, 'closed government' nonsense
    completely irrelevant.  The Clintons made themselves a target; they
    took on big vested interests; and they didn't bring their power base
    along; their strategy was bad, and they got beaten.  Their opponents
    have vilified them completely out of proportion, with that big money,
    and you repeat the calumnies.  You should be embarassed, yeah, right,
    "(you don't agree with it.)"  I'm sorry, Hank, your denial rings
    hollow.
    
    DougO

    |->Note 18.376 by PNTAGN::WARRENFELTZR
    |
    |-> .376
    | 
    |                                
    | >Of course, you, being Ms. Miracle Worker and all that, have never been
    | >(bla bla bla) 
    |
    |
    |-> Talking to yourself, Ronnie 8^)?

    
    Actually DougO, my mistake. I meant to say that I didn't agree with 
    your assertion that I extracted. 

    Debb:
    
    Guess I'm allowed ONE mistake on my b-day, right?

    > Actually DougO, my mistake. I meant to say that I didn't agree with
    > your assertion that I extracted.
    
    ok, that makes your position more consistent, not that I agree with it.
    nothing from you on what really stomped health care?  Nothing on how
    that will affect future efforts to control the deficit?  Health care
    reform unattempted means that the 30 million Americans without adequate
    medical insurance will continue to use emergency room services as their
    only source of care and continue to drive up costs for the rest of us
    through the passed-on insurance costs we pay and the federal subsidies
    to the health care industry.  Will the GOP dare to address the issue?
    
    DougO

    DougO:
    
    For the last time....
    
    New technology grants to all hospitals...
    
    Severe Tort Reform....
    
    Limitation of needless beurocratic paperwork....
    
    Congratulations, you have greatly reduced the cost of healthcare!!!

>insurance and medical industry
>    big money politics were the reasons it was defeated.

 I always thought it was the lack of an accurate credible description of
 the health care plan from it's supporters that killed it. Without it, most
 folks would hold back their support until they got one and the
 opposition could define it as they saw it.

 Many folks also thought that the deficit should not have been used as the
 defining reason to support health care reform. Health care reform should
 stand on its own merits (and it did not).

 The deficit was caused by increased spending in the congress due in large
 part by the large increases in revenue brought about by 'reaganomics',
 an undeciplined bugeting processes, and the 'won't be cut unless there is 
 another government program we can funnel the money to' attitude of the 
 democratic leadership.

 Mr. Foley was a bute, wasn't he?

 Other than that, I agree with what you wrote.

 Doug. 

    Foley was a bute? I thought he was a mesa.

    >Severe Tort Reform....
        
    Jack, if Newt addresses this issue, I'll be *very* surprised.
    
    DougO

    I hope he does...but we know the old regime didn't!!
    
    -Jack

    First lady seeks to reinvent herself; Clinton says she was `naive'
    about politics
    
    By Marian Burros
    
    New York Times
    
    WASHINGTON -- Saying that she is eager to present herself in a more
    likable way, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she had been
    ``dumb and naive'' about national politics and was to blame for the
    failure of the health care overhaul plan last year.
    
    She said she is sometimes shocked by the harsh way she comes across in
    news reports -- as a woman whom she herself would not particularly want
    to know. And she asked a group of female writers invited to lunch at
    the White House, including Ann Landers, how she could better make the
    public see her in the more complex way in which she sees herself.
    
    ``I am surprised at the way people seem to perceive me,'' she said,
    ``and sometimes I read stories and hear things about me and I go, `Ugh.
    I wouldn't like her either.' It's so unlike what I think I am or what
    my friends think I am.''
    
    Clinton added: ``So I can only guess that people are getting
    perceptions about me from things I am saying or doing in ways that
    don't correspond with things I am trying to get across. . . . I have
    let other people define me.''
    
    In interviews last year immediately after her health care plan
    collapsed in Congress, Clinton tended to say it failed because she was
    a woman in a male-dominated political system that found her position of
    authority hard to accept.
    
    Monday, speaking to a group of women who normally write about gossip,
    personal advice, style and the first lady's social functions, Clinton
    accepted most of the blame.
    
    ``I think I was naive and dumb, because my view was results speak for
    themselves,'' Clinton told the group.
    
    Clinton seemed bent on finding a way to counter her harsh run of
    publicity, which reached a peak in recent days when Newt Gingrich's
    mother said her son, the speaker of the House, had called Clinton a
    ``bitch.'' Kathleen Gingrich repeated the remark in an interview
    broadcast Monday by the television program ``American Journal.''

 Ms Rodham Clinton will be on with Claprood and Whitley Wednesday 
 morning..





 Jim

    
    Bill and Hillary are irrelevant to the political process at this point.
    
    Bob, Newt and the Republicans are running the country.

    > Bill [...] irrelevant to the political process at this point.
    
    Someone is forgetting the veto pen.
    
    DougO

    
    No president is ever irrelevant to the political process in the
    US.  And a congress with paper-thin majorities is in no position
    to run over him.  But surprise, there won't be as many vetos as
    some are predicting here.  (Unless the Line-Item Veto passes.
    Clinton has begged for it, and the Republicans who promised it
    are having second thoughts.  They shouldn't.  They should pass it.)
    
      bb

    Hillary Clinton said Monday that she has been "dumb and naive."
    
    OK, who will be the first boxer to argue these claims and cry about
    character assassination from the conservative right? 
                                

    
    I'm not forgetting the veto.
    
    I don't think Clinton will use it much.  A careful, detailed review of
    his political history, including Arkansas years, shows him to be a 
    "pleaser" (hence his innumerable waffles on virtually all issues).
    
    He's had umpteen opportunities already to drive a stake in the ground
    and stand firm on an issue -- and perhaps by offering leadership and
    vision, turn the country around to embracing his position. But it's
    never happened.
    
    Additionally, the Clinton presidency proves once and for all that this
    job is too complex, too demanding and too tough to permit "on the 
    job training".  We simply can't put people in that office who don't have
    VASTLY more executive experience than Clinton. Governors from small,
    poor, rural and semi-backwards southern states should be disqualified
    from the Oval Office (if that's all the executive expperience they
    bring to the job). 
    

    The veto pen would be the end of his career unless he can make an
    incredible case...which he won't.
    
 >>   In interviews last year immediately after her health care plan
 >>   collapsed in Congress, Clinton tended to say it failed because she
 >>   was a woman in a male-dominated political system that found her
 >>   position of authority hard to accept.
    
    No, it was because she proposed another step toward socialism. 
    Furthermore, she was a lawyer from Arkansas and possessed little to no
    experience in healthcare industry issues.
    
    Her reponse above shows she has the victim mentality...a typical
    Wellesley college response.  Now put a Kay Bailey, a Margaret Thatcher
    type...an Elizabeth Dole...In short, a grown up, then you will have
    somebody who has the respect of the people!
    
    -Jack

    
    Re: .390 and the article on Hillary
    
    
    I have to give her credit. It's not easy admitting
    ones faults and asking for help.
    Of course I'm going on the assumption this is sincere and not
    politically motivated.
    
    							Hank

	.398

	amazing.  i was just about to ask "and who will be the first
	to give her credit for admitting her failings?".

	i guess i have my answer.  not a surprising one at that.  ;>

    
    I'd prefer it the country as a whole spent less time on the
    personalities and shortcomings of the players, and more time
    on the problems, proposed solutions, and underlying assumptions,
    etc.
    
    But that's not how it works.
    

    OK how bout this...
    
    Hillary, we're pround that you have finally seen the light on your
    shortcomings...now please go back to law practice...and stay there
    where you won't get into any trouble.

    -1
    
    yes, we have rather lost sight of the fact that NOBODY, but nobody,
    elected her to do anything.
    
    

    
>>    yes, we have rather lost sight of the fact that NOBODY, but nobody,
>>    elected her to do anything.

    who's "we"?  maybe _you_ have...
    
    

    Oh Lady Di:
    
    Don't tell me you fell for the ole..."Two for the price of One" line!!

 >>   Don't tell me you fell for the ole..."Two for the price of One" line!!

	i have no idea what you're talking about.  but that does not
	make this day unique. 

    maybe Hillary's just now learning the political ropes in places where
    the Arkansas backwater isn't controlled by a 2 bit witch. 

    >> "...I have let other people define me."
    
    No-hoooo... she has defined herself, and quite well.  But this
    phrase really does sum up her feeling about it, in that she's not
    admitting to any shortcomings or flaws, but rather she's playing
    a victim and saying that it's others who have "defined her", and
    presumably us for accepting those definitions of her, who are wrong.
    
    This is all absurd.  First of all, it's far, far too late for her
    or anyone else in the Clinton circus to press the "Clear" key and
    reset their public personas.  Secondly, the timing of the whole thing
    obviously pays homage to both the start of the new Congress and the
    first nose-wrinkling stink of yet-another presidential campaign about
    to begin.  Thirdly, who cares about her anymore... she's irrelevant,
    and we can stick a fork in both her and her husband.  Slick's recent
    announcement that he'd be running for re-election was met with bored
    laughter for the most part.
    
    As an earlier reply indicated, it will be a long, long time before
    we elect a small-state governor to the office of President of the
    United States.
    
    Chris

    Psst. Free hint to Hillary Rodham Clinton:
    
    There are many people (myself included) who have a lower
    opinion of Ann Landers than we have of you... hardly
    an encouraging sign when she's chosen to help with your
    spin doctoring...
    
    -b

    Well it seem slike the notes have gotten hot and heavy, but there is
    always one constant that can be relied on.  Good 'ol DougO keeps
    insisting that if people would just stop picking on these goofs, er, I
    mean, the First Couple, things would be just heaven on earth.
    
    DougO, I think you really need to look at the last several responses
    and really read them.  I think you will see that this president and his
    wife are presently and certainly were, unprepared for the office.  No
    amount of media spin will give this man and his wife a clue as to what
    is needed for this country.  Just a brief hint.  Health care died
    because people saw what they wanted to do to the healthcare industry
    and what it was going to cost and what freedom they were going to lose,
    and they just said NO.  Do you think th pols in DC would have killed
    this if the country demanded it?
    
    No, DougO, this guy will probably be a brief footnote in history
    somewhere, unless he ends up in prison with his wife.  which is what I
    think will happen, unless the cover up is allowed to stand.
    

    In many ways Bill Clinton is irrelevant; this country has a new leader,
    Newt Gingrich!  Bill Clinton through his own weakness has caused the
    office of the President to decline significantly. With that decline, a
    vacumn was created in the government of this country, and Newt Gingrich
    has filled that vacumn. Whether we like it or not, Newt is now the
    predominant statesman of the United States. He achieved that position
    by creating party discipline within the Republican Party and focusing
    the party and public discussion on a clear agenda.
    
    	It could be that Bill Clinton's relevance is now that his poor 
    performance has been nothing short of amazing. The damage that he has 
    done to his party's standing in power is perhaps unequalled in American 
    History, with the exception of maybe Richard Nixon.
    
    	Because of all of the above, we should not be surprised by some of
    the extreme actions taken over the last 30 days by the Clinton's. And
    keep your eye's open, there will be many more to come. Things are
    desperate around the White House.

    i, for one, sincerely hope that the salamander is not the single
    moving force for this nation. if this happens we'll be in big trouble.
    
    Chip

    Chip:
    
    All I can say is that if Bill Clinton (and by design Hillary Clinton)
    were the answer, it must have been a stupid question! 

    	Please put your hand up if you thought that the President and
    Congress were serperate but equal parts of government.  Ok.  Guess
    what, you're wrong.  Congress can do more good (or harm) than the
    President.
    
    	As for Hillary redefining herself: define yourself as a first lady
    who is seen and rarely (if ever) heard when talking about policy
    making.  Your ideas suck, Hillary.  Oh yea, and thank you for exposing
    liberalism for what it really is, thus seriously damaging if not
    destroying your husbands presidency.
    
    ME

    I think the FFs wanted a government that had checks/balances...their
    intent was not "separate but equal."
    
    For instance, the SC has less power to "establish" power but they are a
    check on Congress and the Executive Branch with their constitutional
    interpretations.
    
    Until FDR, with the exception,rightfully so, of the Civil War, the
    President was titular head of the US but the real power was
    concentrated in the Congress.   Each administration since FDR's has
    increased the power of the Chief Executive, Republican and Democrat
    included.
    
    It's about time that we return to original and intended setup that the
    FFs had in mind.  A 3 branch Federal government with checks and
    balances LIVING BY THE LAWS THEY PASS FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY TO
    FOLLOW! - REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ALIKE!

I caught a bit of chatter on the Today show before leaving this AM.
Some "analyst" talking with Katie and telling what a warm and wonderful
person Hillary really is. Apparently the media has decided it's time
for some damage control, and the best way is to simply tell the
mindless audience that Hillary is really a good person. Obviously
they'll pick right up on it and believe it.

Unfortunately, as Gene would say, a lot of them will, too.

    I think the best thing for politicians surrounded by reporters to say
    when asked a question...
    
    
    I'll comment on that when I get on CSPAN!

    Congratulations, Dick Gephart is now a supply sider.  He is all for 
    a flat tax at about 11.5%...in other words, Americans keeping more of
    their own money...bummer for DougO, Mr. Bill, Kitt et al.
    
    -Jack

    
    I'm starting to wonder if Gephardt sees himself as a challenger to
    the Clinton renomination.

Gephardt is making a fool of himself ....

    Why not? He's wanted it before.

    
    According to Barnicle in the Globe,
    the NY Times article mentioned a few notes back about Hillary
    wanting to change her public image has upset Hillary and the WH staff.
    Seems that Hillary felt her comments were off the record.
    
    Strange days these
    
    							Hank

    
    Have someone at the NYT invite her to tour of the pressroom.

    I have considered Rep Gephardt a moron ever since he attempted to
    provoke a trade war with South Korea as one of the seven dwarfs in the
    democratic primaries in 1988.  His was the commercial complaining about
    $48,000 end price in Korea for a Chrysler K-car.  He has always been an
    opportunistic wannabe-demagogue and has *never* managed to capture more
    than 20 seconds of media attention no matter how shrilly he shouts.  I
    lambasted him somewhere in soapbox within the last few months, and I'm
    pleased to do so again.  A flat tax rate of 11% will not begin to
    capture sufficient revenue to meet expenditures and the deficit will
    worsen, not improve.  I'm all for simplifying the tax cose and I'm not
    even dyed-in-the-wool on progressivity; I'd consider a flat tax.  But
    not at 11%!  What a MORON that Gephardt is; what an embarassment to his
    party and to the country, that such as he can be called a 'leader'.
    
    DougO

    <<< Note 18.396 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>
                         -< no -- it's over for Bubba >-

>    Additionally, the Clinton presidency proves once and for all that this
>    job is too complex, too demanding and too tough to permit "on the 
>    job training".  We simply can't put people in that office who don't have
>    VASTLY more executive experience than Clinton. Governors from small,
>    poor, rural and semi-backwards southern states should be disqualified
>    from the Oval Office (if that's all the executive expperience they
>    bring to the job). 

That would rule out Lincoln, among others. He didn't even have gubenatorial 
executive experience. Herb Hoover definitely qualifies, though.    

Good luck.

    Not to mention it would rule out Clavin Coolidge...the greatest
    president of the 1900's!
    
    -Jack

Ah, yes - good old "Cliff" Clavin Coolidge . . . 

    Re: .423
    
   	Gephardt...an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.
    
    I couldn't agree with you more, and unfortunately Gephardt is arguably
    The Leader of the Democratic Party these days. Sad but true!
                                        

    
    
    
    Seems fitting to me. ;')
    
    
    Mike

    
    Oh, and at yesterday's opening meeting of the House Operations
    Committee, the new Chair indicated that accrued leave would be paid
    for the thousands laid off so far and any further legislative
    layoffs.  And that Gephart and Gingrich had agreed to replace the
    old appointive 3-man inspectors (who never spotted the House Post
    Office scandal, the House Bank, and numerous other situations) were
    dismissed and a full 18-man contingent of Inspectors General from
    outside government would be hired on contract, in ADDITION to the
    auditors.  It seems the leaders of the parties are getting a bit tired
    of scandals and have let it be known these guys can look anywhere they
    smell graft.  I think it will work, the first couple of terms.
    
      bb

> From New York: Help, officer, I've been pantsjacked ... it's
  THE TOP TEN LIST for Thursday, January 12, 1995.  And now,
  outgoing president of the Times Square Jaycees ... David
  Letterman!
 
> From the home office in Sioux City, Iowa ...
 
TOP TEN WAYS HILLARY CLINTON CAN IMPROVE HER IMAGE

    
10. Two words: Wonder Bra

     
 9. Market her own wine cooler called "Whitewater"
 
    
 8. Sneak up behind Warren Christopher at press conferences,
    yank on his jowls

     
 7. Reveal real first name on "Seinfeld"
 
    
 6. Model herself after the Quaker Oats guy like Barbara Bush did

     
 5. If all else fails, bomb the hell out of Iraq
 
    
 4. Show kids the dangers of crack by smoking some on "Meet the
    Press"

     
 3. Make more public appearances with Letterman's mom [video clip
    of Dorothy and Hillary at the Winter Olympics]
 
    
 2. Start doin' it with the Newt-man

     
 1. Lose Hillbilly Boy
 
        [Music: "Bitch" by the Rolling Stones]
 
 
Compiled by Sue Trowbridge
 
          ----------------------------------------
               LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN
               11:35 p.m. ET/PT (10:35 CT/MT)
               on the CBS Television Network
          ----------------------------------------
 
             On Friday's show, Dave welcomes
 
             ... actress SUSAN SARANDON
             ... singer AL GREEN
 
Brought to you by Yoyodyne Entertainment, where the future begins
tomorrow. For details on our online games, send email to
info@yoyo.com.
 
The Top Ten List is Copyright (C) 1995 Worldwide Pants, Incorporated.
Used with permission.
 
To leave the list, mail LISTSERV@CLARK.NET with the message SIGNOFF TOPTEN
To join the list, mail same with the message SUBSCRIBE TOPTEN
--
Send comments or questions regarding this mailing list to
topten-request@clark.net

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA05594; Fri, 13 Jan 95 11:45:57 -080
% Received: from allison.clark.net by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA02720; Fri, 13 Jan 95 11:39:29 -080
% Received: from explorer (listserv@clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by allison.clark.net (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA21537; Fri, 13 Jan 1995 09:10:23 -0500
% Received: from CLARK.NET by CLARK.NET (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8a) with spool id 7884 for TOPTEN@CLARK.NET; Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:35:57 -050
% Received: from sowebo.charm.net (sowebo.charm.net [199.0.70.21]) by clark.net (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA16673 for <topten@clark.net>; Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:35:56 -05
% Received: from clark.net by sowebo.charm.net; Fri, 13 Jan 95 08:44 EST
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Length: 1767
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
% Approved-By:  Sue Trowbridge <trow@CHARM.NET>
% Message-Id:  <Pine.SV4.3.90.950113084414.9312A-100000@sowebo.charm.net>
% Date:         Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:44:55 -0500
% Reply-To: topten-request <topten-request@clark.net>
% Sender: "David Letterman's Top-10" <TOPTEN@clark.net>
% From: Sue Trowbridge <trow@charm.net>
% Subject:      TOP TEN LIST - Thu 1/12/95
% To: Multiple recipients of list TOPTEN <TOPTEN@clark.net>

    
    
    Well, it seems that Slick has given himself an A++ rating for his first
    2 years in office.......

    Well Laady stinkn daa

    
      Well, tonight is the State of the Union.  No surprises are expected,
     but it is still a VERY important speech for BC.  HC will be in the
     balcony, dressed to the nines.  BC is considering asking for an
     increase of the minimum wage to $5.  He'll have to trade to get the
     GOP to do this - Armey is particularly opposed.
    
      In a striking move, the GOP selected New Jersey governor Christine
     Todd Whitman to give their response.  If you have heard her (her
     "state of the state" NJ speech was televised on CSPAN), you get the
     impression of a young American answer to Maggie Thatcher.  She is a
     rising star, but could use a sense of humor.
    
      bb
    

     It's much easier to "get a sense of humor" when you are already taken
    seriously. In a world where women tend not to be taken seriously in the
    first place, she probably feels she has to act seriously all the time
    to avoid being labeled as a fluff.

	bb, who won't be "dressed to the nines"?  i suppose everyone
	else in the place, including BC, will be in sweats?

    Actually, I heard last night BC and his cronies are 
    going to claim in the "State of the Union" they've 
    fulfilled 96% of their campaign promises.... based 
    on the fact that they "wanted things to happen", they're 
    claiming they fulfilled their promises to the nation!
    
    Remember it was a year ago today (or maybe yesterday) 
    when BC held up his plastic Health Care Card saying, 
    something to the effect, "Every American will have 
    one of these"... blah, blah, blah!
    

    
      Yes, well.  You women get to use all the colors.  I suffer from
     sheer wardrobe envy.
    
      Bet Gov. Whitman wears something striking, too.  She did the State
     of the state in NJ in a striking sky-blue suit and a striking long
     white silk scarf to one side.  Tall and thin, with the natural
     hauteur of the gaunt, she sure struck a pose !
    
      Poor pudgy BC and Newt will dress up, sure.  Like salesmen.
    
      bb

    
    RE: .436
    
    Ah!!! Thanks.... I was wondering what to expect...
    
     
     1992 re-visited!!! Typical campaign mode again!!!
    
    
    He still hasn't a clue as to what Nov. 8, 1994 was all about!
    

    
>>      Yes, well.  You women get to use all the colors.  I suffer from
>>     sheer wardrobe envy.

	;>  ha.  i'm sure lots of women would love to be able to throw
	on a suit, b squared.


	

    .437 Is this some kind of slur on us poor salesmen? ;-{)

    
    "My fellow Americans.  I'm sorry to say that last November, the dog
    ate my agenda.  So I've decided to let Bob and Newtie run things for
    a while.  I just wish they'd be nice and stop calling my wife and me
    bad names.  I promise never to mention civil rights or the environment
    again, and I'll act just like them except for the assault weapons. 
    See, you like me better already, don't you ?  I'll just confine
    myself to overseeing Jimmy's foreign policy.  I'll now blather on
    in a disjointed way for an hour and a half so that New Jersey woman
    can't upstage me till you're all sleepy."
    
      bb

Actually, it was the first speech he's made where I didn't get violently
upset with him. Not that I didn't have my disagreements with him.

It would appear that he has 'grown' from recent experience. Now we need to
see if he has given up the habit of changing his content to suit the audience.

Doug.

    
      Blue.  Hillary (navy ?).  Reno (metallic ?)  Whitman (sky ?)
    
      Seems like a patrician color, incongruous when trying to appeal
     to working stiffs.
    
      bb

    
    This one is better here than the jokes note so....
    
    
      Humor in Uniform (Reader's Digest)
    
      In the Marine Corps, I was a public-affairs officer assisting the
    recruiting effort in North Carolina. Once, I asked a young Marine who
    was re-enlisting why he was returning to the Corps. "There's no one in
    charge on the outside," he explained.

    
    
    
    Covenant with America???????????????

    
    
    Pentagrams sold seperately....
    

    re: .441
    
    bwahahahaha.....!
    
    I needed a good laugh today.
    
    signed,
    -grumpy

	When Clinton was talking about the different porks added into bills,
and brought up the one where they spent millions on removing ticks, and it
didn't work, and went on to say everyone has a tick now and then that they
have a hard time getting rid of, who do you think he was referring to? I know
the expression on dear old Newt's face wasn't pleasant.... :-)

                      <<< Note 18.441 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                                 -< synopsis >-

"My impressions of the symphony" 

-- By bb, Conservative Institute of the Deaf

    Can someone please explain to me what the elderly ex-Marine who
    had won the Congressional Medal of Honor has to do with the State
    of the Union?  Especially since he won it 50 years ago!!
    
    

    <<< Note 18.450 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>


                              -< Great PR stunts >-

	I don't think he was Puerto Rican


    
    

    Oh Glen, I'd {{{smaq}}}(tm) you,
    
    
    if I wasn't laughing so hard :-)
    

    .450
    So move it, whats the problem?

    I have not seen a note in here regarding ole' Bill, slick, the prez.,
    bonehead, or whatever moniker you like.
    
    
    I have a question for anybody not living in the USA. 
    
    What do "you" read/hear regarding our prez. that the papers/ media 
    discusses in your part of the world?
    
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    
    MODS!!  Please consolidate with topic 18!!!!!   :^)
    

    In Canada we read only of his sexual exploits, and not only that, the
    things he does with women in bed.
    
    Glenn

    Yo .2
    
    This about what NON US readers hear, read... The media in the US 
    doesn't print the truth nor the news anymore.  I want a "free"
    media version of what is occuring..
    
    Besides, I don't want to read 300+ entries if diatribe.
    
    
    Sin-te-da

Canada isn't part of the US.  At least not yet.

    Um, ya. Is Canada part of the US?
    
    nnttmha

    I tinks he couldv ment points 1.

.1 is from the Great Frozen North Land,  as well.

    It ain't all frozen, well maybe most of it is now, but in the summer it
    ain't... too much...sorta.

Yepper,  a part out west never freezes.  But they have banana slugs.


Phil

    There's a part out east that never freezes but they have Newfies.

    
    Newfie lives in West Roxbury.  I've been to his house.

    isn't Canada uppa u-s?
    
    Chip

Is there a part of Canada that has Oldflies?

    
    There's hardly any reports on Clinton's non-office stories.
    
    They did report on Whitewhater, but not to much. They do basically
    concentrate on politics. 
    What really puzzles and angers me is why we have to have an OJ Simpsom
    trial update on German TV. 
    
    Heck, some guy is in court for murder, a complete non-celeb in Europe.
    I doubt many people ever heard if him before. I doubt anybody cares.
    This is really ridiculous.
    
    Heiko

    
    Sin-te-da:
    
    > Are ya gonna tell your Momma?
    
    Uhh, I think you must have missed the smiley in .1, intended to 
    indicate that my reply was not meant to be taken seriously.
    
    jc
        

    Latest popularity pole, Clinton 51%, Gingrich 38%.
    
    Nuf said.

    	Well, when you get all the bad press that Newt gets, and combine
    that with the decent press BC gets (lately), that does not surprise me.
    
    ME

    
    RE: .16
    
    > Latest popularity pole, Clinton 51%, Gingrich 38%.
    
    >Nuf said.
    
     Yeah.. right....
    
    
     In the same poll (not pole... that's me...), the people gave Clinton a
    60% approval rating for the job he's doing... BUT... only 38% would
    re-elect him!!!!
    
      So much for polls...
     

Don't we already have a Clinton topic?

>Don't we already have a Clinton topic?

Yes, but apparently somebody decided we need a New topic.

    Yes -- but this ain't new. It's a retread.

    re: comments on polls
    
    In recent polls Dole is running ahead of Clinton for President. This is
    the more relevant comparison since Dole is much more likely to be a
    candidate than Gingrich.
    

  I'm not sure if this goes here but what the heck. 

  According to the Boston Globe Bill Clinton has selected names for the next
two aircraft carriers to be build for the U.S. Navy. In keeping with the
current tradition of naming them after presidents they will be the Harry S.
Truman and the Ronald Reagan. 

  If memory serves they should be CVN-74 and CVN-75 and will probably replace
the conventional carriers Ranger (CV-61) and Independence (CV-62) when they are
commissioned. 

  George

    Very interesting that Bill Clinton is not willing to be active in the
    debate over a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution, or in how to 
    cut entitlement programs; but he is active in attempting to settle the 
    baseball strike.
    
    

    
    And he struck out yesterday.  How can 700 people, given the choice of
    
      (A) splitting billions between them
    
      (B) spitting in the wind
    
     choose (B) ?
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 18.479 by CSOA1::BROWNE >>>

>    Very interesting that Bill Clinton is not willing to be active in the
>    debate over a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution, or in how to 
>    cut entitlement programs; but he is active in attempting to settle the 
>    baseball strike.
    
  Clinton has decided to punt the budget issue to the Republicans for political
reasons. The GOP started all this by reverting to the days of Voo Doo economics
and promising everyone lower taxes, cuts in spending, and a balanced budget.

  With that political message they took both houses of Congress. Now Clinton
is calling their bluff and punting the issue to them as a way of saying "put
up or shut up". He's not going to make the mistake the Democrats made last time
of allowing the Republicans to say Voo Doo economics would have worked but
the Democrats got in the way.

  So this time there is no excuse. If the GOP Congress passes a balanced budget
and it works, fine more power to them, the better side won. However if they
fail to pass a balanced budget or if they do and suddenly voters realize that
budget cuts mean them, not someone else, they they will have no one to blame
but themselves.

  George

    Congress has no business settling the baseball dispute.  If the greed
    on both ends of the dispute is so bad that no agreement can be found,
    then so be it.  Both sides will lose money big-time, and once this is
    realized in their collective pocketbooks, they will find a solution.
    
    Clinton's whining about calling your Congressman to interfere with this
    process, is ridiculous.  There are more important things going on at
    the moment that they need to direct their attention at (things that are
    within the realm of their jobs, I might add).
    
    As far as the economy is concerned...some will suffer, some won't...
    that's the breaks.  Some will prosper as baseball fans spend their
    hard-earned $$ on other things (perhaps other sports).  
    
    -steve

    First of all Clinton has no morals, ethics, or standards.  His only
    goal was to be president and try to move his basic socialist ideology
    forward.  The second point is that people are fed up with the
    government and their spending on programs that don't work throughout
    the economy.
    
    The challenge to the Republicans will be to stand by their philosophies
    and let folks know up front that some of theri pet programs are going
    to get the axe and be prepared to take the heat.  Personally, I think a
    lot of weak-kneed Republicans are going to cave and no hold true to
    their programs.
    
    If they do, and cut taxes drastically and spending along with it, this
    country will see economic growth unparalleled.
    

RE                      <<< Note 18.483 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>    If they do, and cut taxes drastically and spending along with it, this
>    country will see economic growth unparalleled.
    
  ... but not for long. Just as with Reagonomics, once the rate at which people
consume goods and services exceeds the rate at which we can produce them the
growth will stop just as it did in the mid 80's. 

  All politicians can do is shift wealth from one person to another. Liberals
like to shift it from the middle class to the poor, Conservative like to shift
it from the middle class to the rich.

  Only automation and robotics can make a significant increase in overall
production of goods and services.

  George

	I heard the reason Clinton did this was to become baseball
commish. He just had his first interview yesterday! :-)

  People keep saying the President shouldn't get involved with baseball but
heck, baseball is important to me. It's as important as anything else the
government does these days. And I bet I'm not the only one who feels that
way.

  At least he took a shot. That's what president's are suppose to do, try
to solve problems.

  It's not his fault that the two sides failed to come to an agreement.

  George

    If president Clinton did this in the interest of all the employees and
    businesses involved in baseball, i.e. Yawkey Way, then I can understand
    his involvement.  Baseball does have reprocussions on local businesses.
    
    As for baseball itself, They're all a bunch of whining bumbs.  Players
    have no right to hold a gun to the head of business.  Fire all of them
    and bring up triple A into the majors.  It isn't my business how much
    money a team owner makes!!
    
    -Jack

    Based on watching Nightline last night, I find The way Clinton intervened
    to be pretty strange. He ignored the solution recommended by William
    Ussery(sp?) who is reputed to be a highly skilled mediator who is
    trusted by Big Labor. There were apparently many element's of Ussery's
    solution that both sides could live with. Instead of trying to work
    from that point to a solution, Clinton proposed that all issues be
    re-opened and settled by binding arbitration.
    
    No wonder he failed.
    
     The politicians should stay out of this strike. A 
    total economic collapse of baseball would be the best thing that could
    happen in terms of making Pro Sports affordable for the average family
    again.

> From New York: Try our East River sushi ... it's THE TOP TEN
  LIST for Tuesday, February 7, 1995.  And now, the star of the
  pro bowl halftime show ... David Letterman!
 
> From the home office in Sioux City, Iowa ...
 
TOP TEN SHOCKING REVELATIONS IN CLINTON'S NEW BIOGRAPHY
 
10. Regretted not serving in military after learning about the
    free meals
    
    
 9. Has had sex in every Taco Bell in District of Columbia
 
    
 8. When he first entered the White House, he yelled, "Look
    Hillary! Indoor plumbing!"
 
    
 7. Only real father figure he ever had?  Janet Reno

     
 6. Secret goal: beat Wilt Chamberlain's career record of
    20,000 women
 
    
 5. Whatever his problems are, it ain't for lack of a good
    breakfast

     
 4. As grade school homeroom representative, ordered safety
    patrol to round up cute girls
 
    
 3. Privately refers to Newt Gingrich as "a bitch"

     
 2. While studying at Oxford, got it on with the Queen
 
    
 1. Real name: Bubba Bubba-Ghali
 
            [Music: "Revolution" by the Beatles]
 
 
Compiled by Sue Trowbridge
 
          ----------------------------------------
               LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN
               11:35 p.m. ET/PT (10:35 CT/MT)
               on the CBS Television Network
          ----------------------------------------
 
             On Wednesday's show, Dave welcomes
 
             ... actor/comedian KEVIN POLLACK
             ... singer BRANDY
 
Brought to you by Yoyodyne Entertainment, where the future begins
tomorrow. For details on our online games, send email to
yoyo@sgp.com.
 
The Top Ten List is Copyright (C) 1995 Worldwide Pants, Incorporated.
Used with permission.
 
You may also use the FINGER command to grab today's list from
<barnhart@well.sf.ca.us>.  If you prefer to use e-mail, send a
message to infobot@infomania.com with FINGER BARNHART@WELL.SF.CA.US
in the SUBJECT line.

 :-) :-)

    
    Kevin Pollack on tonight's Letterman?  
    
    He does THE BEST Captain Kirk impersonation I've ever seen!
    

    
>>    He does THE BEST Captain Kirk impersonation I've ever seen!

    yup - no contest.
    

    Having granted major league baseball the anti-trust exemption in the
    past, Congress *is* in the position of being responsible for their
    conduct in labor negotiations, since they've ruled out normal channels.
    
    DougO

    Not our buniness mon!

 Well, somebody settle the blasted thing cuz I wanna watch baseball this 
 spring/summer!




 Jim

	I think if Congress did away with the anti-trust laws, or threatened as
so, you'd see the owners moving rather quickly. The owners are in the drivers
seat right now. The smaller clubs will break long before the sox, yanks,
braves. That will be the deciding point, to either allow it to happen, or to
settle the thing. The sad part about it all is Cal Ripken may not get the
chance to beat Lou Gerigg's record for consecutive games played. And to do it
from a taxing position like shortstop would make that record even sweater. Oh
well.....

Glen,

>from a taxing position like shortstop would make that record even sweater. Oh
>well.....

What do clothes have to do with his breaking the record???? :-)

Bob

    fwiw, there isn't "greed" on both sides.  the players' union has stated
    that it would be happy to submit to binding arbitration, but the owners
    have categorically refused.
    
    the owners have categorically refused to consider ussery's proposals.
    
    who's at fault?  some of both sides, sure, but it's CAPITALISTS that we
    find being pigheadedly obstinate, not LABOR.

    re. 501
    
    It was the players not the owners that would not accept Usery's
    proposals.
    
    I still say both sides deserve each other and that Congress should stay
    out of this squabble.

| <<< Note 18.499 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>


| >from a taxing position like shortstop would make that record even sweater. Oh
| >well.....

| What do clothes have to do with his breaking the record???? :-)


	Well, it is cold during April ya know..... :-)

| <<< Note 18.502 by MROA::WILKES >>>


| It was the players not the owners that would not accept Usery's proposals.

	I heard it like Dick did. The PLAYERS AGREED to the arbitration, the
OWNERS said NO. It's stupid for the owners to protect themselves from
themselves by screwing over the players. Hey, if a player doesn't want to
accept X amount of $$$, let them sit out then. But the owners know it wouldn't
happen to the quality players. They would be picked up by some big money club.
Of course if the league would stop handing out 3 year, millions $$$ deals to
players that are washed up, they also could save some money. But it still comes
down to the owners trying to protect themselves, from themselves.



Glen

The scorecard:

                 Arbitration         Usery's proposal

Owners              NO                    YES

Players            YES                     NO

It's no surprise that the players are willing to go to 
arbitration considering the way they've made out in salary 
arbitration in the past.

Selig has a point when he says that the owners are unwilling to 
leave the fate of 28 franchises to an arbitrator.

daryll

    RE: 506
    
    	You make an excellent point!!!

    .506
    
    > PMFBI
    
    where I means Idiotic, okay.  it simply does not matter HOW much the
    players make, or whom they support.  as members of a union, they sign
    contracts to provide a service in exchange for cash and other benefits,
    and that, my dear boy, defines them - under the law - as labor.

    
    So who has the best AAA ballplayers ?
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 18.509 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    So who has the best AAA ballplayers ?
    
  I believe the Richmond Braves won the International League playoff. Overall
The Expos were voted the best farm system in the National League and oddly
enough the AAA Pawtucket Red Sox did rather well.

  I'm not sure about the Pacific League,

  But I'm not sure that will mean much if there is a strike. A number of
players who had just come up for a "cup of coffee" were ready to strike but
then agreed to play AAA ball when their teams shipped them out to the minors
just before the strike began. 

  So it's not that clear how many AAA players will be willing to cross the
picket line.

  George

    
    Their labor union is a joke and a sham...
    
    What other "industry" do you know of that allows it's union members to
    go out and (re)negotiate contracts and deals during a "strike"???
    
    I have absolutely no respect for either side as both are being
    hypocrites... capitalists on one side and spoiled brats on the other...

    
      Picket line - this I gotta see !  I wouldn't hold your breath
     waiting for, say, Rahjah to carry a sign in front of Fenway.
    
      Let's see.  I can play in Pawtucket, tick off the owners, and
     never be heard of, but then maybethose major leaguers will really
     like me, if they noticed I exist, that is.
    
      Or, I can play in Boston, under the big lights, make the bucks.
     But I'll lie awake nights thinking I'm maybe a scab.  Gee, this
     is a toughie.  I never graduated, obviously, since I play hardball.
    
      bb

	The AAA players won't cross the line. If they were, the owners would be
talking about them coming up, and not replacement players. AAA players know
they are just a heartbeat away from getting big time benies. They won't mess
that up by playing for peanuts now.


Glen

There are plenty of players that have been in AAA for more than a 
couple years. Those players know they may never make the majors 
and will report to spring training.

We're leaving for Port Charlotte (Rangers spring training site) 
on 3/3. There are plenty of AAA ballplayers there already and 
they plan on being in camp when it opens next week. Some of these 
guys, like John Barfield and Terry Burrows, have spent time in the 
majors.

The owners are having the replacement games to pressure the 
union. If there are no replacement games, there's no opportunity 
for major league players to cross. Once the games start, you'll 
see a few players cross every week. Every player that crosses the 
line is a nail in the coffin of the MLPA.

daryll

  Oh jolly, teams full of 32 year old journeymen averaging 2 years each riding
the pine in the show. Where do I get my tickets?

  I read that Dennis Oil Can Boyd has signed a minor league contract with the
Chicago White Sox and will cross the line and play if asked. I wonder if
Michael Jordan will cross the line and end up playing with the Can?

  George

    
    <--------
    Obviously, you haven't frequented minor league games too often...

  In fact I have and the thing that makes minor league games interesting, to
me anyway, is seeing the up and coming stars and trying to decide who will
make the bigs and who will not.

  So far, that group is siding with the players.

  George

I haven't seen any proof of that. The Sporting News had an 
article on 3 players that are contemplating reporting, all Boston 
minor leaguers, 2 are Mike Twardowski and Rick Lancellotti. Twardowski 
hit .285 with 20 homers and 80+ rbi's last year. Lancellotti is 
out of baseball for a year now. Twardowski told of his experiences with the 
union in trying to get better benefits for minor leaguers. He was 
basically told to go buzz off. He feels that this is his chance 
to get noticed. Lancellotti hold the minor league record for homers. 
He has 62 official major league AB's. He feels 
that he never got his shot. There are 121 minor league free 
agents out there. When they were polled, 60 of them said they 
would be replacement players.

daryll

    
    Boston Globe sports page this morning reports that Len Dykstra and
    about 20 other highly paid players are grumbling and unhappy with the
    way things are going...
    

  Well there was some indication last year that minor leaguers supported the
strike. Take for example Braves prospect Jose Oliva who came up and tore
apart National League pitching for a few weeks. He said he was in support
of the players and ready to go on strike.

  Then with just a couple days to go the Braves sent him down to the minors so
that he could continue to get some hitting. He reported to AAA Richmond and
lead the Richmond Braves to the International League title.

  So there's at least one "eager young exciting minor league player" who has
said he supports the players in the strike. I recall a few others as well
who were ready to support the players and strike but were then sent down
and played will in the minors.

  George

RE    <<< Note 18.520 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Boston Globe sports page this morning reports that Len Dykstra and
>    about 20 other highly paid players are grumbling and unhappy with the
>    way things are going...
    
  Lenny Dykstra can't breath unless he's unhappy and grumbling about something.

  George

    
    <------
    
    Agreed... I have no use for the man....
    
    What caught my attention was the mention of at least 20 other ball
    players....
    
    I could still care less... it was the crack in the wall I'm looking
    for...
    

Len Dykstra has beautyful smile now, though,
thanks to one of those tooth-whitening systems.

According to his wife, anyway.

  Len Dykstra almost single handedly destroyed Boston Red Sox pitching during
the 1986 World Series. Had it not been for Dykstra the Mets would never have
come back after being down 2 games to none. 

  As I recall he hit rather well at Fenway and had he not been there the Sox
most likely would have won either game 3 or game 4 and Bruce would have nailed
down the title with his Game 5 win.

  There would have been no Game 6

  There would have been no 5-3 lead in the 10th

  There would have been no TWO OUT singles by GARY CARTER, KEVIN MITCHEL, OR
RAY KNIGHT.

  There would HAVE BEEN no WILD PITCH by BOB STANLEY ... TYING THE GAME !

  THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FRIGG'EN MOOKIE WILSON!!!!
  THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FRIGG'EN **** BILL BUCKNER **** !!!!!!!!!


  *** LEN DYKSTRA *** MAY HE ROT IN *** HELL *** !!!!!!!! 

  George

 ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

George!  Stop the torture!  That was the night I
took up cigarettes again, after several years of
being clean.

	No fans will be going to the ballparks. If the union players strike, no
beer will be delivered to the stadiums. Well, according to the Teamsters anyway

    
    
    
    Ahhhhhhhhhh.... such sweet memories... (for this NY Yankee fan at
    least)
    
    
    :) :) :)
    

    
    I heard that also Glen, about the teamsters.
    
    However, one member mentioned that the rank and file do not
    consider baseballplayers as a true labor union.
    They also mentioned that ballplayers had no problem crossing
    the line when the umpires were on strike.
    
    Still, more on the topic, whoever advised Clinton to get involved
    in this fiasco did him a great disservice. 
    As usual, Clinton accomplished nothing except to add to his
    growing list of failures.
    
    His staff has to be the worst in modern history.
    
    							Hank

And more than a couple players have already said that they "have 
better things to do than stand there holding a sign". There won't 
be any lines and given what they charge for beer at Fenway, who 
cares?

daryll

	please discuss the strike in 291.  pretty please.

Richter's Herbs, a Canadian firm, offers "Hillary's Sweet Lemon Mint,"
described as "a new sweet citrusy mint named after Hillary Clinton."

As all gardeners know, mint is invasive.

    
    Watched BC and HC with Helmut Kohl - now THERE's  a world leader who
    must put away the pastries !  He's bigger than the both of em.
    
    Wutz he here for, anywaze ?
    
      bb  

>    Wutz he here for, anywaze ?
    
Dessert.

   THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER ***SPECIFICALLY*** APPLIES TO ANYONE USING
            COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS TO GATHER INFORMATION
              (SEE THE UNDERLYING LAW AT 50 USC 1801.)



                            THE WHITE HOUSE
                     Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                              February 9, 1995


                           EXECUTIVE ORDER

                            - - - - - - -
               FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


       By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections
302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103-
359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical
searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act,
it is hereby ordered as follows:

       Section 1.  Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without
a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for
periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the
certifications required by that section.

       Sec. 2.  Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to
obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting
foreign intelligence information.

       Sec. 3.  Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the
following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of
national security or defense, is designated to make the
certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support
of applications to conduct physical searches:

       (a) Secretary of State;

       (b) Secretary of Defense;

       (c) Director of Central Intelligence;

       (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
           Investigation;

       (e) Deputy Secretary of State;

       (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

       (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

       None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in
that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.


                         WILLIAM J. CLINTON


  THE WHITE HOUSE,
      February 9, 1995.

>   THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER ***SPECIFICALLY*** APPLIES TO ANYONE USING
>            COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS TO GATHER INFORMATION
>              (SEE THE UNDERLYING LAW AT 50 USC 1801.)

But the executive order just talks about _physical_ searches.  How would
it apply to bits (assuming they're not stored somewhere)?

    I had visions of AG Janet Reno telling me to take off my clothes so she
    could do a strip search...kind of a repulsive nightmare if you will!

    .539 She might have her way with you too.:)

	Well Jack, if she can stand to look at your repulsive body, then don't
look a gift horse in the mouth!


Glen

================================================================================
     re.	Note 18.485              
    		CAPNET::ROSCH             
    
  >  sports issue! Bubba wants to emulate Jimmy Carter. Since he's failed at
  >  N. Korea, Bosnia, Somalia, Cuba, Haiti then, of course, he'll try
  >  baseball.
  
    Why did he fail in Haiti ??? I say things went pretty good there.
    

    Because he's a fat president I guess. Or, no, he's a Democrat? No, he
    has a measurable viscosity.

    -1 that's deep...

    Clinton failed in Haiti because in the campaign of '92, he took one
    position, anti-Bush, just to win favor among voters, then immediately
    reversed his position afterward.  He then proceeded to let Haiti twist
    in the wind for several months, attempting foreign policy "which wasn't
    the issue, stupid", and since the world knows he doesn't regard
    character as an issue, they malcontents and terrorists didn't believe
    his threats.  He then turned to a retread ex-Prez to do the job his
    administration was supposed to do.   Don't think anyone will give his
    "leadership" high marks for Haiti!

    What do you think is going to happen when the US pulls out of Haiti?
    
    

| <<< Note 18.546 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| What do you think is going to happen when the US pulls out of Haiti?

	She'll claim sexual harrassment

    Let's face it, right now the most important person in DC is Newt
    Gingrich.  Bill Clinton is the president, he can drop bombs on people
    and all that...but bubba just isn't significant anymore!

	I have to admit Jack, while your claims remain baseless, they are
funny.

    Glen, nobody cares about Bill Clinton anymore!

    .38 Wasn't he Groucho's brother?

    >What do you think is going to happen when the US pulls out of Haiti?
    
    Side more folks swimming to Florida... We'll get to go back some
    afternoon and use some of that slick new croud glue on them. Or shoot
    them with rubber donuts that have a tear gas in/on them that sticks to
    its vicitums.... Why else? 

| <<< Note 18.551 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Glen, nobody cares about Bill Clinton anymore!

	I do!!!!  Oh yeah.... I'm a nobody.... :-)

Didn't know whether to put this here or News Briefs, and we don't have
a Golf note, so -

Report this AM said that Slick was out on the links with Gerald Ford
and George Bush yesterday. Slick got the poorest score, but at least
was able to finish without hitting anyone with the ball.



Ford hit one person.



And Bush nailed two, including one lady who required ten stitches.

	Jack, Bush, despite hitting 2 people, came in 1st, with a 92 score.
Clinton was SECOND, with a 93, and Ford, after hitting one person, came in last
with a 100.


Glen

	There is a theory why Bush and Ford hit the people with their golf
balls, why Clinton did not. You see, Bush & Ford had a slice to the Right,
while Clinton had one to the Left. So I guess the story goes, the Right could
get ya hurt! :-)


Glen

7AM News on WRKO, Glen. I could have heard it wrong.

     If it's to the left, it's a fade, not a slice.

Both Bush and Clinton are left-handed, if I remember correctly.

    
    (For right handed golfers)
    
    Actually it's not a draw but rather a hook, when you know what you're 
    doing (like me ;')), it's a draw.  A slice is a fade if you meant to do
    it.....  

    .561
    
    i can shoot a draw or a fade on links pro on my macintosh, does that
    count, wannamonkey?

    
    Well, it might not win you a big purse on the tour, but it ain't bad
    blinder.

    .563
    
    yeah, i was watching the buick whatever this last sunday.  they were
    playing at torrey pines.  there's no torrey pines course for links pro,
    but there IS one for the old peecee "links the challenge of golf."  and
    there's a converter program with links 386 that makes those challenge
    courses work with links 386, so i got my brother to convert the torrey
    pines course, and then i ported it to my mac and proceeded to shoot +2
    over the same course i'd just watched on teevee.
    
    fun stuff.

    
    
    
    Here all you technogeeks are playing all this neat stuff while I'm
    at home sitting in front of my 13" B&W playing pong........sigh

I'll have to sit down with some of you PC/MAC golfanatics one time
so that my eyes can glaze over while you tell me about the challenge
of the game . . .  :^)

    Did anyone notice in the papers last weekend that Bill Clinton and
    Defense Secretary William Perry strongly admonished the military that
    they must stop refusing to spend the $180 million that had been budgeted in
    the defense budget fot AIDS research ( $ 30 mill ) and Breast Cancer
    research ( $ 150 million ). 
    
    What is $150 million for Breast Cancer research doing in the Defense
    budget. Can there be any clearer proof that Bill Clinton is not up to
    the task of protecting the National Security of the the US. No wonder
    the Republicans have voted to establish a Commision to evaluate whether
    the US has adequate military readiness to back up Bill Clinton's "Two
    Gulf War" strategy.
    
    Lyndon

RE                       <<< Note 18.567 by MROA::WILKES >>>

>Can there be any clearer proof that Bill Clinton is not up to
>    the task of protecting the National Security of the the US. 

  From who?

>No wonder
>    the Republicans have voted to establish a Commision to evaluate whether
>    the US has adequate military readiness to back up Bill Clinton's "Two
>    Gulf War" strategy.
    
  What does the Gulf War have to do with the National Security of the US? Seems
that had more to do with the National Security of Kuait and the sovereignty of
their royal family.

  However, if AIDS were to spread through the military, that could pose a
problem.

  Maybe it's the GOP that should examine their priorities.

  George

RE: 18.568 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI

> What does the Gulf War have to do with the National Security of the US? 

Oil.

  But George Bush claimed that the Gulf war was not about oil.

  George

>  However, if AIDS were to spread through the military, that could pose a
>problem.

OK, now apply that logic to breast cancer.

    Goerge lied. Still doesn't change the fact that it was necessary
    though.
    
    -b

RE   <<< Note 18.571 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>OK, now apply that logic to breast cancer.

  Breast Cancer is a leading medical problem in women.

  There are many women in the military.

  Controlling Breast Cancer would result in an overall increase in military
readiness.

  George

What's the median age of women with breast cancer?  What's the median age of
women in the military?  For extra credit, explain how the results show that
breast cancer is not a major problem in the military.

    Um, teacher, can I have a pass to the men's room?
    
    -b

    RE 568
    
    My reference to the "Gulf War" was in relation to the Washingtonspeak
    that the Clinton Admisnistration uses as shorthand for its stated military
    strategy which to maintain a Natioanl Defense which is capable of
    fighting two "Gulf" size wars simultaneously.
    
    I purposely did not question the $30 million for AIDS research because
    I think it may be somewhat justifiable in light the hormonal drives of
    young soldiers and the nature of the locales they sometimes find
    themselves in when they are off duty.
    
    On the other hand the $ 150 million for breat cancer research is
    totally out of proportion to the impact breast cancer has on troop
    readiness.
    
    I think it is clear because both parties are unwilling to stand up to
    the elderly in the the Domestic Side of the budget that there is no
    longer any room for new discretionary spending in the Domestic Budget.
    Therefore, Clinton has decided to pull a "fast one" by forcing the
    military to spend $150 million on Breast Cancer Research.
    
    Lyndon

    re .560
    
    Bush, Clinton AND Ford are all left-handed.  However, they all
    golf right-handed.
    
    

    <<< Note 18.577 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

    
>    Bush, Clinton AND Ford are all left-handed.  However, they all
>    golf right-handed.

Looks like I have all the makings to become a lousy president. :)

Fortunately, I'm a better golfer than these lugs, though. :))
    

    > On the other hand the $ 150 million for breat cancer research is
    > totally out of proportion to the impact breast cancer has on troop
    > readiness.
    
    The purpose of the research money may not be for the purpose of
    estimating impact of breast cancer on troop readiness.  It may instead
    be a perfectly valid way to measure a large target population of
    younger women required for the parameters of some other perfectly
    useful study on breast cancer.  Many studies have used male soldiers
    for precisely this purpose; they are a large population in the
    appropriate age range targeted by a particular research project, their
    health histories are already tabulated, their demographics are known;
    in short, military people are a useful population for medical studies.
    And they are often more easily tracked over a long-range study than J
    Random Tester from the civilian population, especially if they stay in
    the service for a long time; followups are easier.  These sorts of
    research help us determine risk factors in environmental exposure, in
    diet, in genetic heritage, to identify in younger people the
    characteristics that help determine who is most at risk.
    
    > Therefore, Clinton has decided to pull a "fast one" by forcing the
    > military to spend $150 million on Breast Cancer Research.
    
    This is money that Congress has already appropriated for the purpose. 
    No fast one is being pulled here; instead, the president is exercising
    his executive branch authority to order the department under his
    control to carry out the spending dictated by congress.  On the
    contrary; the President is legally obligated to ensure that such
    spending as Congress has mandated is carried out; the executive's
    "recisionary" power to defer authorized spending was taken away by law
    by Congress after Nixon annoyed Congress by withholding spending. 
    Clinton is required to do this.
    
    DougO

    re 579
    
    Your explanation makes sense to a point. However, the money for the
    study if it is worthwhile should still come from the domestic side of
    the budget because there are caps on how big the Defense Budget can be
    at this point in time.
    
    In other words, study breast cancer using a population of military
    women but pay for from the Domestic discretionary budget.
    
    Lyndon

    > In other words, study breast cancer using a population of military
    > women but pay for from the Domestic discretionary budget.
    
    lobby your congressperson.
    
    DougO

I wonder if this chain of events is the same as the one that led the Navy
to use my class (Bainbridge, MD, electronics school) as subjects in a
medical experiment? 

They ordered us to report on x day, y time, "for your shots." We did, we
got one subcutaneous shot in each arm, and most of us shortly thereafter
were hospitalized with "Influenza, virus type unknown." I was in the
hospital five days; some people more, some less. They pulled a couple of
tubes of blood out of us each week for the next eight weeks, and
supposedly sent them to "a lab in Michigan." 

Several months later, when we graduated and were processing out, we *all*
found that our medical records had been "mislaid" and were issued new,
blank medical records.

Hideous, isn't it?

So what are they going to do, inject HIV into military recruits, telling
them it's vitamins?

What sweethearts.

Art (been there, been done like that)

    
    Wow, the 1st couple really has become irrelevant, haven't they?
    Bill decided to let the Repubs balance the budget, abdicating
    his position of leadership.
    Bill blames Dole for his gays-in-the-military fiasco that began
    his presidency.
    New book validates the New Republic article about Troopergate.
    And so much more and yet....no one cares anymore.
    
    Fascinating!
    
    Newt really is running the country.

    what did you expect, Hank?  GOP has been trying to emasculate this
    president from day one, and the mid-term elections have effectively
    quashed his ability to get his own programs through congress.  Now he
    gets a chance to play a little point-counterpoint of his own and lets
    see how well the country runs under the leadership of a GOP congress.
    
    C'mon, its the chance you've been begging for for a decade, isn't it?
    Its put up or shut up time for the GOP, and Clinton isn't about to 
    take away from the exposure they truly deserve.
    
    DougO

    DougO
    
    Your point about the mid-term elections having effectively
    qaushed his ability to get his own programs through congress...
    well, perhaps I'm reading into this, but it almost sounds
    like sour grapes to me.  When the nation got fed up with the
    GOP, they voted him in.  Now it seems folks have become fed up
    with the dems, so they got voted out.  That is the way it works.
    I'll agree tho, now the GOP has congress, it would be nice to 
    see them run it constructively and it is time to put up.

    sour grapes?  this is the perceived wisdom of every post-election
    pundit I've read in the last three months, where've you been?  His
    budget was received DOA on the Hill last week, per the Economist.
    Congress won't follow his lead- his programs won't make it out of
    committees chaired by the GOP- so are you saying he should spin his
    wheels on legislation that'll never see the light of day?  No, the
    rules of the game were changed on him, Hank, and he's been forced to
    acknowledge the new rules.  Newt *is* running the legislative game, 
    and the fact that its a good deal harder than to play 40 years of
    spoiler politics is starting to sink in up there.
    
    Democrats don't have the initiative.  They do have the good sense to 
    let the GOP mire itself deeper with all the press they can handle.  
    The glare of the kleig lights, the whir of the cameras...its what you
    wanted, its what you all wanted.  How quickly you seem to have
    forgotten.
    
    This isn't sour grapes, Hank.  As I said months ago, its PAYBACK.
    Its so much easier to play spoiler, when the GOP taught them so well.
    
    DougO

    >Congress won't follow his lead-
    
     He has no lead to follow. When he had a congress of democrats all
    ready to "bring us into a new era" he couldn't even lead them. His
    greatest accomplishment was a present from the republicans in congress;
    his own party had abandoned him.
    
     And besides, this is exactly what happened to the republican
    presidents. Their policies were stymied by democratically controlled
    committees.
    
    >No, the rules of the game were changed on him, Hank, and he's been forced
    >to acknowledge the new rules. 
    
     And there's no clear sign he's really figured this out.
    
    >This isn't sour grapes, Hank.  As I said months ago, its PAYBACK.
    
     So far, the payback is no big deal. The democrats are left looking
    recalcitrant and spoiled, while progress marches on. (Not as quickly as
    everyone would like, but it's marching nonetheless.)
    
     I think it's important for the republican congress to pass legislation
    without regard to whether Billy intends to veto it; if he does they can
    bludgeon him with it soon enough.

    uh, dougo, in your haste to indicate that i haven't a clue about
    what is going on, you mixed up your reply.  both hank and i have
    made comments, mine used the term sour grapes.  i was specifically
    referring to what i perceived was YOUR attitude towards the inability
    of the dems to maintain control of congress.  I never commented on
    what Clinton should or should not do.  I merely pointed out what I
    perceived to be your gearing up to blame the GOP for any future
    failings of the Clinton Administration, much like many conservatives
    blame the liberals for the current state of affairs.  In bringing
    this to attention, I also intended to highlight that IMO, by doing
    so, you are no different than your opponents.  And I DID agree that
    now is put up or shut up time.  I just won't go as far as you and
    say that I'm gleefully sitting on my heels waiting for it to fail.

  >  what did you expect, Hank?  GOP has been trying to emasculate this
  >  president from day one, and the mid-term elections have effectively
  >  quashed his ability to get his own programs through congress.  Now he
 
  I seem to recall several Republican presidents who were able to accomplish
  a great deal under a congress controlled by the oposition.

  The point is that Clinton is not leadership material, has a very thin
  program (when placed under scrutiny), and does not command the respect of
  the american public. 

  Clinton is responsible for his current delema, not the repbus ...

  Doug.

    
    
    and will blame Bush when he isn't re-elected... (for that matter, even
    re-nominated!!)
    

    >in your haste to indicate that i haven't a clue about what is going on, 
    
    Well, I thought I was talking to Hank ;-) sorry for the mixup.
    
    >YOUR attitude
    
    Oh, I've got sour grapes?  I've been saying for months that it was
    going to be a treat to belong to the loyal opposition and get to shoot
    down those attempting to lead, as they've been doing for so long, and
    see how well THEY perform under the pressure.  
    
    The point is that the GOP has been pleading for this chance for a
    decade.  "Give us control of Congress" they begged, and now they've got
    it.  Now we'll get to see if they find it such an easy horse to ride.
    Given that they've been poisoning the well with spoiler politics of
    their own for much of that time, I'm betting they won't.
    
    DougO

    dougo,
    
    well, i didn't say you HAD sour grapes, just that I perceived that
    you did :-)
    
    And I still agree that now the GOP has the ball, they'd best run
    with it.  My hope for this succeeding I think is stronger than
    yours.

    considering the fact that congress is already trying to invalidate the
    4th ammendment, told me all I wanted to know about their politics as
    leaders.  Tough on crime doesn't have to mean destroying the vill of
    rights.
    
    meg

    >He has no lead to follow. 
    
    Granted.  He hasn't done what he was elected to do.  He was politically
    inept; he shot himself in the foot numerous times.  He was also
    sabotaged, and has little political reason to work with the GOP now.
    
    >And there's no clear sign he's really figured this out.
    
    Sure there is.  With the press attention on Newt, Clinton gets to time
    his initiatives much more carefully.  When he blasted Newt last week
    for irresponsible attacks on education, he turned right around and said
    in his efforts to get bedget cuts he's directed every department to
    find cost-cutting measures for submission for congressional action and
    report back by June 1.  When Congress balked at loan guarantees for
    Mexico he used executive initiative powers to go around them, and the
    deal for $20B was finalized yesterday.  He's playing things a lot
    differently now that he can't count on Congress.
    
    >     So far, the payback is no big deal.
    
    Wait'll he uncaps the veto pen.  And wait'll the congressional dems get
    their breath back from the GOP blitzkrieg and start playing hardball.
    It'll happen, and Newt will start squealing.  Count on it.
    
    > I think it's important for the republican congress to pass legislation
    > without regard to whether Billy intends to veto it; if he does they can
    > bludgeon him with it soon enough.
    
    I agree with you, its important for them to do that.  Of course, they
    risk looking ineffective and weak, if Clinton does what Bush did and
    shoots down every major item they pass.  And he just might, and they
    know it, and oh, isn't it TOUGH being a LEADER?  wallow in it, Newt.
    
    DougO